Issue 4 - The Other Side

Horace Mann reviewTHe

The Other Side

Horace Mann Review, voL Xvii

Horace Mann ReviewThe

A p r i l 2 0 0 8 : I s s u e I V , V o l . X V I I

Science

15 Saving our Stem Cells:With exaggerated benefits and questionable

morality, federal funding is a bad choiceBy Aradhna Agarwal

17 Pro-Life Paradox:The motivations and rationale behind anti-abortion groups

By Jason Sunshine

3 Evolution of New York City:The changing public perceptions of

New York over timeBy Dan Temel

24 Wiretapping is PatrioticBy Starlyte Harris

9 Posh Persona:What public school students think

of Horace Mann and private schools By Kevin Lin

25 Third Party, Not Third Place

By Will Dubbs

Globalbalthe about

How Eco-Activists have Lied to the World

21 By Spencer Penn

Democracy Dies:Why we need to stay in Iraq over the long term

5 By Antonia Woodford

Give Me My Trans Fats!

19 By Dan Shapiro

Give Guns a Shot

11 Global Warming:How Eco-Activists have lied to the world

By Brenton Arnaboldi

13 Ethanol Scam:Ethanol costs the nation’s environment,

economy and farmers By Nick Herzeca

issue 4-

The horace Mann review

voluMe Xvii , issue 4

A Journal of Opinion on Current Events, Politics, Public Policy, and Culture

Associate EditorsAradhna Agarwal, Maya Chung, Will Dubbs, Katie Dubbs, Nancy DaSilva, Rumur Dowling, Starlyte Harris, Nick Her-

zeca, Henry Hoglund, Kevin Lin, Spencer Penn, Dan Shapiro, Jason Sunshine, Dan Temel, James Yaro

Contributing WritersNick Herzeca, Belle Yoeli, Eliza Harkins, Nancy DaSilva, Will

Dubbs, Dan Temel, Rumur Dowling, Spencer Penn, Katie Dubbs, Jarett Bienenstock, Jason Sunshine, Victor Ladd, Sonja Perl, Aradhna Agarwal, Miguel Alonso-Lubell, Dan Shapiro,

Justin Katiraei, James Yaro, Belle Yoeli

Faculty Advisors Mr. Gregory Donadio

[email protected]

The Horace Mann Review is printed throughout the academic year. The Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Associa-tion, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Association. Please contact The Horace Mann Review for information on advertisements at [email protected]. Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Editorial Board. Opinions expressed in articles or illustrations are not neces-sarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School.

Interested in subscribing? The Editorial Board is pleased to offer mailed subscriptions this volume. Email us at [email protected] for information. Thank you for your support.

© 2008, The Horace Mann Review

Thomas HwangVenkat Kausik

Alice KissilenkoZach MalterBen Mishkin

Senior Editor

Letter From the Editor

Neal PooleDirector of Technology

Nick GerardWebmaster

Ted SumersPhotography Editor

Ben JacobsonKimya ZahediSenior Columnist

William KimProduction Assistant

Charles StamAnoushka VaswaniChairpeople of the Board

Tal ShacharProduction Manager

Lindsay GellmanEditorial Director

Jake SloaneManaging Director

Rachel SiegelCopy Chief

Kunal MalkaniEditor-in-Chief

THe oTHeR side

Page 2

Dear Reader, Welcome to the fourth issue of The Review. Unlike our past issues, rather than focusing on a single topic, this issue is inspired by the idea of exploring “the other side.” Speaking generally, Horace Mann, as an affluent private school in New York, seems to have a very defined political identity, in which most students share a politically outlook more liberal than the rest of the nation. This issue aims to examine opinions that at Horace Mann can often be dismissed out of hand without due consideration. By challenging certain assumptions, we hope to spark thought on some of today’s fundamental political problems.

This issue features two articles that look at how others view us, as New Yorkers and as private school students. The issue opens with Dan Temel’s look on how New York’s image to the rest of the country and the world has changed over time. Kevin Lin looks at what public school students think of Horace Mann and private school education.

New York has recently enacted a ban on trans fats in the name of public health. Antonia Woodford looks at whether such measures will improve the health of the nation or if they are simply a step on the road towards government severely restricting our freedom to choose. Starlyte Harris looks at the Bush administration’s wiretapping program and considers whether such measures are invalid infringements on civil liberties or necessary steps in a War on Terrorism. Dan Shapiro looks at whether state gun control laws help or hurt in combating gun crime— and concludes that right-to-carry laws in fact lead to safer communities with less violent crime. Will Dubbs looks at the significance that third parties play and the positions they hold, which he argues are more independent of political influence than mainstream parties.

The War in Iraq is one of the defining issues in the presidential election, only recently ceding the top spot in importance in light of the economic downturn. Spencer Penn draws on historical precedence to argue that the best strategy in Iraq is neither an immediate withdrawal nor a gradual drawdown, but rather a long-term campaign to defend the nascent democracy.

Two of the most polarizing issues in United States politics are abortion and stem-cell research. Often, each side holds such a fundamental belief that the other side’s arguments are completely rejected, often in an emotional response. Jason Sunshine looks at the religious and secular rationale for the pro-life position and Aradhna Agarwal examines the scientific and moral criticisms of embryonic stem cell research.

Even where the major presidential candidates or politicians share the same position, many others may challenge their fundamental assumptions. Nick Herzeca looks behind the recent ethanol craze and concludes that ethanol makes little environmental or economic sense. Global warming is believed by many to be an indisputable fact. Al Gore compared those who question global warming to those who still believe the world is flat. However, many scientists continue to question the fundamental basis behind many of the policy proposals touted by politicians. Brenton Arnaboldi looks at the various scientific arguments for why global warming is not a product of human emissions and is not a problem.

We hope you enjoy the issue. As always, please contact us with comments, questions, or responses to any of the articles.

Sincerely,

Kunal Malkani


New York’s exponen-tial growth during the 19th and 20th centuries was a testament to immi-

grants’ trust that moving to the metropo-lis would result in a better life. Many im-migrants and American citizens from the Heartland held New York City in the high-est regard, believing it to be the commer-cial and social center of the United States, the first checkpoint on the road to success. New York prospered following the First and Second World Wars; however, during the 1970s, the city became less relevant in the manufacturing and garment produc-tion industries, causing many residents to lose their jobs. With unemployment and crime rampant, the city teetered on finan-cial instability. Mayor Abe Beame pled to the federal government for financial help to bail out America’s city, but his requests

were rejected by President Gerald Ford in a highly publicized affair that altered the public perception of the great metropolis. Michigan-bred Ford failed to see why the federal government should bail out a strug-gling city losing its relevance in the na-tional market, and his decision was lauded by fiscal conservatives around the nation.

The former home of high-class so-cialites such as Mrs. Brooke Astor had morphed into a city full of dive bars, peep shows, and an unmanageable number of homeless citizens. The nation’s conde-

scending view of the city was even present in the films of the day, as movies such as Taxi Driver and Death Wish characterized New York as a world filled with violence, corruption, sleaze, and sin, in stark con-trast to the glamour and opulence of New York portrayed in earlier films. Once the center of New York nightlife and theater, Times Square had become one of the most dangerous areas of the city, the center of the city’s prostitution and gambling rack-ets, with over 2,300 crimes committed there per year. In the late 1970s, under the guidance of Felix Rohatyn, an investment banker from the Lazard Freres brokerage house, the city began to restructure debt and experience economic revitalization.

The summer of 1977 provided New Yorkers with the realization that the city was on a downward spiral to destruction, so politicians and citizens worked togeth-er to revitalize the city. As the city transi-tioned into the last two decades of the 20th century, Wall Street experienced a rebirth, and urban culture in the outer boroughs flourished. Crime dropped and homeless-ness declined under Mayor Rudy Giuliani. However, racial tensions in lower class and working class neighborhoods brewed, as exemplified in the 1989 film Do the Right Thing, which portrayed the tensions be-tween an Italian pizzeria owner and his mostly African-American customer base. Irish and Italian New Yorkers feuded with African American and Hispanic citizens, while residents of working class neighbor-hoods actively campaigned against the gentrification of their homes. With shows such as Friends and Seinfeld glorifying upper middle class life in New York City, the nation began to accept the city as a re-incarnation of its wealthier past. Tourism increased dramatically between 1984 and 1999, with the city receiving over 36.4 mil-lion visitors from both domestic and inter-national locations in the final year of the

By Dan Temel

1980s

1990s

1970s

The Evolution of New York City

By Dan Temel

“As the city transitioned into the last two decades of the 20th century, Wall Street

experienced a rebirth, and urban culture in the outer

boroughs flourished.”

Do The Right Thing

Sex and the City

Taxi Driver Motortrend

WiredImages

Page 3

Do the Right Thing

Real Guide

issue 4-

millennium. Over 15.6 billion dollars were spent by visitors in 1999, and consumer con-fidence was rising. Residents in the city felt safe again as police corruption was weeded out and crime was drastically reduced.

Popular culture in the late 1980s ex-posed the increasing gap between the af-fluent and the poor in New York City, as shown in Coming to America and Trading Places. Coming to America, starring Ed-die Murphy, was one of the first major mo-tion pictures to be primarily based in the outer boroughs of New York City, especially Queens and Brooklyn. Studio executives projected stereotypes of New Yorkers by in-cluding graffiti-ridden subway stations and cars, brash citizens that interfere in others’ conversations, and immigrants portrayed in a stereotypical light. Trading Places showed the state of homelessness and poverty for Vietnam War veterans. These portrayals furthered stereotypes about New York, and also exposed the somewhat stereotypical views of even liberal Hollywood executives.

The tragic events of September 11th, 2001 slowed the city’s international tourism market with a fifteen year low of 4.8 million international visitors in 2003. Downtown New York then began to rebuild, and New York City was back on track. Mayor Michael Bloomberg launched a series of initiatives that promoted consumer spending and pre-vention of environmental decay. European tourists returned once again, flocking to New York City boutiques and stores due to favor-

able exchange rates. New York City was once again the capital of industry and society in the United States, and was labeled the “safest big city in America.” Times Square was reha-bilitated as the center of the thriving metrop-olis, with family-friendly corporations such as Disney placing flagship stores in the area.

While tourism rates certainly serve as a prime indicator of domestic and interna-tional opinions of New York City, not every citizen of the United States looks favorably upon the Big Apple. One particular case provided an outlet for dissent against New York City. The tragic death in a Phoenix airport of Carol Gotbaum, daughter-in-law of New York City Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, launched a slew of hateful posts on the blogosphere. Mrs. Gotbaum’s death occurred under undetermined causes after being detained in an airport holding facility for raising her voice at an airport employee. Responses from the blogosphere on the in-cident were more personal than expected, with some bloggers calling the ordeal a “Jew-ish media conspiracy” and “insurance fraud.” One particularly opinionated blogger, under the alias of Moronhunter, railed against “stu-pid, pathetic, weenie [sic] New York liberals” for supporting the Gotbaum family in their crisis on a Village Voice comments page. Other comments revealed the apparent ste-reotypes of New York liberals and showed a great distrust of the Jewish population of the city as well as the country. The sharp back-lash to this controversy shows that there is

still resentment towards New York City and its liberal tendencies, backlash to the un-balanced distribution of wealth in the city.

Theories concerning the diminishing middle class in New York City took hold in the Heartland of America, with many citizens feeling little apathy for perceived “upper class” individuals. Television shows such as Gossip Girl and Sex and the City do little to dispel these notions, as char-acters are often perceived as “snobby and closed-minded.” These shows only highlight stereotypes of members of certain neigh-borhoods such as the Upper East Side and the Upper West Side. Characters such as Gossip Girl’s Blair Waldorf, with the quint-essential New York surname, express their disdain for other neighborhoods in the city, claiming they are too dirty and seedy. For non-New Yorkers who have never visited these enclaves themselves, television instills them with a skewed perception of the city.

Popular television shows such as King of the Hill have shown characters with partic-ularly strong anti-New York opinions. King of the Hill, created to be a satire of American thought and family life in Texas, features an episode where protagonist Hank Hill, an av-erage Texas propane salesman, learns that he was born in New York City, thus soiling his ‘true Texan heritage’ and barring him from receiving a license plate denoting his birth in Texas. After finding out that Hank was born in New York, his friends mercilessly mock him, questioning his political views and stance on certain issues such as the econo-my and job placement. While this show is fictional, its satirical nature does give some insight into the fact that Americans from the Midwest and South often view New York-ers as ‘liberal capitalists’ and criticize them for only looking out for their own interests.

Whether it is known for being the first capital of the nation, the home of so-cialites such as Mrs. Astor, or a gentrified ‘playground for the wealthy’, New York has always represented everything that is uniquely American, a mesh of cultures liv-ing in coexistence. Many Americans can trace their ancestry to the halls of Ellis Is-land, and have a sentimental spot in their heart for New York, best shown through the sympathetic response to the events of Sep-tember 11th. However, negative opinions of New York will remain until the media por-trays it more sympathetically and captures the diversity and complexity of the city.

1998 1999 2000 200620052004200320022001

1990sPage 4

THe oTHeR side


With the Centers for Disease Control and Pre-vention classifying one third of U.S. adults as obese, health officials around the na-tion have spent the last few years sounding the alarm on what they consider a rampant

“obesity epidemic.” Obesity is cited as a drain on the health care sys-tem and taxpayer dollars; some even link it to global warming, claim-ing that an extra billion gallons of gas per year are used to transport fat travelers that take up more space on airplanes and automobiles.

Rather than opting for an emphasis on physical exercise or increased health education, local officials in New York and around the nation have devised more drastic measures: prohib-iting restaurants from serving food with unhealthy ingredi-

ents and requiring restaurants to display calorie counts for their dishes. While some people are relieved that city leaders have stepped in to solve our dietary woes, others have reacted with outrage, especially at the no-tion that the government should serve as our paternalistic supervisor.

One of the most fervent critics of such restaurant legislation is the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a nonprofit group of restaurants, consumers, and food corporations. The group coun-ters that one’s health is a matter of personal responsibility and op-poses any attempt by the government to limit personal choice, or “consumer freedom.” Laws that seek to police the public’s eat-ing habits will simply pave the way for an over-regulated “nanny state,” the CCF cautions, to the point that one day, one may no longer be able to enter a restaurant and order a dessert because the government will have judged that such fare is not good for us.

In December 2006, New York became the first U.S. city to mandate the elimination of artificial trans fats in all restaurants. The Board of Health voted unanimously to phase out the fats over an 18-month period. Restaurants were obliged to substitute oils, margarines, and shortening used for frying and spreading that con-tained more than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, by July 2007. Restaurants were granted an extra year – until July 1, 2008 – to re-

Give Me MyTrans Fats!

By Antonia Woodford

Recent bans on trans fats, encour-aged by nutritionists who pioneered their widespread use, have been embraced by the media and the na-tional government. But the Center for Consumer Freedom contends that the bans will not only be ineffective, but also compromise our right to eat what we want.

“If [obesity] is a disease, this is going to be the only disease in the country that you could solve by tak-ing long walks and keeping your mouth shut.”

- Rick Berman, Executive Director of the Center for Consumer Freedom.

www.indiaplaza.com

www.indiaplaza.com

Page 5

issue 4-

place the trans fats used in recipes for baked or deep-fried goods.Though trans fats are naturally found in animal products

such as milk, beef, and lamb, most of the trans fats consumed in a typical diet are produced industrially. Trans fats are unsatu-rated fats that have been partially hydrogenated (hydrogen atoms have been added to them, making them more saturated), increas-ing their shelf life and making them semi-solid. Trans fats have been commonly used to cook fast food, fried food, and baked goods since the 1990s, when activists proclaimed them to be suit-able alternatives to saturated fats. Yet trans fats have fallen under increased scrutiny since then: the American Heart Association (AHA) affirms that trans fats raise levels of “bad” cholesterol,

lower levels of “good” cholesterol, and contribute to heart disease.Although it acknowledges that trans fats are unhealthy, the

CCF argues that the hysteria surrounding them is exaggerated, a product of the “scare tactics” of hypocritical food activists. Satu-rated fats have all, if not more, of the detrimental health effects of trans fats, and they make up 14% of the average American diet. By contrast, trans fats only make up 3% of a typical diet, and 25% of these come from natural sources. Concern over saturated fat intake is what originally drove many restaurants and consumers to us-ing trans-fat-laden oils. Yet the same activists who promoted this switch 15 years ago are now attacking trans fats with a vengeance.

Opponents of New York’s trans fat ban have realized its po-tential to cause a reversion to saturated fats, especially since the media have lessened their negative coverage of saturated fats. The AHA itself expressed its disapproval of the ban on the grounds that it might have “unintended and adverse consequences, such as restau-rants returning to the use of oils high in saturated or animal-based fat if healthier oils are in short supply.” The short time frame allowed by the ban compounds this problem. Large fast-food corporations face the biggest challenge, since the recipe changes they make in New York will also be applied internationally. “It will be a matter of years before the crop supply is adequate to produce enough trans-fat-free oils for some restaurant chains,” noted Sheila Weiss, Director

of Nutrition Policy at the National Restaurant Association (NRA). The CCF and the NRA both took issue with the inflexibil-

ity of the ban and its narrow approach to improving health. Many of New York’s 24,000 restaurants were already voluntarily work-ing to make their meals healthier, Weiss said. Not only does it take a lot of time to grow, harvest and process new crops for alternative oils, but restaurants need to ensure that the taste of their food is preserved. Partially hydrogenated oils make pie crusts flaky, cook-

ies soft, and French fries crunchy. The CCF bemoaned the poten-tial disappearance of classic New York foods like black-and-white cookies if suitable alternative ingredients cannot be found in time.

Furthermore, “there are serious legal concerns about a mu-nicipal health agency banning a product or ingredient the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] has already approved,” the NRA declared in a December 2006 statement. In fact, the FDA cau-tions against a complete removal of trans fats from one’s diet, since trans fats in trace amounts are ubiquitous and “such extraordi-nary dietary changes” could “cause an inadequate intake of some nutrients and create health risks,” according to the FDA website.

Added to this is the lack of scientific consensus about the extent to which trans fats are harmful. Most experts agree that they increase the risk of heart disease, but claims linking them to cancer, diabetes, obesity, liver problems, and infertility have been alternately embraced and repudiated. One type of trans fat, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) has the potential to fight cancer, enhance immunity, and rid the body of artery-clogging plaque, Science News magazine reported in 2001.

The CCF maintains that the way to promote a healthy life-style is not by banning access to certain foods but by encouraging eating in moderation and physical exercise. Nutritional education is a positive step, but government regulation of food infringes upon consumer freedom, argues lobbyist Rick Berman, executive director of the CCF. Berman frequently derides the premise on which trans fat bans and other food legislation are based: that America is expe-

riencing an “epidemic” of obesity. “If [obesity] is a disease, this is going to be the only disease in the country that you could solve by taking long walks and keeping your mouth shut,” Berman said on an episode of 60 Minutes.

Addressing the problem of childhood obesity, the CCF points out that children’s caloric intake has remained the same over the last 20 years. What has changed is that children now pursue in-creasingly sedentary lifestyles. Similar facts hold true for the entire population: on av-erage, we consume the same amount of trans fats per day as in the 1960s, according to the Harvard School of Public Health. Yet technology, like cars and elevators, has cut down on the amount of physical activity we perform to move around, and TVs and comput-

“Trans fats have been used to cook food since the 1990s, when activists proclaimed them to

be suitable alternatives to saturated fats.”

“Saturated fats have all of the detrimental health effects of trans fats, and they make up

14% of the average American diet.”

“On average we consume the same amount of trans fats per day as in the 1960s, according

to the Harvard School of Public Health.”

dessertyears.files.wordpress.com

Page 6

THe oTHeR side


www.fortenbras.com

Page 7

ers lure us inside the house rather than outside. We must make getting an adequate amount of exercise our personal responsibility, and gov-ernment regulation of restaurants can only go so far in curbing obesity.

The New York City Board of Health provoked even more controversy with its January 2008 mandate on menu labeling. This legislation requires all restaurants with more than 15 out-lets nationwide to post calorie counts for all their meals, includ-ing beverages, in menus by March 31, 2008. Lawmakers reasoned that calorie information would make customers think twice before ordering certain dishes and help them make balanced choices. In addition, restaurants embarrassed by the high caloric content of their meals might be convinced to modify some of their recipes.

A similar law was passed in 2006 but was struck down by a fed-eral judge on the grounds that it had to be reworded. The New York State Restaurant Association (NYSRA) has filed a lawsuit to chal-lenge the new version of the regulation. Since the law compels chain restaurants to put the equivalent of a message on their menus, the NY-SRA argues that it infringes on restaurants’ First Amendment rights.

The NYSRA also takes issue with the fact that the law applies

only to chain restaurants. “If it were really true that putting calories on the menu boards was going to save hundreds of thousands of lives, you don’t stop at 10 percent of the restaurants,” said NYSRA lawyer Kent Yalowitz. While chain restaurants can provide this nu-tritional information relatively easily due to their standardized por-tions, many of them already provide such information online. The NYSRA argues that restaurants are willing to inform their consum-ers but do not judge menu labeling to be the most effective method of doing so. Menu labeling would make menus considerably more complicated and would likely add to customers’ confusion. After all, the labeling would simply be a number, with no distinction be-tween foods high in “good” calories and ones high in “bad” calories. In restaurants that allow customers to customize their orders, the calorie lists would either have to be incredibly long and detailed, or they would have to be approximations. As a result, the numbers would either be inaccurate or too time-consuming to sort through.

Furthermore, research has not proven that menu label-ing would help reduce obesity. In a statement submitted to the court on behalf of the NYSRA, Dr. David Allison, the soon-to-be president of the Obesity Society, suggested that the labeling might actually be detrimental to patrons’ health. Allison warned that high-calorie labels might only have a short-term effect in pre-venting overeating; people might eat less at the restaurant but be-come hungrier, so that they would eat even more later. Or, the la-bels might guide consumers to eat many low-calorie foods which in total contain more calories than a single, high-calorie meal.

The CCF echoes the arguments of the NYSRA and Allison in criticizing New York’s menu labeling law. As in its case against trans fat bans, the CCF reiterates that lack of physical activity is a more important contributor to obesity than the number of calories a per-son consumes. So far, some research suggests that cutting down on calories alone is not a sure-fire way to lose weight. Birds, for example, tend to gain weight when food is scarce, and our ancestors that were hunter-gatherers developed adaptations to store as much fat as possi-ble in the rare occasions that they had access to an ample food supply.

The CCF also points out that providing people with more knowledge about food won’t necessarily alter their behav-ior. Though the government has required nutritional labels on packaged foods since the 1990s, American’s haven’t shifted to a healthier eating regimen. The nutritional information we are presented with is often meaningless, since even experts cannot agree on the relative health benefits of many foods. Menu label-ing could also make restaurants even more vulnerable to obesity lawsuits. Chain restaurants serve meals in fairly standardized por-tions, but in no way can they make sure that each burger is served alongside exactly the same number of French fries for each patron.

Above all, the CCF sees menu labeling as another indi-cation that the government does not trust citizens to think for themselves and make their own choices. “There’s a huge dif-ference between personal responsibility and dietary paternal-ism,” wrote Berman in a 2007 newspaper editorial. “Legisla-tors and nutrition activists want to turn personal meals into public affairs, wedging legislation between you and your waistline.”

Such legislation will cut away at Americans’ right to “guilt-free” eating, the CCF cautions. Whether we like it or not, every visit to a fast-food outlet will become a guilt trip as we contemplate calorie counts plastered on the menus. People who have no reason to worry

Rick Berman, under fire:

The Executive Direc-tor of the Center for Consumer Freedom has been criticized by nu-merous supporters of government regulation of consumer spending.

“Berman’s a real bottom feeder.”- Center for Science in the Public Interest Executive Director Michael Jacobson

“Anyone who criticizes tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods, or soda pop is likely to come under attack from Berman’s front groups.”- PRWatch.org

“[Even] a stopped clock is right twice a day.”-VegSource Interactive Inc. President Jeff Nelson

“… I find most of his business views anti-safety and anti-health. Indeed, he has been a one-man wrecking crew on important issues.” -National Safety Council Public Affairs Executive Director Chuck Hurley

“It ought to call itself the Center for Corporate Freedom.”-Jeff Cronin, the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

issue 4-

Trans fats at HM

New York City’s trans fat ban applies not only to restaurant meals but also to food served in caf-

eterias and hospitals, said Bill Mueller, Director of Dining Services for Flik at Horace Mann. Nevertheless, the Decem-ber 2006 legislation had a nominal effect on the HM cafeteria, which has been trans-fat-free since Flik’s arrival in 1997.

“In terms of the oil that we cook in, we haven’t used anything with trans fats in it for about 11 years,” said Muel-ler. Instead, the cafeteria uses two types of non-hydrogenated oils: one that is 100% canola oil and one which is 90% canola oil and 10% olive oil. These oils have more mono-unsaturated and poly-unsaturated fats, considered “good” fats, and less saturated fat, than other cooking oils, in accordance with the Flik Food and Nutrition Philosophy.

Executive Chef Jerry Kalicha-ran said he eliminated all oils contain-ing trans fats from the menu when he began working at HM in 1997. “The cafeteria had been using trans fat oil; it’s like lard, everyone used to use it,” he said. “I got rid of it immediately when I

got here.” Having cooked “upscale” food for law firms before coming to HM, Kalicharan was already accustomed to using healthier oils, he said. However, “the switch from trans fats was difficult” initially for many people who ate at the cafeteria, he said. “We made so many changes, and some people didn’t like it.”

The packaged snacks sold in the cafeteria such as chips, cookies, and gra-nola bars have also been trans-fat-free for 11 years, said Mueller. Company policy does not allow the cafeteria’s purveyors to purchase goods containing trans fats, he said. Although the media’s disparage-ment of trans fats is relatively recent, “We always try to be ahead of the curve,” Muel-ler said of Flik. “We’re always health-con-scious in what we provide to students.”

Kalicharan said he is strongly in fa-vor of both New York City’s trans fat ban and its menu-labeling bill. The menu-labeling bill, which requires chain restau-rants to display calorie counts, does not apply to privately-owned food providers such as Flik, he said. However, the bill “is very helpful,” he said. “If you’re on a diet, you can observe how much you take in. Some people really don’t know what they’re putting in their mouths,

what ingredients are put in the food.” For example, “some chefs love

to cook with heavy cream and butter,” which are high in saturated fat, Kalicha-ran said. The HM cafeteria substitutes vegetable margarine for butter. Except for the fried food, all the cafeteria’s of-ferings are prepared fresh daily, said Kalicharan. “We cook everything from scratch, and we use no artificial in-gredients. The entrées are all-natural.”

Kalicharan said he would like to eliminate, or at least minimize, the sale of fried foods such as French fries and moz-zarella sticks. However, he said that the cafeteria’s menu is ultimately dependent upon students’ tastes. The cafeteria’s re-sponsibility is to provide healthy options, added Mueller, but it is up to the students to make good choices. “If I know the stu-dents will stop eating fried food, I will have more healthy selections for them,” said Kalicharan. “But that’s not the case.”

about their weight may actually be adversely affected, Berman notes; while the media has deplored the “obesity epidemic,” the number of Americans with eating disorders, such as anorexia, has almost tripled.

Ultimately, the debate boils down to this: given that obesity is a health risk caused by personal decisions, is the government obliged to limit our freedom of choice? Many activists have drawn an unwar-ranted comparison between government regulation of smoking and government regulation of food. Although the CCF would defend one’s right both to smoke and to eat to excess in a restaurant, the harmful effects of smoking extend to more than just the individual. Secondhand smoke from one person’s cigarette endangers every-one in the restaurant; overeating poses no such communal threat. Thus, the government can justify smoking bans because they pre-vent individuals from exposing the greater community to danger.

The most fervent health activists have claimed that obese individuals do, in fact, constitute a threat to the rest of us: they “steal” money from the health care system. Yet a team of Dutch scientists has disproved this common assumption. While obese

and overweight people incur more medical costs than slim-mer patients, they also die significantly sooner. In a study pub-lished in the journal PLoS Medicine, the team found that obese people have higher yearly health costs than smokers and “healthy-living” people until the age of 56; however, “healthy-living” people end up with the greatest lifetime health expenses.

We can reasonably conclude that eating should remain a very personal affair. People ordering unhealthy food in a restau-rant harm only themselves, so they should be free to decide what they eat. Berman has been criticized for asserting that the gov-ernment’s micromanaging of our food will never stop, until the point when a server can deny us food outright. Ironically, law-makers in Mississippi have proposed a bill to allow exactly that. If passed, House Bill 282 would prohibit state-licensed restau-rants from serving obese customers. Such a law would not only be humiliating, but it would suggest that American citizens are incapable of making their own decisions. In at least some areas of our lives, consumer freedom is still a cause worth fighting for.

www.vincenzosfamilypizza.com

Page 8

THe oTHeR side


There are few, if any, Horace Mann students who, caught up in the grind of life, tests, and extracurricular activities, stop to think of how our public school peers see us. “We hate you,” said a sophomore from Hunter College

High School. “We think you’re a bunch of privileged, intellectual snobs.” She breaks into a grin. “Of course, I am

only kidding.” But, as extreme as the state-ment sounded, it might not have been as far

from the truth as people might think.Say “private school” to any public

school student, and more likely than not, images of an aloof enclave of wealthy school-goers are instantly conjured up in the student’s mind. In fact, to provide some informal testimony on the matter, I

conducted a survey among some public school acquaintances

t o g a u g e their reac-tion at my at-tending private school. A major-ity of them instantly assumed I was rich. “Oh, you go to private school,” said one student from Brooklyn Technical High School, with an air of distaste. “Wait, so you’re loaded, right?” asked another from Stuyvesant High School.

A comparison between public and independent schools reveals a reasonable ba-sis for their assumptions. Differences in the facilities, funding, class sizes, and course se-lections, among several other factors, provide ample space for animosity from public school students. First of all, there is a considerable discrepancy in the facilities of public and pri-vate schools. Horace Mann has an entire set of tennis courts, a separate building to house two gyms and a swimming pool, as well as two full-

size fields and a five-building complex that contains a cafeteria, library, theatre and multiple computer labs. Most public schools have only one building to place their facilities in, and the major-ity of New York public schools do not own a field, resorting in-stead to using nearby parks as recreational space. Since the Board of Education funds public schools in NY, and there are so many schools in the city to fund, only a limited percent-age of the total budget could be allocated to a specific school (an average of $14,119 per student in New York, $13,755 in NYC). Thus, due to the lack of appropriate monetary support, public schools usu-ally have less to spend in improvement of their facilities than do private schools funded by their students’ tuitions.

In order to attract parents and stu-dents to the independent school in the first place, several posi-

t i v e aspects

are used to promote its

appeal, one be-ing the size of the

average class in the school. A smaller class

would usually translate to a more intimate and personal

learning atmosphere for students, as teachers would have more time to

spend with each individually. Truthfully, while private schools like Horace Mann tend

to have 15 or 16 students in a room per lesson, public high schools have an average of 25 students in one class, with numbers sometimes approach-ing 30. The result of the inflated student numbers is a less effective learning environment. While there are more classmates to interact with and to learn from, the teacher, who could not possibly meet personally with every student, has a hard-er time pinpointing which students need help while progressing with the rest at a steady speed.

In order to be effective in the class, truly

Posh PersonaBy Kevin Lin

Public School Students Reveal their Views ofHorace Mann and Private School Life

Privat

ePublic

Richard D. Kahlenberg

Page 9

issue 4- THe oTHeR side

stellar educators are required. However, with school funding determined more and more by standardized performance tests, teachers are given less elbowroom for creativity. They are told to teach the tests, or to follow standard formulas that produce high test scores, but low retention rates. Thus, potentially inspiring teachers who join the profession for a chance to express personal creativity and to work with children could find themselves ulti-mately disappointed by a soul-crushing bureaucracy established in the public systems under the wrong incentive. Educators al-

ready pressured by poor salaries, few benefits, student disciplin-ary issues and heavy teaching loads, are further oppressed by re-strictions on material and pushed towards jobs elsewhere. Thus, public schools, under the quotas enforced by the Board of Edu-cation, find themselves hemmed in by required minimum stan-dards and forced to adopt curricula that they do not agree with. In private schools, teachers are given a good amount of freedom to plan their own syllabi and to use their own creativity to run the class any way they wish. Few statewide or citywide standards have to be met, and the school does not need the government to provide money. Thus, private schools provide a good envi-ronment for new teachers to gain experience and to experiment.

A greater the variety of teachers generally translates to more extensive course selections. Teachers who are knowl-edgeable enough to specialize in multiple courses bring unique classes to the school. While public schools have the standard

foreign languages of French, Spanish and Italian, few offer Latin and Japanese, and almost none have Russian, German or Korean. Many students of the public school system expressed envy at the wide range of foreign languages offered; in addi-tion, few have even heard of a Theatre Production and Design class at a high school. Aside from La Guardia High School, which specializes in the arts, only a small smattering of schools offer more art classes than the usual drawing and painting.

The key distinguishing factor between the school sys-tems is the high tuition for private schools. There are a large number of gifted and talented students in the public school system who would thrive given the possibility to attend an in-dependent school. The only reason all the gifted students of New York City do not flock to a school like Horace Mann is the high price tag that accompanies the improved facilities, the wide range of classes and the better teacher quality. The cost of tuition for Horace Mann itself is more than $30,000, and the average cost of private non-sectarian schooling in 2000 was recorded at $12,363, widening the socioeconomic divides between public school students and private school students.

It is easy to see how public school students came to view private school students as wealthy and exclusive. Of those who were interviewed (two students from Hunter College High School, one from New Explorations in Science, Technology and Mathematics, one from Stuyvesant High School and one from Brooklyn Technical High School), four of them stereotyped stu-dents in private schools as children who were somewhat spoiled. The student from Brooklyn Tech stated that she believed all pri-vately educated students were driven back and forth by chauf-feurs, had iPhones and wore clothing sets that cost thousands of dollars. Doubtlessly, these generalizations were drawn from the cost of tuition and the image of the stereotypical upscale child.

However, not all those who go to private schools, or those who go to Horace Mann even, fit into that specified pi-geonhole. Many private schools in New York are extremely inclusive in their selection of attendees, accepting even stu-dents who are not so financially well off. Financial aid is given out to those who need it, and in 2005 - 2006, 18% of Horace Mann students received more than $6,000,000 in fi-nancial aid. Thus, the stereotypes of private schools and its students are, for a good amount of its intended targets, false.

Fortunately, many public school students feel neutral about private schools. Just as we are occupied with our own Riverdale, Hackley and Poly Prep, public schools have their own Townsend Harris, Hunter College and Stuyvesant High to worry about.

“Thus, potentially inspiring teachers...find themselves ultimately disappointed by a

soul-crushing bureaucracy established in the public systems.”

“She believed all privately educates students were driven back and forth by chauffeurs,

had iPhones and wore clothing sets that cost thousands of dollars.”

Paul Peterson/Elena LlaudetPrivat

e

Page 10


In the words of environmental champion Al Gore, “the debate [regarding global warming] in the sci-entific community is over.” Should it be? Is it really over? Is global warming really a catastrophic setback? Gore and the other environmental alarmists insist

that greenhouse gases are the primary source for global warming, claiming that the recent warming trend results from the trapping of heat in the lower atmosphere by these gases. Eco-activists quiv-er at the “planetary emergency” supposedly due to global warm-ing, with melting polar caps, rising sea levels, more storms and harmful weather, and the expansion of tropical diseases. However, restrictions proposed by environmentalists regarding the emis-sion of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants are not only useless, but harmful as they cause widespread panic and scare over untrue or exaggerated effects of global warming.

Global warming is not caused by the accumulation of green-house gases and carbon dioxide; natural causes are the primary determinants to climate change. From 1998 to 2007, the mean global temperature remained constant even though carbon diox-ide levels in the atmosphere increased by 4%. According to Rus-sian scientist Khabibullo Abdusamatov, the temperature should have increased at least .1 degree Celsius (.25 degrees Fahren-heit) if there really is a direct correlation between carbon diox-ide quantity and temperature. In other words, greenhouse gases have been shown not to influence changes in global temperature.

In addition, history shows us that general increases in global temperature have occurred before the burning of fossil fuels and defor-

estation. The period between 900 AD and 1300 AD, which is referred to as the Medieval Warming Period, saw temperatures rise about 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit. During this time, the levels of CO2 and green-house gases remained constant, as industrialization did not emerge until more than half a millennium later. If the temperature increased without human influence, how are most scientists so quick to assume that man-made emissions are the cause of the present warming trend?

After 1300, the world plunged into the Little Ice Age, which would last for more than 500 years, to around 1815. Over the course of the 20th century, the temperatures have increased around one degree Fahrenheit—to a level still below global temperature averages in 1300. However, most of this warming occurred between 1900 and 1940, a time at which greenhouse gases were not being emitted into the atmosphere at a significant rate. From 1940 to 1970, temperatures actually became cooler, although during this period the emission of fossil carbon emis-sions increased by 220 %, from 1.25 billion tons to 4 billion in 1970. So while man-made emissions more than doubled during this time peri-od, global temperatures actually decreased. Environmentalists conve-niently choose to ignore climate changes that have taken place in the past, insisting that greenhouse gases are to blame for global warming. The only evidence they cite is the direct relationship between carbon dioxide levels and temperature over the past century; however, these graphs do not take into account pre-industrial warming changes.

Global warming is really caused by changes in solar activity- radiation emitted from the Sun. The amount of radiation, somewhat surprisingly, directly corresponds with the number of sunspots, which are regions of the Sun that are darker than their surrounding areas

the about

By Brenton Arnaboldi

How Eco-Activists have Lied to the World

Globalbal

www.stardate.org

www.spacetoday.org

Page 11

issue 4-

because of their lower temperatures. Although sunspots are cooler regions than the other parts of the Sun, solar radiation increases be-cause bright regions known as faculae tend to form near sunspots, totally canceling out the cooling effect. Astrologists have observed sunspots with telescopes since 1600, during the Little Ice Age. At the time, there were roughly 30 sunspots; between 1650 and 1700, sun-spots were virtually non-existent. This decrease in number of sun-spots, known as the “Maunder Minimum,” brought uncommonly cold temperatures. Since the Dalton Minimum in the early 1800s, the amount of sunspots has steadily increased, reaching a high of 250 at around the year 1950. This rise in sunspots directly relates to the tem-peratures increase that has occurred over the past century. Based on the data solar radiation due to sunspots, not increased levels of green-

house gases in the atmosphere, is responsible for global warming.However, there is another, perhaps more pressing problem

with the current global warming craze: while eco-activists con-tinually warn others of “chaos” and “disaster” that results from global warming, the actual effects of global warming are almost the opposite. In stark contrast to the images of global warming that environmentalists plant in the minds of the general public, global warming will prove to be beneficial to the global community.

Once again, history provides us with overwhelming evidence. During the Medieval Warming period, when global temperatures rose to roughly equivalent levels to predicted temperatures in 2100, societies around the world prospered greatly. Warmer temperatures resulted in more productive harvests, which resulted in less famine, longer life expectancies, increased trade, and cultural enhancement.

During this warm period, the Vikings navigated across the North Atlantic and settled in Greenland and Iceland, two areas in the vicinity of the Arctic Circle. At the time their arrival, both is-lands were lush with vegetation, providing plenty of usable and arable land. Both colonies prospered for a couple hundred years until the world plunged into the Little Ice Age in 1300. A slight cooling spelled complete disaster for Greenland’s Norse inhabit-ants; poor harvests resulted in crippling famines, and the Scandi-navian colony had completely collapsed by the mid-15th century.

Global warming should not be viewed as an apocalypse, but should rather be seen as a blessing. Crop production will be en-hanced by numerous factors associated with global warming. The growing season will be lengthened, allowing more time for culti-vation. In addition, a warmer climate means that CO2 levels will be higher, as oceans and other bodies of water will release carbon dioxide. An abundance of carbon dioxide will benefit plants and vegetation for a variety of reasons. First of all, plants regularly use CO2 in photosynthesis to make glucose, so more carbon dioxide translates into the production of more glucose. In addition, plants use the excess carbon dioxide to utilize water more efficiently by restricting the departure of water through the pores, or stomata. Tests and experiments show that doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase agricultural production by 52%. In

fact, global warming has already made a positive impact on ag-riculture, contributing to the world’s grain production soaring from 700 million tons in 1950 to more than 2 billion tons in 2004.

Contrary to what many eco-activists claim, global warm-ing will bring less severe weather as well. Environmentalists argue that climates would become destabilized by the increase of tem-peratures, resulting in more droughts, floods, and other storms. However, global warming would actually reduce the amount of storms. Once again, during the warm era of the Medieval Warm-ing Period, it was noted that weather patterns had become much more stable and predictable, as the number of floods, droughts, and storms decreased dramatically. In fact, the weather became much more erratic after 1300 as the world plummeted into the Little Ice Age. The disasters environmentalists associate with global warming actually increased during a time of global cooling.

Global warming will limit stormy weather because an in-crease of the sun’s radiation will affect the polar regions more than the areas near the equator. Therefore, the temperature gra-dient from the equator to the poles is not nearly as large, as ra-diation is more equally distributed throughout the world. Tem-perature differences are not nearly as drastic, which means that fewer storms arise. The relative absence of storms occurs because contact between cold and warm air masses becomes infrequent. Therefore, global warming brings less unpredictable weather.

Eco-Activists also assert that tropical diseases such as ma-laria will expand into temperate regions heated by global warm-ing. However, tropical diseases will not spread into areas far from the equator because global warming will not have a tremendous impact on tropical climates near the Equator. Therefore, the range of malaria-causing agents such as mosquitoes will hardly broaden, and the spread of tropical diseases should not be a major concern.

Lastly, global warming will not cause the rise of sea levels. Sca-remongers claim that the melting of polar ice caps will lead to higher ocean levels and the drowning of coastal areas. While this proposi-tion initially seems to be correct, recent studies say otherwise. Glob-al warming, believe it or not, will actually increase the size of polar ice caps since warmer air brings more moisture to the atmosphere. The ice caps build off of snowfall, so more moisture and precipitation means more polar ice. Since the ice caps expand, not recede, with warmer weather, sea levels should actually drop as a result of global warming.

Eco-activists and the majority of politicians continue to de-nounce global warming as an international crisis. Hans Blix, the UN’s chief weapon inspector from 2000 to 2003, once said, “I am more worried about global warming than I am of any other conflict.” This statement is simply ridiculous, and it shows how willing influential figures are to listen to the exaggerated and misleading claims of envi-ronmental alarmists. Global warming does not come close to a great-er threat to mankind than the possibility of nuclear warfare. Rather than seeking out ways to stop global warming, the world should bet-ter spend resources taking advantage of the natural warming trend.

“Since the polar ice caps expand, not recede, with warmer weather, sea levels should actu-

ally drop as a result of global warming.

“In stark contrast to the image of global warm-ing painted by eco-activists, global warming will be beneficial to the global community.”

Page 12

THe oTHeR side


Ethanol ScamAmerica is in the midst of an energy crisis. Oil

prices have soared above $100 per barrel, and each barrel the public consumes puts American dollars in foreign markets and destroys our en-vironment. American politicians and scientists

have frantically searched for the miracle solution to our perilous energy crisis. The answer: ethanol. Ethanol has been deemed the silver bullet to solve America’s seemingly unsolvable energy crisis. After all, ethanol would decrease greenhouse gas emissions, lower dependency on foreign oil, and put money back into the hands of the American farmer, according to the proponents. “Everything about ethanol is good, good, good,” said Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a fervent advocate of ethanol use. These misconceptions about the benefits of ethanol are at the heart of the ethanol problem.

Ethanol produced in the United States is derived from corn that is used mainly as feed for livestock. Ethanol has been used as a fuel source since 1908, but it was not until the oil embargoes of the 1970s that ethanol became a visible American fuel source. The oil embargoes of the seventies brought America’s foreign oil dependency to the public forefront and ethanol was promoted as a solution. Simi-lar to the seventies, today America faces an oil crisis, and once again it has made the mistake of deeming ethanol the miracle solution.

Despite public perception that ethanol is a green energy source, there are many environmental problems associated with ethanol pro-duction. A study recently published in the academic journal Science states that corn-based ethanol, the type of ethanol currently being pro-duced in America, will nearly double the output of greenhouse-gas emissions, contrary to the proponents’ estimate that it would reduce them by about one-fifth. What is the reason for such a stark contrast

How politicians have touted ethanol at the expense of the nation’s environment, economy, and farmers

By Nick Herzeca

Mini-powerplants are required to generate ethanol because it is so energy-intensive. Filling up an SUV requires enough corn to feed

one person’s calorie needs for a whole year.

Energy Justice Network

Rolling Stone Magazine

Cars.Blogs.Ca

Page 13

issue 4-

between these two estimates? Earlier estimates did not take into account the increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the destruction of natural ecosystems necessary to grow corn to convert to ethanol. This process not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when the ecosystems are burned and plowed with petroleum fertilizers but also deprives the planet of natural ecological sponges that absorb car-bon emissions. Also, planting one acre of corn requires the equivalent of 110 gallons of gasoline to fertilize, harvest, and transport the corn.

“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that peo-ple are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of an etha-nol study and a researcher in environment and economics at Prince-ton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis,” he added. According to Jo-seph Fargione, a scientist at the Nature Conservancy, the clearance of grassland for corn production intended for ethanol releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land. The increased production of ethanol would decrease existing forestland, and increase harmful carbon emissions.

Not only is ethanol detrimental to the environment, but it is also an inefficient source of energy. The ratio of the amount of energy pro-duced to energy consumed in the production for ethanol 1.3:1. Gaso-line, on the other hand, has an energy output to input ratio of 5:1. “Corn ethanol is essentially a way of recycling natural gas,” says Robert Rapier, an oil-industry engineer who runs the R-Squared Energy Blog, because it takes nearly just as much energy to produce as it yields. Also, ethanol contains one-third less energy than gasoline does, which means that you burn three times more ethanol to get the same amount of energy as gasoline would provide. It would take so much corn to meet our energy demands that, as University of Minnesota economists Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer point out, filling the gas tank of an SUV requires enough corn to feed one person’s calorie needs for a whole year. Even if the United States dedicates its entire corn supply to ethanol produc-tion, it would only replace twelve percent of our current gasoline use.

One of the biggest reasons for the growing support of ethanol is that it is perceived as a viable economic solution to our energy cri-sis. Gas prices have soared in recent years, and the oil supply is dwin-dling, making long-term price increases seem inevitable. However, recent increases in ethanol production have actually hurt the econo-

my. America’s current ethanol production yields only 3.5 percent of our total fuel consumption, yet it consumes nearly twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn crop. Driving so much of our corn crop towards the production of ethanol has caused the price of corn to double in the last two years, because of the smaller supply of corn devoted to food. Most fuels that contain ethanol are a blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline. Corn products dominate the American food industry, and this rise in corn prices could prove to be very costly. Over one-third of everything on American grocery store shelves contains corn products, so these products will increase in price, making it more difficult for low income families to feed themselves. Since livestock

are fed 60% of the corn in the U.S., the rising price of corn due to ethanol production as an alternate energy source has caused the price of beef, poultry and pork in the United States to rise in 2007.

Since the U.S. exports two-thirds of the world’s corn sup-ply, the effects have been felt around the world. Tortillas, the main food source of lower income families in Mexico, have increased in price by 400%. Due to corn’s role as a feed for livestock, pork prices in China have increased 29%. These damaging, interna-

tional effects of ethanol have increased the threat of world hunger. Not only has the increase in ethanol increased food prices, most notably cereal, it also poses a major threat to American farmers.

American farmers are starting to feel the repercussions of in-creased ethanol production. While increased corn prices are good for corn farmers, they are devastating for livestock farmers, who use corn as a main source of feed. Increasing the price of corn as a feed increases the cost of owning livestock for farmers. Many dairy farm-ers use corn as feed, and because of the increase in the price of corn, there has been a transition away from dairy farming, causing the price of dairy products to soar. Karl Chittenden, a farmer in Colum-bia County, New York, said that the increase of corn prices has forced him to sell his dairy cattle, and replace them with beef cattle, which primarily feed on grass. He also said that this has become a growing trend in the last year among the upstate New York farming commu-nity. Mr. Chittenden is lucky that he has enough land to allow his beef cattle to graze on grass, but other small-scale dairy farmers will have to pay the price for ethanol’s increased production. Ethanol’s produc-tion has not just affected corn prices, but also other crops that we eat. Farmers who used to grow wheat instead decide to grow corn, due to its increase in price, which has caused the price of wheat to double this year. Also, the increase of corn prices has caused farmland prices to reach their highest levels in twenty-five years, since the cost of farm-ing livestock has increased. If ethanol becomes America’s main source of fuel, the American farmer will suffer, and so will the consumer.

This year’s presidential election has been a catalyst for ethanol support. During the Iowa caucuses, in the largest corn-producing state in the nation, former ethanol critics such as Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain praised the “benefits” of ethanol. Earlier this year, Sen. Barack Obama pleased his agricultural supporters in Illinois by co-authoring legislation to increase production of biofuels, such as etha-nol, to 60 billion gallons by 2030. A few weeks later, Democrat John Edwards pledged to up the ante to 65 billion gallons by 2025. Politi-cians often support the popular solution, without considering its nega-tive ramifications, evidenced by this ethanol scam. This political band-wagon sings the praises of ethanol, but as with many political issues, it is imperative to delve into the facts to get the truth. The deforestation of American woodland for corn production causes the production of ethanol to increase the emissions of greenhouse gases. The increase in corn prices due to emerging ethanol production has increased the threat of world hunger, and has put many farmers at risk. The etha-nol craze is just another rash, forced solution to a difficult problem.

“Even if the United States dedicates its entire corn supply to ethanol production,

it would only replace twelve percent of our current gasoline use.”

“While increased corn prices are good for corn farmers, they are devastating for livestock farmers, who use corn as a

main source of feed.”

Ethanol Scam

Page 14

THe oTHeR side


In 1998 scientists developed a technique of isolating and growing embryonic stem cells from their first week of de-velopment. Eight years later, the issue of embryonic stem cell research has grown into a scientific, political, and re-ligious controversy. Stem cells, found in all multi-cellu-

lar organisms, have the ability to differentiate into over two hundred types of specialized cells. Adult stem cells, in contrast, are found in adult tissue and do not harm a person when extracting the cells; these cells, however, did not have the ability until recently to differentiate into every stem cell type. Because of this ability, embryonic stem cells could theoretically potentially replace any defective organ or body tissue. The problem, however, is in order to obtain the embryonic stem cells, the embryo and the potential child must be destroyed. Al-ternatives to using embryonic stem cells, aided by the United States

government’s response, are both unshackled by ethical constraints and proven to be just as promising as embryonic stem cell research.

Though some claim that the embryo killed in the pro-cess of extracting stem cells is not “alive,” overwhelming evi-dence shows that the embryo is distinctly human. “I don’t think it should be considered an individual,” said Dr. Sundar Jagan-nath, a pioneer in blood stem cell transplantation, “but yet, the potential is that it could be later on be implanted and be made into the individual.” At the point of stem cell extraction, the em-bryo does not have any of the vital organs or definitive limbs. Yet this embryo will become a human being; members of conservative groups find the embryo basically “a living, breathing, baby child.”

An innate reaction of all organisms to discomfort, pain dem-onstrates that animals are “feeling” – that they respond to external

SAVING OUR STEM CELLS

ABC of AU

Philip Macdiarmid

EXTRACTED BY ARADHNA AGARWAL

Page 15

issue 4-

stimuli. For a long time many experts were under the presumption that newborns did not feel pain because of the belief that newborn’s immune systems were not properly developed. Recent studies by Kanwaljeet Anand have shown, on the contrary, that not only do newborns feel pain, but fetuses can feel pain at the age of 20 weeks, with a considerable amount of repetitive evidence that even em-bryos at the age of 8 to 10 weeks may be able to feel pain as well. For this reason, the killing of a blastocyst (the beginning stages of embryo development) it is no different than killing a living child.

Leniency on policies dealing with embryonic stem cell research will be disastrous. Conservatives are severely concerned that scien-tists would pay money for the use of embryos and people would con-ceive simply for monetary benefits. “Sometimes you have to put some harsh rules and then people will [negotiate],” says Dr. Jagganath. “If you [make] it all easy, then I tell you there will be rogue scientists who will do whatever he wants to do and then it will be too late.” Similar to the pressure to use the atomic bomb by the government in World War II, scientists might be pressured by the government to produce results that would involve unconventional methods. All of these issues would be completely disrespectful to the potential child in question.

Pressure for scientists comes not only from the government, but from society. The number one source of suppression of embry-onic stem cell research has been society’s unwillingness to accept the gruesome aspects of embryonic stem cell research. The continua-tion of embryonic stem cell research to a greater scale has primarily been inhibited by our society’s ethical concerns. Over one third of Americans are strongly opposed to the continuation of embryonic stem cell research; conservative and religious groups are among the groups that are the most vehemently opposed. “For [the sci-entists],” says Steve Bowers, a conservative blogger, “it is all about another excuse to justify the further devaluation of human life.”

Despite the view of liberals, the federal government’s response has been reasonable in terms of their stem cell policies and has become more lenient as the years passed. The Dickey amendment was passed in 1995 which prohibited any federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that resulted in the death of the embryo. When scientists dis-covered a way of isolating embryonic stem cells in 1998, the Clinton administration reconsidered their policy, but the amendment that they tried to past was delayed because the entering Bush administra-

tion wanted to reconsider the policy. Later in 2001, the Bush Admin-istration agreed to provide federal funding only to the existing stem cell lines. These policies were very sensible because they prompted scientists to explore alternatives to embryonic stem cells, produc-ing extraordinary and promising results. Without the limitations of embryonic research, scientists would have continued pursuing the field of embryonic stem cell research, killing innocent children. Says Dr. Jagannath, “there will always be other ways to find a solution.”

Restrictions on embryonic research meanwhile have pushed scientists to explore other options. The issue with adult stem cell research that have made embryonic stem cell research a more de-sirable field is that adult stem cells cannot differentiate into every kind of cell type and are difficult to work with. However, unlike embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells have proven to show results – despite their setbacks. They have been used very successfully in bone marrow transplants and treating immune disorders, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Though they have not been able to treat diseases such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease, the progress in the field of adult stem cell research has been at a much faster rate than that of embryonic stem cells. “At this particular time, sci-ence will still progress,” says Dr. Sundar Jagannath. “Even study-ing cancer [with other methods] will give us more insight in un-derstanding – you don’t have to [use] the embryonic stem cells.”

In November of 2007, two groups of scientists discovered a way of reprogramming virtually any cell in the human body into a cell able to function as an embryonic stem cell. With this new breakthrough, there is very little reason to even consider embryonic stem cell research. “The induced cells do all the things embryonic stem cells do – it’s go-ing to completely change the field,” says Professor James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Scientists used the “new” adult stem cells to create heart and brain tissue which was considered by many scientists to be impossible. Less than two weeks later, the heart muscle tissue created by these new adult stem cells started beating.

The negatives of embryonic stem cell research have heavily outweighed the positives and are continuing to do so as new dis-coveries emerge. The price of life is too great a price to pay, espe-cially when there are safe, effective alternatives. It may take some time before all scientists accept these alternatives, but embry-onic stem cell research has always been a field destined for death.

Adult stem cell research offers similar treatment than embryonic stem cells without the moral hazards.

Corbis Images David Kennedy

Page 16

THe oTHeR side


Every year, unintended pregnancies disrupt the lives of countless young women. Consulting a doctor and aborting the pregnancy may be the best choice for some of these women. But there is vehement opposi-tion to abortion from people who identify themselves

as pro-life and reject a women’s right to choose. Their rationales, fam-ily backgrounds, levels of education, and jobs may vary. They do, how-ever, hold one common belief: abortion is murder. Pro-life advocates contend that a fetus’s fundamental right to life is more important than a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body. As the 2008 election looms, abortion politics are becoming evermore pressing. The next president will likely select multiple Supreme Court nominees, and the appointment of a pro-life justice will bring the Court one vote closer to overturning Roe vs. Wade. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, abortion will likely be outlawed in many parts of the country, satisfying pro-lifers.

The opposition to a woman’s right to choose stems from both moral and scientific standpoints. In theology, a fetus becomes a person when the soul is created. However, scientifically, the debate becomes more complicated. The scientific debate revolves around the question of when a fetus becomes a “person.” Pro-lifers point to the fetus’ early developments to argue that abortion is murder. The heart starts beating between 18 and 25 days, and the brain and all body systems are pres-ent, but not developed, by 8 weeks and begin functioning a month later. At 8 weeks, the baby is able to fall asleep and wake up, suck his or her thumb, get the hiccups, and cough. At the end of 9 weeks, the baby has unique fingerprints. By 12 weeks, the baby is sensitive to heat, touch, light, and noise; all body systems are working completely. Therefore, the baby is fully developed before the mother even notices pregnancy.

Pro-lifers point to the fetus’ early developments to argue that abortion is murder. According to pro-lifers, a glob of protoplasm is just as human as anybody else. Separating ‘more or less human,’ and giving anyone the ability to ‘murder’ those considered ‘less human’ because

they serve little economic or social use can easily justify any degree of inhumane action. As one pro-lifer, Dr. Willke, put it, “A human will now be allowed to exist only if he measures up to certain standards of independence, physical perfection, or utilitarian usefulness to oth-ers.” Moreover, because fetuses are not dead, they are, by default, alive.

For women who do not have the financial means to raise a child, there are services that can help shoulder the burden of child care and en-able the women to keep the baby. According to pro-life advocates, having inadequate finances to raise a child should not be an excuse to abort be-cause of these services. Pat Evans, the director of Birthright, a pregnancy crisis center in Annapolis, Maryland, said about a typical single mother, “She probably gets $225 a month on welfare, and there’s food stamps, WIC [nutrition aid to women, infants, and children], and medical as-sistance.” The aid is tremendously helpful for young women struggling to pay the price of motherhood and makes raising a baby possible for anyone, according to pro-lifers. Additionally, there are privately funded pregnancy centers like the one run by Pat Evens scattered all across America, and they offer women free emotional and financial support.

For most pro-life activists, the battle to outlaw abortion is a grass-roots effort. Many organizations such as the Pro-Life Action League maintain a presence outside abortion clinics to provide sidewalk coun-seling, a practice so pervasive that it has been outlawed in some com-munities. Protests such as the “Face the Truth” tour are designed to sway prospective abortion patients into looking at other alternatives. At these rallies, pro-life activists protest abortion by “holding pictures of beautiful unborn babies and huge graphic signs of aborted babies.” “We line the roads at major intersections, to show Americans the truth about abor-tion,” according to the Pro-Life Action Group. A “Face the Truth” tour can dissuade a pregnant woman from aborting her child. Dave and his girlfriend, a young Chicago couple, were told by an abortion clinic that their unborn baby was ‘like a little ball.’ They were convinced. Dave agreed to pay for the abortion. As they drove through downtown Chi-

-LifePrParadox

48-51 Days 56-60 Days 37-42 Days 26-32 Days

Fetal Development

Page 17

issue 4-

cago, they passed a “Face the Truth” rally. After seeing the pictures of aborted babies and being counseled by some of the activists, Dave and his girlfriend decided to keep their baby. The Pro-Life Action Group considers this a major victory. The motivation for many participants is religious, a response to Jesus telling his followers to “go forth and teach.” There is one common goal among organizations like the Pro-Life Ac-tion Group, protecting the rights of the unborn.

In the current abortion debate, there are few organizations as outspoken against a woman’s right to choose as the Catholic Church. The basis for this is the Bible’s declaration of the sanctity of human life. However, the Vatican has been strongly against abortion for only the last 200 years of its 2000 year history. Between the 5th and 16th Centuies, the Catholic Church’s position on abortion evolved. St. Thomas Aqui-nas, Pope Innocent III, and Pope Gregory XIV believed that a fetus does not have a soul until “quickening,” or the first time a mother feels her baby kick. Therefore, abortion before quicken-ing was acceptable. The tides began to turn when Pope Sixtus V of the 16th Century opposed abor-tion at any stage of pregnancy. By the 17th Cen-tury the Church adopted a permanent position of “simultaneous animation,” the notion that an em-bryo acquires a soul at conception rather than any period of time into the pregnancy. The concept of simultaneous animation has stuck since then.

The grandfather of the Church’s cur-rent position, Pope Leo XVIII, issued a decree in 1886 that prohibited all procedures that di-rectly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman’s life. The church required excommu-nication for people who aborted at any stage of pregnancy. In the book “Gospel of Life”, Pope John Paul II calls on people to pay special at-tention to abortion because it is an attack on the most vulnerable and defenseless persons, the unborn. He detested the fact that not only is the procedure allowed but also it is promoted as a ‘right.’ Additionally, he condemned that it happens within the family, the ‘sanctuary of life’ and a place of love. Fundamentalists were gen-erally pro-choice until about 1980, when they started organizing against abortion. Most other

Christian denominations as well as most other religions support a woman’s right to choose.

The Republican Party has been the staunchest political advocate of a pro-life agenda. In the Republican Party platform, adoption and abstinence are encouraged and abortion clinic re-ferrals are condemned. Republicans, backed by the Catholic Church, want to add an amendment to the Constitution banning abortion. According to the party, “…the unborn child has a funda-mental individual right to life which cannot be in-fringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment’s protec-tions apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Un-der this amendment, abortionists would be com-mitting a crime. The Republican National Coali-tion for Life newsletter stated, “we assert that no human being, born or unborn, can be considered the property of another, and we repudiate the Roe v. Wade decision which presumed to give some individuals the so-called “right” to terminate the life of others.” Though pro-lifers are usually Re-publicans, there are, however, several groups such as the “Democrats for Life of America,” which are composed of entirely pro-life Democrats.

The pro-life standpoint, while is seeming-ly more moral than the pro-choice standpoint, is a gross violation of the personal rights of women. Those who believe the government should have the right to decide what a woman does with her body should examine the liberties we as Ameri-cans hold dearly. Especially for victims of rape or incest, or when a pregnancy puts the mother’s life at risk, the ability to abort that pregnancy is para-mount. In a situation where the baby is being born into a household where the mother does not have the means or the will to raise a child, who is the government to say she has to keep it? Is that really beneficial for the child? If a mother does not feel she is fit to be a mother, for what-ever reason that may be, she should be able to abort her pregnancy. What a woman does with her body is not the government’s or anyone else’s business. Those who believe abortion is murder should simply abstain from having the procedure.

“For you created my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother’s womb....Your eyes say my unformed body.” - Psalm 139:13-16 “You shall not murder.”

-Exodus 20:13

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves...defend the rights of the poor and needy.” -Proverbs 31:8-9

Biblical Pro-Life

Justification RGrugo

The Catholic Sun

The Catholic Sun

-LifeParadox

Page 18

THe oTHeR side


Guns, for many, are as defining an issue for both political parties as the Iraq War, the Pa-triot Act and abortion. Republicans say they are protecting our Constitutional rights and our personal security by advocating laxer gun

laws. Democrats claim to ensure our personal security by keep-ing guns away from criminals and lowering the crime rates. En-vision living in a small house, in a dimly lit neighborhood. You have three children sleeping in the two rooms adjacent to yours. One night, you hear a rustling on the first floor; a man has snuck in through your back door with a knife at hand. What do you do? Most people would probably call 911, but what they do next depends on the individual. Many Americans would slowly get up, walk over to their closet, and pull out their family firearm.

Clearly, guns in homes are hazardous to young children, and

many deaths yearly are caused by negligent gun control. Despite the risks, guns are a necessity for large proportion of the popula-tion. According to statistics, there is one police officer on duty for every 23,000 people in this country. It is unreasonable to believe that one policeman can protect each of those 23,000 people effectively.

The constitution does not guarantee protection from mur-der or crime. It does, however, provide a means to protect oneself with the right to bear arms. Moreover, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals over 2.4 million times each year, or 6,575 times a day, according to the National Safety Coun-

cil a non-profit, nongovernmental public service organization. This means that each year firearms are used 60 times more often to pro-tect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives, meaning that guns save more people yearly from crime than innocent people they hurt.

It is important to recognize that the debate is not banning of firearms, which a rare few support, yet it is arguing against sim-ply putting more laws in place. It is interesting to realize that there are already over 20,000 gun laws on the books that are ignored by criminals. In the Columbine High School tragedy, at least eighteen existing anti-gun laws were broken. Does anyone really believe the shooters cared that they were breaking those anti-gun laws? By definition, does any criminal care that he or she is breaking the law? What can more anti-gun laws do other than to further penal-ize and harass honest American citizens who wish simply to en-joy their Constitutional rights? The answer to most Americans is none, and with the ability to carry a firearm, comes a sense of safety.

That sense of safety is not unfounded. The more people al-lowed to carry firearms the lower the crime rate is. There are 40 “Right

Give Guns a Shot

By Dan Shapiro

“Allowing citizens to carry concealed weap-ons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths”

The Case Against Gun Control

Page 19

www.redstatepatriot.com


To Carry” States – states where individuals are permitted to carry a firearm on their person at all times: 36 have “shall issue” laws, which require that carry permits be issued to applicants who meet uni-form standards established by the state legislature. Alabama, Con-necticut and Iowa have fairly-administered “discretionary-issue” carry permit systems. Vermont respects the right to carry without a permit. Alaska, which has a shall-issue provision for purposes of permit-reciprocity with other states, adopted a no-permit-required law in 2003. Of the 10 non-RTC states, eight have restrictively-administered discretionary-issue systems; two prohibit carrying al-together. More RTC, less crime. Violent crime rates in 2004-2005 were lower than anytime since 1976. (Crime victim surveys indicate that violent crime is at a 31-year low.) Since 1991, 23 states have adopted RTC, the num-ber of privately owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million, and violent crime is down 38%. In 2005 RTC states had low-er violent crime rates, on average, compared to the r e s t of the country (total violent crime by 22%; murder, 30%; robbery, 46%; and aggravated assault, 12%) and included the seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates, and 11 of the 12 states with the lowest murder rates. Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., researchers John Lott and David Mustard found that “al-lowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.” They found that in states that had RTC laws and in which they went into effect at a county level, murders fell by 8.5%, rapes fell by 5% and aggravated assault fell by 7%. “Approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly,” they said if states that had not instituted RTC had done so.

Although these numbers are quite persuasive, the main argu-ment against gun control is the Second Amendment. Originally, the

Second Amendment was put in place to enable the citizens of Ameri-ca to protect themselves from danger. Along with this right comes the idea of democracy. With the right to bear arms, the citizens remain unshackled from the federal government giving them more freedom.

History has shown the importance of the right to bear arms in protecting freedom and limiting the power of government. Free-dom came to Eastern Europe in 1989 thanks to the self-restraint of the Soviet army. Freedom could have come a generation ago, but was repeatedly crushed by the Red army: in East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, and Czechoslovakia in 1968. One reason why the Soviet army succeeded in those bloody episodes of subjugation was that the people of East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia lacked the arms with which to fight a guerilla war. Had the Poles and Czechs and Hungarians been as well armed as the Afghans, East-ern Europe might not have had to wait until 1989 for permission

from the Kremlin to be free. The best testimony to the power of an armed populace is the drive with which the Warsaw Pact dictatorships enforced gun control. When the Communists took over Bulgaria on September 9, 1944, they immediately confiscated every weapon in private possession. In East Germany, private gun owner-ship was outlawed, although citizens were allowed to rent hunting guns for one-day periods. In Hungary after World War II, the Communist Minister of the Interior, ordered the d i s -solution of all pistol and hunting clubs, as well as of other organi-zations, which might prove a threat to the Communist takeover. Rajk claimed he acted “in order to more efficiently protect the democratic system of the state.” History has provided us with the knowledge that when guns are stripped from the public, the rights of the people are stripped as well, causing a tyrannical movement.

The debate for more gun control is one that seems never-ending. Yet as the world becomes more dangerous and techno-logically advanced, it seems to many that it is a necessity in life to carry a gun, not just to protect against criminals, but also against the very government which writes and implements gun legislation.

State Concealed Carry Laws

Crime Rate*

Alaska No PermitRequired

513.2

Vermont No PermitRequired

119.7

Alabama Right-to-Carry 431.7

Georgia Right-to-Carry 448.9

Florida Residential RTC Permits Only

708.0

Georgia Right-to-Carry 448.9

Washington Right-to-Carry 345.8

Colorado Residential RTC Required

396.5

Florida Residential RTC Required

708.0

California Restricted RTC 526.3

New Jersey Restricted RTC 354.7

New York Restricted RTC 445.8

Illinois Not Permitted 551.5

Wisconsin Not Permitted 241.5

Crime Rate by State by Concealed Carry Laws

*Rate is violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation

What can more anti-gun laws do other than to further penalize and harass honest Amer-ican citizens who wish simply to enjoy their

Constitutional rights?

Page 20


In the midst of the 2008 Presidential election, the is-sue of withdrawal from Iraq has risen to prominence on the political forefront. Seeing the vast monetary and human costs of the war, the creation of a timetable has become the source of much controversy. As the

general populace has become tired of hearing bad news from Iraq, the Democratic Party has embraced the policy of a quick exit from Iraq. All of the major Democratic candidates for president pledged to establish a firm withdrawal plan. However, the benefits of indefi-nite occupation of Iraq have not been fully recognized. Although it is tempting to make a quick departure from Iraq, in order to en-sure that an effective and stable democracy is established indefinite occupation of Iraq is the only viable plan of action for America.

In 1979, Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, ascended to the position of Iraqi President after arresting and killing his leadership rivals. Following the establishment of a Shiite Muslim theocratic state in Iran, Hussein carried out a number of attacks against Ira-nian soldiers and civilians with chemical weapons, bringing about the Iran-Iraq War. In 1990, with Iraq in a post-war poverty, Hussein successfully invaded oil-rich Kuwait. This illicit occupation lasted for about a year, ending with UN and US military intervention.

By the time of the 2003 US incursion into Iraq, Saddam Hus-sein had killed thousands of soldiers and civilians. The war in Iraq, with originally sound intentions, benevolently removed an oppres-sive dictator. A series of transitional governments were instituted in Iraq in an effort to stabilize the country. On January 31, 2005 the Iraqi Transitional Government was formed in order to draft a per-manent constitution. Its completion was met with strong backlash from the Sunni minority, who felt that this new constitution would not fully protect their people from the hostilities of Shiite (major-ity) radicals. A constitutional referendum in which over 63% of eligible Iraqis cast ballots was held on October 15, 2005; there was strong backing from the Shia community, but overwhelming rejec-tion from the Sunni population. Finally, nationwide parliamentary elections on December 15 elected a new government. Now, with intense US intervention as a crutch, the new government seems to be functioning at some level, but insurgent violence has not subsided. As of now, three general options exist in Iraq: immedi-ate withdrawal, phased withdrawal, and indefinite occupation.

History shows that immediate withdrawal is most likely going to fail if implemented in Iraq. In 1914, the German Em-pire (at that time a monarchy) entered into World War I. Fol-lowing their defeat, Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles (1919) and was forcibly converted to a system of democracy. The people of Germany, now called the Weimar Republic, lacked identification with the Weimar Constitution, and in turn lacked confidence in the new system of parliamentary democracy.

In the years that ensued, several political parties quarreled for control of Germany. From the people’s failure to embrace democracy, and additionally the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, the Nazi party came to power. In the Third Reich, Hitler became a self-instilled dic-tator. Not long after, Hitler started World War II, in which he was responsible for the murders of about eleven million people in the Holocaust and over sixty million military and civil deaths in total.

Iraq is a country without a democratic heritage. This form of parliamentary democracy is completely foreign to the coun-try, as well as to the entire region of the Middle East. The pro-gression of German democracy went from: dictatorship, to war, then to short-lived democracy, to chaos, to the Nazi party

Democracy DiesWhy we need to stay in Iraq in the long term

By Spencer Penn

Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr does not hold any official government position, but is one of the most powerful men in Iraq.

www.foxnews.com

Page 21

issue 4-

(far more oppressive than the original dictatorship). The set-up in Iraq is almost identical to that which existed in Germany.

Democracy originally failed in Germany not only be-cause they had no democratic heritage, but also because there was little stability in the post-WWI antebellum. Following the Treaty of Versailles, which put Germany in an economic and so-cial slump, different political factions formed and several para-military groups were created. Democracy must be grounded in

stability. The most important facet of a successful democracy is a unbiased vote, free from duress. The strong paramilitary presence in post-WWI Germany certainly had an extreme influence over the flawed voting system. Without a peaceful populous, the major-ity group (often with the largest paramilitary force) simply rises to power and commences to kill off all the other opposing parties.

These effects of a divided population are only be exaggerat-ed in Iraq. In Germany, the political factions, although of differing

opinion, were still of the same general ethnicity. In Iraq, there are two distinct and large religious groups, the Shiites (an over 60% ma-jority) and the Sunnis (about 35% minority), both of whom have fought one another for centuries. Additionally, there are several other religious minorities, including the Kurds, Assyrians, Mande-ans, Iraqi Turkmen, Shabaks, and the Roma. The two largest terrorist organizations functioning in the world are Hezbollah (Shiite) and Al-Qaeda (Sunni). Although Hezbollah is not a major force in Iraq and Al-Qaeda is losing Sunni Support, hostilities between the Shi-ites and Sunnis have manifested themselves recently in a large num-ber of massacres and civilian murders. The bottom line is if America withdraws its troops immediately or within the next year, the tenu-ous democracy inducted in Iraq will be jettisoned in exchange for a Shiite totalitarian regime, in all likelihood worse than the previous.

Along similar lines, phased (gradual) withdrawal over a given period would yield similar adverse results. In the early 1970’s the Republic of Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe) withdrew from the UK following a unilateral declaration of independence in 1965. Although most British withdrew from Rhodesia, many stayed in an effort to reinforce democracy there. The Republic of Rhodesia fell into the hands of an apartheid government. The white minori-ty-ruled government did not fully represent the will of the people. Although Rhodesia did experience several years of positive eco-nomic growth, this prosperity was soon ended with the outbreak

The Iraq War: In Photos

“If America withdraws its troops within the next year, the democracy in Iraq will be jet-

tisoned in exchange for a totalitarian regime.”

Above, a U.S. soldier checks the underside of a tank mine. Top left; a man shows his purpled-stained finger after voting; middle left; U.S. soldiers

give candy to Iraqi children; bottom left, President Bush meets with Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki.

www.naturalfamilyblog.com

US Army

Notwist

US Army

Page 22

THe oTHeR side


of a civil war. In 1980, minority rule was ended, all British forces were withdrawn, and free elections took place in February of that year. The victor, Robert Mugabe, became president of Zimba-bwe in 1980, and has won every subsequent election. Unfortunately, he has turned from an icon of liberty and hope to one of the most notorious dictators in the world; his corrupt administration has been accused of human rights abuses, including mass land redistri-bution, as well as election tampering, for which Zimbabwe has been suspended from the Commonwealth of Nations. In recent years, the Zimbabwean people have suffered from a corrupt government, famine, poverty, the lowest life expectancy of any country, disease, human rights violations by the government, and hyperinflation.

Democracy had another notable failed example in America in the South during the Reconstruction Era. Following the election of 1876, President Rutherford B. Hayes gradually withdrew Union soldiers from the South as part of the unwritten Compromise of 1877 in which the North agreed to remove troops from the South in exchange for the presidency. The North’s hopes for racial equal-ity, temporarily enforced, were soon lost to the Jim Crow Laws. Because the reduced military presence no longer had the power

to combat white supremacist groups, the goal of racial equality in the South fell away as African Americans became disenfranchised.

Gradual withdrawal is likely to have similar effects on Iraq. The US supported government would fail, leading to the rise of another Hussein-esque dictator. Currently, the number of troops stationed in Iraq is barely capable of securing a stable de-mocracy while simultaneously combating the guerrillas and ter-rorist organizations that have rooted themselves there. If a por-tion of US troops were removed in a phased withdrawal, our influence there would not be enough to prevent radicals from overtaking the government, converting it back to dictatorship.

Long-term occupation, in contrast with withdrawal, has been proven effective in a number of situations. In August of 1945 Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender, following the atomic bomb-ings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was forced to accept a new constitution, creating a parliamentary democracy and limiting the role of the Emperor to basically that of a symbolic unification fig-ure. The revamped governmental structure included an executive, judicial, and legislative branch (a bicameral parliament called the National Diet). Seeing as the new democracy had become most-ly self-sufficient, the seven year long Allied occupation of Japan ended in 1952, but America maintained standing armies in Japan. Even today a great number of US military bases remain in Okinawa and over 40,000 US troops are currently stationed in Japan. Over decades Japan became a vibrant and peaceful democracy with the world’s second largest economy, according to its nominal GDP.

Although indefinite occupation is costly and time-consuming, it is the only option that has been proven successful. A long-term or indefinite military presence allows for a democracy to take hold. Be-cause democracy is formed on the foundation of domestic stability, it

is extremely important that violence and guerilla upheaval be prevent-ed. Although indefinite occupation may be costly, the forced stability created by indefinite occupation prevents the rise of military dictators.

Perhaps most importantly, private-sector foreign invest-ment in Iraq, which would significantly benefit its economy, will increase dramatically if the US military keeps the peace. There is no better assurance for an investor than having the US mili-tary protecting their investment. These private-sector investors will help create much-needed infrastructure and employment in Iraq. If investors feel that their property in Iraq would be safe from governmental or guerilla seizure, they are more likely to cre-ate factories, schools, and other utilities. This influx of investment into Iraq could stabilize the economy, encourage industrialization, and significantly improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people.

Additionally, a strong military presence helps to prevent vio-lence between the different religious peoples in Iraq. An issue that withdrawal, regardless of the timetable, does not solve is the fact that cultural divisions would suppress democracy. If the US withdraws, the Shiite majority will likely begin electing Shiite politicians with an anti-Sunni agenda. Without the US military to maintain order,

the Shiite insurgent leaders, now backed by the Iraqi government, will begin a mass genocide of all non-Shiite religion. Withdrawal is tantamount to murder. The way democracy can be effective in Iraq is if the US military is present in order help the Iraq government move in a positive direction away from sectarian divisions and warfare.

The US has made a huge investment trying to create the first democratic Muslim country in the Middle East. Over $691 billion of taxpayer money has been spent, while an ever-rising death toll has surpassed reached four thousand. Although it is easy to give up and promote rapid withdrawal from Iraq, it is imperative that the US continues to militarily support Iraq. From long-term occupa-tion rises democracy, but from short-term occupation rises tyranny. Only if the US vies for long-term occupation of Iraq is democracy feasible. If we leave now, Iraq will most definitely regress back into dictatorship. If the investment in an Iraqi democracy comes to frui-tion, by way of indefinite military occupation, Iraq may come to play a paramount role in the global war against terror in years to come.

Profile: Nouri al-Maliki

Nouri al-Maliki is the cur-rent State Prime Minister of Iraq. His mandate lasts until 2010. His tenure as Prime Minister has been

disappointing; he has made little progress in quelling

violence and social conflict.

“Although indefinite occupation may be costly, the stability created by indefinite occu-pation prevents the rise of military dictators.”

“A strong military presence helps prevent vio-lence between the religious peoples in Iraq.“

Shihab20

Page 23

issue 4-

After a year of debate, the Senate voted on Feb-ruary 12, 2008 to expand the use of U.S. spying powers. As we have increased our use of cellu-lar phones, we have simultaneously increased the potential liability that results from the use

of the mobile devices. Phones pose a major threat to the speaker’s privacy because the government can easily identify the time, du-ration, originator, and recipient of the call. Under acts such as the Protect America Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, the govern-ment seemingly compromises civil liberties in exchange for citizens’ safety. It is, however, in the best interests of Americans to tighten security, even at the expense of privacy. By removing the require-ment for search warrants, the government can eavesdrop on the conversations of suspected terrorists. From the information ob-tained, officials can quickly foil terrorists’ plots. Wiretapping is an essential element of government, since it allows for a safer America.

In response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the government passed several laws to ensure the homeland se-curity of Americans. Under the Protect America Act, signed into law on March 9, 2006, the government can access telephone and email dialogue. The government’s monitoring of these conversa-tions allows for lawful interception of terrorist plots against the United States in order to save American lives. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, government agencies obtain infor-mation that allows them to protect the American people. The act allows government to have easier access to records, thereby bet-ter equipping the government with the tools to maintain security.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urges the Senate not to pass a bill that authorizes warrantless wiretapping or grant im-munity to telecoms. However, the requirement of a warrant destroys the benefits of wiretapping. With a warrant, the government must delay surveillance of the suspect. In the interim, the terrorists would be able to further their plots, thereby posing a greater danger to our country.

The government, moreover, should force telephone com-panies to follow orders of sharing communication records. The companies’ cooperation allows law enforcement agencies to eas-ily access information to use for intercepting terrorist attacks on the U.S. In exchange for their compliance, they receive im-munity from lawsuits regarding their compliance with wiretap-ping. The bill passed by Senate February 12, 2008 assures le-gal protection against companies in relation to wiretapping.

The predominant argument against wiretapping is the issue of violating Americans’ rights. Yet, under current laws, government can only listen to conversations involving suspected terrorists, therefore putting the average American at no risk. The gain of security is more important than the loss of privacy of potential terrorists. Some have also argued that wiretaps create police states since the government acts without consent of the conversation’s speakers. This claim, how-ever, is unfounded because government officials are not controlling the people in society; rather they are protecting the public from dan-gerous terrorists. Our national security will be jeopardized unless our agents can obtain information about future terrorist schemes.

The Bush Administration’s wiretapping authorization has been successful. Officials credit the policies with the successful apprehension of Lyman Faris, a truck driver who pleaded guilty in 2003 for planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. During the 1994 Aldrich Ames case investigation, the Clinton administra-tion similarly exercised its inherent authority to conduct war-rantless searches. Ames was arrested on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage for Russia and the former Soviet Union.

Government spying programs are essential for maintain-ing the nation’s security. These agencies should be able to ac-cess and share information to attain a higher level of security. Bush’s wiretapping program achieves the goal of protecting our citizens. It is necessary and proper to intrude into Americans’ conversations in order to save lives. We must sacrifice some rights in order to ensure maximum safety for us and our families.

wiretapping

Ramin Talale

By Starlyte Harris

Page 24

THe oTHeR side


Throughout United States History, a two-party electoral system has determined elections, from Federalists and Anti-Federalists, to Democratic-Republicans and Whigs, and later to Democrats and Republicans. Third party candidates, how-

ever, often have a significant effect on the outcome of elections. With Ralph Nader’s recent announcement of his intent to run for Presi-dent and the recent successes of third party candidates such Ross Perot, voters should be aware of their impact on the electoral process.

A significant third party campaign was launched in 1912

when Theodore Roosevelt lost the Republican nomination to Howard Taft. Storming out of the Republican convention with all his delegates, he then founded the Progressive or Bull Moose Party. Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the election due to the split in the Re-publican Party, but Roosevelt re-ceived more popular votes and electoral votes than any third party candidate in US History.

In 1992, businessman Ross Perot entered the race as an Independent Party can-didate against Republican George H.W. Bush and Dem-ocrat Bill Clinton. Perot’s moderate and pragmatic views gained him popularity when Bush began to lose support and Clinton’s campaign suf-fered from scandalous allega-tions. June 1992 saw Perot leading the polls with 39% of the vote, compared to Bush’s 31% and Clinton’s 25%. In the election, Perot received 18.2

% of the popular vote (with no electoral votes) and became the most successful third party candidate since Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party. A report by Dean Lacey of Ohio State Univer-sity and Barry C. Burden of Louisiana State University claimed that Ross Perot “stole” votes from the other two candidates by running on a platform similar to theirs, especially on social issues.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader ran as a Green Party candidate in a number of states due to discontent with the Clin-ton administration in 1996, 2000, and 2004. Nader rode on Perot’s previous supporters and endorsements from two major unions, The California Nurses Association and the United Elec-trical Workers. While Nader only received 2.74% of the national vote, Nader’s campaign website shows that 25% of his voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore, and the rest would not have not voted. While the mainstream media outlets often ignore third party candidates, Nader’s re-sults in 2000 clearly show that Nader influenced the election by “stealing” votes as Ross Perot did in 1992. Nader and Perot are two examples of influential third party candidates, but there are many others with different effects on election outcomes.

The Libertarian party was founded on a policy of promot-ing a laissez-faire economy in 1977. Today, the

Libertarian party supports a Lockean policy of limiting government intervention in

the economy and promoting govern-ment protection of civil liberties. Lib-

ertarians believe that the political spectrum is mapped out in an un-

traditional chart called the “Nolan Chart.” Left-leaning Democrats are

in the top left, ring-wing Republi-cans in the bottom right, Libertar-ians in the top right, and Populists in the bottom left. Although Lib-

ertarians have conservative social views, such as on gun control, and

Democratic economic pol-icies, such as their non-intervention platform, the Nolan chart emphasizes

that their party is not a mix-ture of both philosophies

but rather a new one all together.

Third Party,

By Will Dubbs

“While the mainstream media outlets often ignore third party candidates, Nader’s results in 2000 clearly show that he influenced the

election by ‘stealing’ votes.”

Not Third Place

Page 25


While the Libertarian party is not as influential in elec-tions as the Democratic or Republican parties, it has been a significant third party group. After the presidency of Rich-ard Nixon, it believed that the Republican and Democratic parties diverted from the Founding Fathers’ original goals. Its most successful election year was 1980, when Ed Clark and David H. Koch financed their campaigns with millions

of dollars and earned 1.1% of the vote. This gained the Lib-ertarians access to ballots in all fifty states, becoming the first third party to do this since the Socialist Party in 1916.

The Libertarian party ran more candidates and gained more votes than other third political parties. In 1988, future Republican Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul received .47% of the popular vote. The Libertarian party is currently petitioning Paul to run on the Libertarian ticket in 2008. Although Libertarian Michael Badnarik received .34% of the popular vote in 2004, he polled nearly as well as Independent Ralph Nader, and Green Party candidate David Cobb. In the 2006 elections as well, the Libertarian party candidates received 2.04% of the popular vote, while Green Party candidates re-ceived only 1.41%. While the Libertarian party has run the most candidates, other third political parties have influence as well.

Just as the Libertarian party supports Conservative views, the Constitution Party advocates a Bible-based platform that party members believe embodies the original intent of the writers of the Constitution. Its platform is “opposed to entangling alliances - via treaties, or any other form of commitment - which compromise our national sovereignty, or com-mit us to intervention in foreign wars.” Also, members of the Con-stitution Party believe in a “mor-atorium on immigration to the United States” because immi-grants would “impose an im-proper burden on the United States, any state, or any citi-zen of the United States.” Like the Libertarian party, the Con-stitution Party supports limiting the role of the federal government through abolishing federal taxa-tion, which they deem unconstitu-tional, and by eliminating federal health care and educational pro-grams, which they deem unconsti-tutional under Article 1, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment. It supports a non-interventionist

government, going further than the Libertarian party by advo-cating that the United States withdraw from any international organizations, including the World Bank and the United Nations. Despite its overlap in policy with the Libertarian party, Consti-tutionalists have failed to receive a similar amount of support.

Due to a lack of funding and publicity, the Constitution-al party has not received as much support as either the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. One difference is that it is com-posed of many different, statewide, parties. In Connecticut, it is known as the Concerned Citizens Party; in Michigan it is the U.S. Taxpayers Party; in Nebraska it is the Nebraska Indepen-dent Party; in California it is the American Independent Party; in Nevada it is the Independent American Party. Some of the smaller parties, such as the Montana Constitution Party, have distanced themselves from the national party, while Libertarians are more unified. Most recently, the Constitution Party had a candidate elected to the Montana state legislature. By contrast, the Libertarian party has had 16 members in state legislatures. Members of the Constitution Party have included Pat Buchan-an, who in 1996 threatened to run if Bob Dole did not choose a pro-life running mate, and conservative U.S. senator Bob Smith. Following its example, third parties that are not united under a national party have little success in a presidential election.

Although most Americans believed the 2000 election was solely between George W. Bush and Al Gore, presidential can-didates included Pat Buchanan (Reform), Harry Browne (Lib-ertarian), John Hagelin (Natural Law/ Reform) and Howard Phillips (Constitution). According to the Official Election Re-sults by the Federal Election Commission, the difference between Gore and Bush was .009% in the key state of Florida. Constitution Party candidate Howard Phillips, who had the least amount of popular votes in Florida, received

.023% of the vote, which could have d r a s t i c a l l y changed the elec-

tion. De- spite the fact that all five of the

independent candidates,

i n c l u d -ing Green P a r t y

c a n d i d a t e R a l p h Nader, could have influenced the election in 2000, third party candi-dates are still overlooked.

With the addition of Ralph Nader in the 2008 election, presidential hope-fuls John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should be aware of the his-tory and potential influence of a third party candidate.

“Despite the fact that all five of the indepen-dent candidates could have influenced the

election in 2000, third party candidates are still overlooked.”

Page 26

Horace Mann Review, voL XviiThe H

orace Mann R

eview231 W

est 246th StreetR

iverdale, NY, 10471

Issue 4 - The Other Side

Documents

Transcript of Issue 4 - The Other Side