April 2010 by The Chariot

Chari t T

Delivering Gunn’s Culture and Politics

April 2010

Volume 6 • Issue 7

DO CORPORATIONS have free speech?8

Is the Quality of Music Deteriorating?

lin

yen

Health Care Bill

Not in Our Schools

US Debt

News Moving Online

Extremist Politics

Foursquare

The Chariot

The World in a Blurb Marijuana Legalization

Marijuana, when used responsibly and in low doses, is proven to be less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes. That is why I am glad to see that an initiative to legalize marijuana has been put on the California’s November ballot. This initiative will allow for anyone over 21 to possess marijuana for personal use. If the initiative passes, not only will the government stop spending millions combating an estimated 15 billion dollar illegal trade, the revenue from taxing the crop will help fill California’s budget shortfall. It is past time that we deal with the real problems in our state; marijuana simply isn’t one of them. —Aaron Guggenheim

Don’t Pay to Help the Enemy Although many people know that the Afghan government is corrupt, only a recent Newsweek cover shows how deep the corruption really is: despite the $6 billion the US has funneled into a program to train Afghan police forces since 2002, only 12 percent of the country’s police units can operate on their own in 2010. $336 million went unaccounted for. This is worrisome not only because much of the $6 billion has effectively fallen flat, but more importantly because the Afghan National Police (ANP) is supposed to keep the peace once US-led NATO forces leave Afghanistan. Yet the same ANP that is supposed to represent the sustainable hope and confidence of an independent Afghanistan is plagued with poor oversight, indiscriminate hiring, and undisciplined policemen who can’t even shoot straight, both literally and figuratively. The worst is that some of the $6 billion has even helped our enemy, the Taliban. Some crooked Afghan cops supply a large portion of the ammunition used by the Taliban, using money intended 2

April 2010

Afghan Army supported by US forces

for “police equipment” to buy enemy weapons that shoot at US troops and innocent civilians. President Obama needs to revise our police-training strategy immediately. First of all, he needs to shift the police training program to focus on quality, not quantity. The current eight week training timeframe, mandated by the Department of Defense in a mad rush to create a massive police force, is churning out thousands of unqualified cops who have only earned the distrust of the populace. Secondly, he needs to make every part of the training program accountable by ending the bureaucratic wars between the Departments of State and Defense, adequately staffing a team to oversee the contracts, and holding private contractors liable for failure. But finally, he needs to hold the Afghan cops themselves to higher expectations and fire the ones that don’t contribute to, but instead hurt, the Afghan cause for independence. —Andrew Liu

Afghan National Police

It’s Good Enough! Yes, there are problems with the health care bill. Some of the important provisions don’t take effect immediately or even for a few years. But several other vital ones take effect within 6 months. Furthermore, it isn’t just a matter of making something law, but having the means to enforce it, which involves hiring and training qualified individuals and creating or reinforcing the necessary agencies for aspects of the bill to not just be law, but be enforced effectively. Other controversies remain, but it is still a fairly good bill, considering that the vote was close. Be content! —Ben Bendor

WHATâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S IN THE

www.gunnchariot.com

Robert Chen Co-Editor-in-Chief

Health Care Bill? Effective 9/21/10 Lifetime caps on the amount of insurance a holder can have will be banned New plans must cover checkups and all preventative care without co-pay

Effective 1/1/2014

Subsidize premiums for individuals and families with income between 133% and 400% (those with up to 133% will be covered by Medicaid) of the poverty line $695 fine on individuals who do not obtain insurance (those below poverty line are exempt)

Effective 2018

All existing health insurance plans must cover checkups and preventative care without co-pay

Insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals)

How is it paid for? Taxes on medical devices, pharmaceutical and health insurance companies Tax on high-premium insurance plans, equal to 40% of plans costing more than $27,500 annually for a family Increased Medicare payroll taxes for couples with incomes of more than $250,000 per year

Volume 6 â&#x20AC;˘ Issue 7

The Chariot

IS THE QUALITY OF Different Tunes to mu•sic (myoo-zik) n. An art of sound in time that exa Different Era presses ideas and emotions in significant forms through Yoyo Tsai Contributing Writer

s technology begins to invade

our lives, people begin to believe that the emotional aspects of our lives are gradually disappearing. Some would even argue that there is a trend towards an inability to express emotions and thoughts as people simply stare at a screen for hours on end. Many people have begun to criticize current music in particular as less valuable and less important than music created centuries ago. However, they fail to realize that the creation of music is a form of art. It is the art of expressing ideas and emotions. The emotions, ideas, and music will change with time. But the creation of music itself can never be a deteriorating process. The thoughts and feelings behind a piece make music what it is. The creation of music is an abstract form of art, to say the least. There are no guidelines under which music must be made. It is simply an expression of a mo-

April 2010

the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color ment in someone’s life and thoughts. Our feelings are in the present, not in the past, and the music being created today reflects the time in which we live. Even if there is a trend towards mechanical and superficial sound in music, it simply shows how music reflects an era. We cannot deny that we are becoming increasingly dependent upon technology and machines. Technology has become part of our lives and to remove its characteristics from our music would be a poor portrayal of who we are today. In the Renaissance era, we had Renaissance music; in the romantic era, we had romantic music. Each era has different styles and trends. It only makes sense that in our era of mechanization, some element of technology shows up in our music. However, to say that our music, the music of our era, is deteriorating can only mean that our lifestyles and thoughts are deteriorating too. Are we deteriorating? I would hope not. Even as today’s technology makes life

simpler and more efficient, we still unreasonably cling to outdated, romantic standards of music quality. We’re applying old standards to contemporary music. To compare Beethoven or Mozart to music today is ridiculous. They lived in a classical era and their music reflected that. We aren’t living in a classical era; we’re living in a new era very different from the late 1700’s. Yet, why do we keep comparing ourselves to composers in a time long past? We automatically think that modern music is deteriorating because it’s new and different; it’s “foreign.” But in reality, it isn’t deteriorating. It’s simply progressing onward, just like us, for better or for worse. The shift in our musical tastes does not make the music less important than that of the renowned composers. The music may not last centuries from now and may be soon forgotten, but longevity is not the measure of a quality composition. A quality composition is something that can connect to its listeners and evoke feel-

www.gunnchariot.com

MUSIC DETERIORATING? ings of joy, fear, sorrow and anger from its audience. Like any form of art, the effect will vary from person to person and there can never be a set standard for what is good or bad. In our own attempt to classify music as something that can either progress forward or deteriorate backwards, we forget that music can’t be quantified in that way. Music is simply a reflection of its composer. When given a standard that it must meet, music is no longer music. The word “deterioration” can never apply to music. Music is a flowing movement of sounds and tunes. It is a reflection of who we are. If we change, music will change and we must accept that. It’s time to think in the present and let go of standards that applied to those composers long gone.

From vinyl to polycarbonate to digital

The Deterioration of Pop Ethan Yung Contributing Writer

is its capacity for expression. It should be able to mirror the full range of human experiences: anger, love, depression, humor, irony, and pleasure. To accomplish this, it needs complexity and variance. It needs meaningful, full-bodied lyrics. It should tell stories about our generation as one slice of humanity. Our pop music is losing its ability to serve that function. he quality of music

To review contemporary music, we have to look at what makes up the mainstream selection. Modern music has spread out in enough directions and niches that a person can hide in any one of them and never know what’s happening at the other end of the music industry. Mainstream pop is made up of singers, often with hip hop backgrounds. It’s necessary to look there to analyze our generation’s music. The contemporary pop music industry obsesses over technology and studio production. Emphasis is placed on perfectly timed beat, perfect pitch, and perfect studio effects. In particular, Auto-Tune has been abused endlessly since its introduction in 1996. It allows singers to discreetly correct vocal mistakes with exactly perfect pitch. Today, almost every popular singer’s production studio resorts to Auto-Tune. In addition, many hip hop artists abuse Auto-Tune further to create a blatant warbling effect. Thanks for your contribution to music, T-Pain. The problem is that a large majority of pop artists have jumped on the bandwagon of creating uniform, perfect, Auto-Tuned songs. This leaves us with an abundance of music sounding increasingly similar, especially when dealing with techno pop music with similar drum machine beats, synthesizers, and computer effects. There is a place for perfection in music, but there’s also room for imperfection, for personality. Bob Dylan hardly sings in key, but we love him for his distinct drawl of a voice. Imagine if production studios decided they needed to set him on Auto-Tune. With studio perfection, we don’t need

Ke$ha’s carefully composed party-trash appearance

the artist for the music anymore. While the studio churns out perfect songs, the artist becomes a brand name. The artist only needs to be attractive and self-marketing. A musician’s image has always been important, but now it’s become a central duty. For references, see Ke$ha’s carefully composed party-trash appearance (I’ve yet to hear her sing one note without using Auto-Tune), Lady Gaga’s bizarre fashion statements and music videos, Justin Bieber’s humiliating middle-school cuteness at sixteen years of age, etc. These contemporary obsessions with fashion, music videos, dance moves, and musiciancelebrity lives distract from the quality of the music itself. When an image is all one needs to become an artist, musical hacks slip right into the pop industry. Any attractive person can be transposed into the music industry as long as he or she can become a brand. Remember Lindsay Lohan and Hilary Duff ’s albums? Artists like these can be poor musicians and their target audience still eats their songs up. They crowd out the genuine artists who aren’t as popular immediately, and the industry loses valuable talent. Lyrical content has also dropped in quality. As these pop songs are written for vocalists, there should be definite emphasis on lyrical content. Yet, all the songs revolve around the same subject matters: partying, drinking, sex, and the woes of fame. It’s the mindlessness of hit singles like the Black Eyed Peas’ “Boom Boom Pow,” Miley Cyrus’s “Party in the U.S.A.,” and Rihanna’s “Rude Boy” that’s irritating. It’s as if we’re all monkeys that don’t pay attention to words anymore. Volume 6 • Issue 7

The Chariot

Not in Our Schools Robert Chen and Aaron Guggenheim Editors-in-Chief

o put it simply,

I believe that Not in Our Schools weeks is incredibly necessary for Gunn. Many don’t believe this. They think that this weeklong activity is a waste of time. After all, they don’t bear a fear of or hatred towards the groups that typically face prejudice. Heck, they don’t hate or discriminate against anyone; everyone is equal in their minds. That might not be altogether so true. There is still is academic discrimination in our school. This discrimination comes from comments that are both race based (you’re Asian, so you must be good at math) and lanebased (you’re only in Chem 1?) This is sadly tied to an atmosphere that rewards academic excellence and punishes anything else. It is an atmosphere where a person’s self-worth is equated with their classes and grades. To deal with this, the academic environment of our school must change, though not necessarily at the cost of academic excellence. In conclusion, Not In Our Schools week shines a light on key issues like this and more blatant ones like homophobia and racism. This week is a chance to bring them out and show our stance. Even if you still claim to unbiased and untouched by this omnipresent phenomenon in our community, allow for Not In Our Schools week to be a celebration of that freedom from hatred and discrimination. Don’t just dismiss it, but acknowledge it and help others work towards a hate-free school.

April 2010

Technology does not inherently corrupt music. Music has been moving forward throughout the decades on the strength of technological innovation: the electric guitar, the synthesizer, music sampling, etc. Likewise, Auto-Tune does not inherently corrupt music. Our problem is the widespread, excessive abuse of technology. With the technology we have today, nearly anyone can produce a hit pop single with a catchy dance beat and perfect pitch Auto-Tuning. As a result, we have an excess of artists who produce the same songs on the strength of their personal marketability. The pop music of past decades has had a natural, progressive history: from the classic pop rock of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, to hard rock with Led Zeppelin and AC/DC, to the soul and funk of classic Motown Records albums, to angry punk rock and cheerful power pop, to the pop The iconic Abbey Road dominance of Michael album cover Jackson and Madonna in the 1980s, to early New York hip hop, and consequently to all the alternative rock genres caught in between. In light of our music history, it would be ignorant to say pop music has been deteriorating since Led Zeppelin. I can appreciate an artist like Michael Jackson because he was an entrepreneur who told his own story in a fresh, unique way. I object to our trend of heavy studio production because of the lemming stampede of “artists” that are following it for the profit that comes with becoming a music brand name. And perhaps I’m outdated, but I think of a musician as someone who can hop on stage and produce music right on the spot. Music should flow at a moment’s notice; it shouldn’t depend on pre-recordings or computer processing. I think of a musician as someone who had to grind his way up by entertaining belligerent bar crowds. I think of those artists with such amazingly written songs that you can’t comprehend someone sitting down and writing them out. Our contemporary pop scene lacks that musicianship; artists don’t necessarily need training, experience, a live singing voice, or a real grasp of any instrument. One can argue that this is the way of modernity: perfect songs written by production teams, the superfluousness of pure talent. But that represents a step backward when the artist is not the creative force, but a puppet. This monotone, commercial pop should not be the epitome of our generation’s music; it does not tell a complete story of what we are. Music should be fun and light-hearted and danceable, but there’s a problem when that’s all there is to it. Unless the current obsession with perfection, technology, and artist image is dropped, music will continue to degrade.

www.gunnchariot.com

Why are the BEST-SELLING ALBUMS WORLDWIDE mostly from the 70s & 80s? Brittany Cheng Graphics/Layout

Thriller/Michael Jackson

The Dark Side of the Moon/Pink Floyd

Sales: 110 million

Sales: 45 million

1982

1973

1980

Back in Black/ACDC

Sales: 44 million

Sales: 49 million

Bat out of Hell/Meatloaf

1992

The Bodyguard/Whitney Houston Dirty Dancing/Various Artists

Sales: 43 million

Sales: 42 million

1977

1976

Their Greatest Hits/The Eagles Sales: 42 million

aturday Night Fever/Bee Gees Sales: 40 million

1987

1999

Millenium/Backstreet Boys Sales: 40 million

Release Dates of Top 65 Albums

wordle.net

1977

Rumours/Fleetwood Mac Sales: 40 million

Volume 6 â&#x20AC;˘ Issue 7

DO CORPORATIONS HAVE FREE SPEECH? The Chariot

www.gunnchariot.com

“

Robert Chen Co-Editor-in-Chief

The First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

YES, they do Corporations are aggregations of people, so they should recieve rights people recieve

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Dispute over whether campaign finance laws applied to Citizens United’s showing of a film critical of Hillary: The Movie

NO, they don’t

Decided on January 21, 2010

Corporations are legal entities, not people (they live forever)

Government can not prohibit independent expenditures by corporations and unions

5-4 in favor of Citizens United

Reactions Corporations have other legal rights, so why not free speech?

$$$

Corporations do not have the same interests as people do • They generally only care for profits • They generally lack moral conscience • They are often unwilling to sacrifice for the good of the whole

This decision was a Terrible misTake. Presented with a relatively narrow legal issue, the Supreme Court chose to roll back laws that have limited the role of corporate money in federal elections since Teddy Roosevelt was president. —Russ Feingold (Wisconsin Democratic senator)

Opinion by Affiliation

Today's U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Citizens United to air its documentary films and advertisements is a Tremendous vicTory, not only for Citizens United but for every american who desires to participate in the political process. —Citizens United There’s going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns. —John McCain (Arizona Republican senator) [It] gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington – while undermining The influence of average americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. —President Obama

March 2009

Volume 6 • Issue 6

The Chariot

DO CORPORATIONS Repairing the Damage Sam Neff Contributing Writer

roberts supreme court managed to alienate a vast, bipartisan majority of the population of the United States in its recent ruling on corporate personhood in Citizens United vs FEC, declaring McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws unconstitutional due to the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. While the majority of the country may not agree on a lot of things, they certainly agree that corporations, unions, and special interests should not have the right to spend an unlimited amount of money on campaign contributions and buy out our government. Rights, once given, are not easily rescinded, even when given on pieces of paper in a registrar’s office. Dealing with the constitutional and popular fallout of Citizens United and corporate personhood in the US court system will take decades, decades that we do not have if we want to take back our government now. The Roberts Court has effectively barred regulation of contributions, ripping the McCain-Feingold band-aid off of the gaping wound of the campaign finance problem, and a majority of the US population says that we need a real solution, now. One such solution is public finance for elections, known as Clean Money. It’s already been tested for over a decade in Maine and Arizona with positive results, and five other states have already adopted public campaign finance. Not only have Clean Money laws leveled the playing field between moneyed corporations and citizen interests, but they have also increased vothe

April 2010

er turnout and provided a launching pad for more women and minority candidates to take office. States with Clean Money laws have passed bipartisan, groundbreaking legislation, defeating opposition from the same corporate interests that bankrolled Citizens United in their case at the Supreme Court. Public finance is an opt-in system, in which potential candidates are required to collect a reasonable number of signatures and five dollar donations to prove their viability (the only private funding they will ever collect) before acquiring funding for their campaigns. If one candidate chooses private funding, a Clean Money opponent will get matching funds, up to five times the base amount in most cases. Why the cap? The Meg Whitman effect: throwing more money at a campaign will not win the election. On June 8th, Proposition 15 (the California Fair Elections Act) is on the ballot to start a pilot program for the election of Secretary of State, which will be paid for by raising lobbyist registration fees from $12.50 to $350 a year. The Secretary of State’s job description includes overseeing all California elections and regulating Sacramento lobbyists; it sounds like a good place for a Clean Money politician. I sincerely encourage you to go out on June 8th and vote yes on Prop 15, to encourage your parents to vote yes on Prop 15, and to help fix our electoral system before it’s too late.

Life at Incorporation: The Widespread Effects of Corporate Free Speech

Max Lipscomb Contributing Writer

for corporations may appear an extremely distant issue to anyone here at Gunn, it plays an important role in shaping our opinions, for example, through the funding of television commercials and other advertisements. Though many have expressed their discontent at such enterprise, I support corporate free speech because it is only fair. Part of the reason I support these multibillion dollar corporations in their quest to spend and finagle their way to change public opinions is because of the nature of their political opposition. Unfortunately, restrictions are generally only levied against corporations accused of “unjust” free speech when the rhetoric employed by said corporations hurts political officials. It’s unreasonable for the elected officials of our nation to only play the “unfair” card when they are the ones who stand to lose. The most recent example of this is the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Before the last election, Citizens United, a conservative, non-profit organization, financed the mockumentary Hillary: The Movie, which the Federal Election Commission banned from airing because it constituted “political speech.” Citizens United argued that it was unfairly prevented from airing the movie. Before I continue, I’ll explicitly state that while I disagree with much of the content expressed in Hillary: The Movie, I still agree with the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to eliminate the restrictions on hile free speech

www.gunnchariot.com

HAVE FREE SPEECH? political speech by corporations. To clarify, this doesn’t mean that Citizens United, Chevron or Citibank can now donate billions of dollars to a political candidate. They still can’t, and I’m not saying they should be able to. Instead, it means that should Chevron so desire, it can finance commercials regarding the ways a candidate’s policies might negatively affect the auto industry. The reasoning behind such a decision hinges on the principle of corporate personhood, which states that rights granted to United States citizens under the 14th Amendment can be extended to corporations in a constitutional manner, as these corporations represent composites of citizens. In this case, the impact of the Court’s decision has additional ramifications extending beyond the explicit world of corporations. Labor unions, which have been historically restricted in political speech as many major companies have been, will now have the same rights and abilities as the corporations they are often at political odds with. The loosening of restrictions around corporate free speech will allow increased influence on public opinion from multiple sides of the political spectrum, thus allowing corporate freedoms in their fullest expression while preventing extreme bias. Because these freedoms do not endanger the United States, I see no reason to deny them to corporations and stand firmly behind our highest court in its recent decision.

The Roberts court

Corporations do not represent the individual; they represent themselves with one purpose in mind: to make more money We The People,

Not We The Corporations Jacob Guggenheim Circulation

n a recent case,

the Supreme Court overturned a hundred-year legal precedent saying that corporations should not have free speech. This sounds all well and good considering that this country is built upon freedom for all, but this decision will actually harm the individual’s right of expression. The very crux of this issue is the difference between a corporation and an individual. Are they the same thing? The obvious answer is no. And, as is so often the case, the obvious answer is the correct one. Why then should a corporation have the same legal rights as an individual? We as a country gain nothing by giving corporations free speech, and risk losing our own voices. Let me paint a picture for you. Bob grew up in a rundown shack on the Upper West Side of Chicago. The living conditions were bad, and the education was worse. Bob grew up and, despite all odds, has become a successful doctor. He remembers the hard time he had as a child and decides that he will donate a large sum of money, $200,000, to Joe Smith, who is running for governor of Illinois because Joe Smith says he will help education in Illinois. However, the corporations do not like

Joe Smith because he plans on paying for the new education by taxing the corporations. The corporations turn to Joe Smith’s opponent, Jack LeMan, who plans on lowering taxes for the corporations at the expense of education. The corporations give what they consider a relatively small sum of money to LeMan, $20 million. The corporation’s gift to LeMan is one hundred times as big as Bob’s. I’m sorry, but Bob loses big. Money wins elections and the corporations have money. By allowing the corporations to give money to candidates, which is an essential part of free speech, we eliminate the individual in the democratic process. The corporation’s candidate, instead of the people’s candidate, will be elected. Corporations do not represent the individual; they represent themselves with one purpose in mind: to make more money. So, instead of giving the corporations the right to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars to whomever they see fit, why don’t we take a leaf out of our ancestors’ book and stop this once and for all? If the CEO truly cares, then let him shovel his own money to the candidate rather than the corporation’s money. And when this does not happen (and I am sure it won’t), we will have proven that the corporation’s gifts do not represent the will of the individual but rather the will of the corporation. And, last time I checked, this country was for the people by the people, not for the corporation by the corporations. Volume 6 • Issue 7

The Chariot

IS THE U.S. DOOMED Doomed to Be Forever in Debt Roxanne Rahnama Contributing Writer

the United States is destined for unending economic troubles. But at the same time, this assertion is ultimately true. Recent history has provided substantial evidence that the growth rate of our national debt increases every year. Nearly every president to have taken office has always ended his term with a greater debt than before. For example, when President Carter took office in 1977, the national debt stood at around $650 million. On the last day of his term, the debt was close to $930 million. Within the span of four years, Carter had increased the national debt by almost 50 percent. This considerable increase in debt is by no means the largest. Almost each subsequent president from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush has increased the annual deficit by a far greater amount. The continual increase of national debt has become a familiar concept in our country’s development. The current national debt stands at nearly $13 trillion. President Obama is predicted to increase this national debt more than any other president with a suggested increase of $9.7 trillion in ten years. Such a buildup of debt throughout the course of our history only reinforces the argument for endless international debt. With ever- increasingly costly problems that need to be addressed in our world, an end to our national debt is not in near future. The United States’ main problem is that 12

t might be cynical to say that

April 2010

it does not save enough money. During an economic recession, low-income families get tax breaks. While tax breaks appeal to many, they come with an enormous cost to our nation’s treasury. Annually, the treasury loses over a trillion dollars as a result of tax breaks. Thus, the government’s need to borrow money increases, and the United States plummets further into debt. In contrast, when we are in an economic boom, the government spends money incessantly and raises the debt to a higher level. Over the course of the century, there have been multiple cycles of economic boom and bust resulting in a net increase of debt.

In addition to these contributors to debt, there are several underlying causes, that do not get factored into many budget analyses. For instance, the current government debt to trust funds, such as Medicare and Social Security, is nearly $5 trillion. Over the years, the government has used revenue from these programs to cover other expenses. Another underlying factor is the amount of losses to mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were private companies funded by the government. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the total loss on the mortgages backed by the two companies could come to nearly $370 billion by 2020. Such hidden factors further exacerbate the current $13 trillion debt. Eliminating our national debt is extremely improbable. The process would

take years. In the end, it is much more likely that the nation will remain in debt, at least through our lifetime.

Debt Solutions in Sight Andrew Liu Senior Editor Looking at the United States National Debt Clock, one would think that our government’s debt–$12.6 trillion and growing by an average of $4.04 billion a day–is insurmountable. Politicians and pundits always talk about our country’s “imminent fiscal crisis.” Budget projections paralyze voters with fear. However, these negative messages, in their effort to shock the public, miss one truth: the debt problem is solvable. It is true that the debt is serious. For example, the Peterson Institute projects $44 trillion more in future debt from the upcoming entitlement spending for Social Security and Medicare. More debt means less borrowing room and higher interest rates, which both cause economic stagnation. But the debt picture will brighten if we take the right steps. First, as the recession comes to a close, income and sales tax revenues will rise substantially while spending on programs for recession-coping measures, like unemployment insurance and welfare relief, can be cut. Secondly, President Obama’s bipartisan commission on debt announced a spending freeze, which reflects the beginnings of political cooperation on the debt. But most importantly, the government can pay off this national debt just as the homeowner pays off a mortgage–in bitesized chunks–and still reap long-term benefits, such as steadier or lower interest rates, easier borrowing and increased confidence that all of the debt will be paid

www.gunnchariot.com

TO STAY IN DEBT? back eventually. In other words, making even small dents in the debt is a worthy, achievable goal. We shouldn’t just wring our hands because we can’t pay off every cent immediately. As economic and political conditions improve, we need to stop pretending that we can’t lower the debt, especially with our $14.2 trillion national GDP, and enact three solution: entitlement reform, subsidy cuts, and a value-added tax. Entitlement Reform Entitlement reform has to be part of the solution because entitlements are the biggest driver of government spending. Of course politicians will cry that we cannot afford to deny benefits to Social Security and Medicare recipients, but the reality is that we cannot afford to pay for these benefits, especially as the baby boom generation begins to age. Today we are paying the political costs of unrealistic promises that were made years ago. There are three ways we can reform entitlement. Congress should repeal a 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill that is projected to cost over $1 trillion in its first decade and was described as “the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s” by the Government Accountability Office. Nicola Moore of the Thomas Roe Institute proposes a commission to monitor long-term entitlement budgets and to prevent current autopilot spending increases. A more subtle reform is to tie benefits to inflation instead of wages, which would save hundreds of billions of dollars, according to Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria. The third reform is to raise the retirement age and link it to growing life expectancy. European countries, for example, have enacted this reform to keep their pension systems solvent.

As of January 2009

End Subsidies We should end the exorbitant, marketdistorting subsidies that not only drain the government of money, but also encourage the debt that drove us into this monetary crisis. Specifically, the government spends $250 billion a year on agriculture, health care and home ownership subsidies that fail to achieve their goals of farmer relief, increased health quality and increased home ownership, respectively. The Washington Post identified at least $15 billion of unnecessary agriculture subsidies in 2006, of which $1.3 billion went to landowners who planted nothing. Economists agree that tax exemptions for employer-based health plans promote overconsumption of health services.

We shouldn’t just wring our hands because we can’t pay off every cent immediately The homeowner subsidies, instead of increasing home ownership, have encouraged debt through interest deduction on mortgages. If we stop these subsidies, we can save the government the face value of this spending and prevent future debt-ridden behavior.

Value-Added Tax The last part of the solution should be the value-added tax (VAT) to increase government revenue and reduce overconsumption. The VAT is a national sales tax that is spread over each stage of production instead of one tax collected at the final sale. By spreading the burden over multiple businesses and consumers, the VAT has been proven to reduce fraud in the 150 other nations that use it. For example, France gets 52 percent of its revenue from the VAT while spending little on its administrative costs. Because the cost of tax fraud in the U.S. is $40 to $70 billion a year, a VAT would bring in much more revenue to counter our yearly budget deficits. According to Leonard Burman of the University of Virginia Tax Review, a highend 25 percent VAT would raise enough revenue “to balance the federal budget, pay for health-care expansion, eliminate the income tax for all those earning less than $100,000 (90 percent of households), and cut the top tax rate to 25 percent.” A more palatable form of the 25 percent VAT, while scary at first, is not unrealistic–many Scandinavian countries have used it for three decades, and their economies have grown just as fast as America’s. A more important boon of the VAT is less spending and more saving, which is the most important behavioral change we can make to prevent debt. These three proposals would probably hit a brick wall in Congress–nowadays, it seems that legislators refuse even the slightest political pain, even when this sacrifice is the only way to enact a comprehensive solution to severe crises like the national debt. But the solutions here are real and make the debt less menacing. But if we fail to get over political scruples and the inaction of fear, then the debt problem will truly become insurmountable. Volume 6 • Issue 7

The Chariot Editors-in-Chief Robert Chen Aaron Guggenheim Senior Editors Ben Bendor Andrew Liu Sarah Zubair Copy Editors Andre Garrett Tommy Huang Graphics/Layout Brittany Cheng Celine Nguyen 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 Henry Gens Tara Golshan James Gupta Anish Johri Ryan Lee Alice Li Max Lipscomb Jeff Ma Sam Neff Susan Nitta Saurabh Radhakrishnan Roxanne Rahnama Hina Sakazaki Yoyo Tsai Daljeet Virdi Ian Wilkes Kevin Yang Stanley Yu Ethan Yung Omer Zach Kevin Zhang Foundation/Group Sponsors Adobe Systems Daughters of the American Revolution Palo Alto Lions Club Patrons ($100+) Lauren Michals and Vinod Bharadwaj Patricia Bruegger Steven Guggenheim Shirley Zeng and Yajun Liu Sponsors ($50-99) Mark and Rhonda Breier Contributors ($21-50)

Special thanks to Advisor, Marc Igler 14

April 2010

A NEW SOURCE OF NEWS Jeff Ma Contributing Writer

hat most people consider the mainstream media are actually just five companies: Time Warner, Viacom, CBS, Disney and NBC Universal. Furthermore, most of these corporations are headed by older Caucasian men and an average of 70 percent of their employees are registered Democrats. It is apparent that there is not a lot of diversity. In recent years, many new Web sites known as the “new media” have sprung up. Sites like these include Politico.com and Newser. However, many of these new sites are unreliable sources of information. But, with the mainstream media’s falling markets, many Americans have shifted their attention from traditional sources to this new media. This shift also has many consequences. For example, most of the new Web sites are not only unprofitable, but they are actually losing money. For example, Politico.com employs over one hundred people and has a grant from a private donor of $ 10 million per year for three years. But one has to question the fate of such Web sites when their funding and investments run out. People often turn to online news sources because it is free, but when these Web sites need funds and advertising is not enough, they will inevitably start charging for their services.

Furthermore, this lack of funds also prevents the new media entities from defending their reporters in courts of law. News corporations like The New York Times have been involved in numerous lawsuits to defend their free press rights from corporations and the government alike, but smaller new media outlets simply do not have the funding to do the same. This new media shift has also forced most traditional news sources to start a hybrid approach. Almost all news sources, such as The Washington Post, now have Web sites with their content (although some do charge a subscription fee). One benefit of the mainstream media is their unquestionable accountability. But there are many unaccountable Web sites on the Internet, and with the shift to the new media, these people have a greater access to the public opinion. The shift to a new type of media is inevitable, but the old media will also still be around. There are many flaws with the new media, but in time, they will be forced to find some way of making a profit, for investors do expect a return. And with the questionable accountability the new media brings with it, it will also require an increasingly intelligent and skeptical consumer base.

Newser and Politico frontpages 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 American Tea Party

United States’ increasing deficit is a threat to our sovereignty and personal and economic liberties, although it’s very clear that we still live in a free society. In fact, very little of this has any factual basis, and it Stanley Yu poses a major question regarding whether Contributing Writer or not the party is doing this because it is ignorant, or if it’s reacting in frustration s obama begins his second year and impatience with the government’s efas president and the recession con- forts to reach out in the financial crisis. tinues to drag on, many Americans have Furthermore, the American Tea Party’s flocked to a new grass-roots organization mission statement calls for a “return to the known as the American Tea Party. free market principles on which this nation Like its namesake, the American Tea was founded.” Firstly, it’s been over two Party seeks to evoke the images of the centuries since this nation was founded. Boston Tea Party to “secure public poli- To imply a complete return to the ways of cy consistent with… three core values of old seems very much like a step backwards. “Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Secondly, a major cause of Limited Government, and the recession was a lack of Free Markets.” government control in the While these are indeed first place. Things change values that all Americans over time, and the nation should adhere to, it would from over two centuries ago seem that the American Tea is clearly different from toParty is exacerbating these day’s society in regard to its issues more than need be complexity. and are simply feeding off Although the American of the frustration of panTea Party claims to being icked Americans and dia non-partisan movement, recting it against liberals there are many instances and moderates in a purely in which the party contrareactionary manner all dicts itself. For example, but devoid of any rational Far from the truth the Party’s call to return to thought. This in turn cona complete free market is something that tradicts the party’s claim as a “non-parti- conservatives argue for, not liberals. san” movement, even though it clearly adAnother example of this is their tenheres to far-right ideals. dency to call for a strict, word-for-word inFiscal responsibility in itself is a great terpretation of historical documents such thing. Everyone wants a government that as the Federalist Papers, the Constitution utilizes the money wisely in order to maxi- and Bill of Rights. This is archetypal of mize its effectiveness in running the gov- conservatives, not liberals. ernment and its welfare programs. But the Finally, there’s Sarah Palin, a staunch nation’s debt has been growing for years. Republican herself, acting as a figurehead So why did the Tea Party wait until Demofor the party. If one wants to portray crats had gained majority control to finally come out claim that the government was themselves as non-partisan, wouldn’t it be better to select a moderate candidate as being irresponsible in its spending? opposed to someone as polarized as Palin? In their mission statement, the Tea ParIn short, it is clear that the American ty states that “such runaway deficit spending as we now see in … D.C. … compels Tea Party stands purely as a reactionary us to take action.” If that were true, how movement formed from the impatience come no one saw any of this during the and frustration of Americans who believe drastic changes should come now instead last administration? of later. Furthermore, the Party claims that the

www.gunnchariot.com

Far Too Extreme Ryan Lee Contributing Writer

ou’ve seen them

yelling and ranting. You have seen them spouting their beliefs on television, radio and the Internet. Before, they would just be dismissed as the fringe. Their rantings about government intrusion, wild accusations against the president and overall heavyhanded bias would have been dismissed as crazy. But, over the course of 2009, things have changed dramatically. With the rise of the Tea Party Movement, these “extremist” political pundits, such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, have lent a voice and outlet to those campaigning against President Obama. They have now been propelled into the mainstream media. But why now? Even before Obama’s election in November 2008 there has always been a powerful backlash against him. Many on the right consider him not just a president unfit for office, but also an evil, power-hungry socialist determined to tax Americans to death. As a result of these views, the Tea Party movement was born. While extremist groups such as these, were once written off as fringe, radical groups that would have no part in democracy in America, the Tea Party movement has been gifted with strong support from powerful media fig-

Glenn Beck Volume 6 • Issue 7

The Chariot

ures like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Glenn Beck stands out from the pack as an extremely far right conservative; he may even considered a little off the deep end. Watching his show for an entire week illustrates why: his predictions of our impending doom and so-called “hour of fear” are really just that. When you watch his show, you are bombarded with images of Nazis, the Soviets, militaries marching through small towns accompanied by Beck screaming for less government intrusion, no unions and no Obama. The truth is that little to none of Beck’s program has basis in fact, but that’s not what his program is about, or even pretends to be about. Glenn Beck is a television pundit version of the man who stands at street corners with a sign that says “THE END IS NEAR.” His own gathering of “Tea Partiers”, the 9/12 movement back in March 2009, demonstrated that a man who spends a couple of hours a day screaming into a camera can garner enough loyal followers to march on D.C. What is Beck’s motive, exactly? The same as Rush Limbaugh’s. They both want to create fear and distrust in the government. Their shows are pure propaganda. While Beck claims to be more of a libertarian than a conservative, he certainly seems happy enough to yell out extreme conservative beliefs. Both Beck and Limbaugh have been criticized for dumbing down the conservative base to name-calling and angry accusations of the left end of the political spectrum. Yet Beck and Limbaugh don’t seem worried–they pander to a base that prefers a folksy hockey mom to a Harvard-educated lawyer, an everyman instead of a smart man. They know whom exactly they are trying to appeal to and whom they are trying to alienate. Beck’s certainly doing his job. His ratings are as high as ever, the dough keeps rolling in, and he shows no sign of going silent any time soon.

April 2010

Foursquare: The Next Twitter? Omer Zach Contributing Writer

have been capable of locating users through GPS or triangulation for years, locationbased applications have only just begun gaining traction. Companies like Google tried implementing social networks that take advantage of your location in the past, but never saw any success because of major privacy concerns—no one wanted their location broadcast to the world all the time. But the New York City-based company Foursquare has found a way around the privacy issues caused by location-aware applications. Instead of tracking users’ whereabouts, Foursquare allows them to manually “check in” wherever they go, but only when they want to. lthough cell phones

Users then “friend” their real-life friends on the service just like they would on Facebook and are able to get notifications or simply pull up a list on their phone of where all their friends are at any time. Foursquare makes checking in to venues fun and rewarding, too. Each check-in earns users points. The user with the most check-ins at a venue over a two month period is crowned the mayor of that specific place. At first this was only worth bragging rights. But many stores have begun offering “mayor deals” such as giving free food or discounts to their mayors. Over the last few months, Foursquare has struck business development deals with companies like Bravo and MTV, offering users guides to locations relevant to Bravo fans and soon the ability to “follow” where their favorite celebrities check in. Nearly 100,000 people are joining Foursquare every week, and the service is now seeing hundreds of thousands of check-ins per day. Foursquare has only been around for a year and is growing far faster than Twitter was a year into its life. It was featured in a soap opera this week, but when will Foursquare be getting its Oprah moment? I’d put my money on soon if I were you.