The First Amendment: May Issue

8/16/2019 The First Amendment: May Issue

1/32


2/32

LGBTQ+ IN N.C.

PARTISAN COURT

FAILURE OF U.S. DEMOCRACY

BROKERED DEMOCRACY

ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT POLITICS

SPECIAL FORCES IN SYRIA

RELIEVING PUERTO RICO

04-05

-

Discriminatory laws inNorth Carolina miss theirmark. Bathroom legisla-tion causes controversy.

The controversy regardingMerrick Garland’s SupremeCourt appointment andGOP obstructionism.

Analyzing the shortcomings of our country’s politicalsystem and shedding light on state subordination.

Exploring the inherent hypocricy of a brokeredconvention and how it undermines democracy.

A FEW WORDS FROM THE 7TH BOARD

The rise of Donald Trump and the success ofBernie Sanders’ campaign mark a new trend inAmerican politics of rejecting traditional rhetoric.

Recent developements in the Syrian conflict and

Obama’s decision to implicate American troops.

The tragic economic state of Puerto Rico and thenegligence of the federal government. Lack ofstatehood perpetuates economic depression.

THIS MONTH ISSUE

Welcome to the First Amendment. Thispublication serves as a platform for theworld views and political perspectivesof the Lawrenceville School community.We hope that you use this magazine notas a partisan mouthpiece, but rather asa way to engage in a constructive de-bate on the issues of the day. While theFirst Amendment to the Constitution grants us freedom ofspeech and the right to civil debate, how to appropriatelyaccomplish these ends remains a controversial issue. Yetone thing we can agree on is the value of hearing oppositeperspectives for an inclusive and prosperous society. In acommunity that can often ignore what happens outsideof its gates, this magazine serves as an inspiration to dis-cuss those issues that beset the world beyond. It is thisinspiration that propels one of the most important partsof the School’s mission statement: responsible leadership,personal fulfillment, and enthusiastic participation in theworld.

We love to argue here at Lawrenceville, but really doesanyone seem to leave a conversation adopting a differentstance. So, as you read The First Amendment, please take

the time to understand the viewpoints that differ fromyour own. Ex ore discipulorum veritas.

- The 7th Board

CONTENTS MAY 2016

02

AUDITING THE FED

-

The word’s most influential bank controls nearly all

U.S. currency, and we have no idea how it works.


3/32

HILLSBOROUGH SAGA

-

Remembering and honoring thememory of the 96 lives lost.

Editor-in-Chief Yiannis Vandris ’17

Executive EditorsRaj Bagaria ’17 & Alejandro

Turriago ’17

OmbudsmanEmma Pinto ’17

Domestic EditorBanks Blackwell ’17

International EditorAnna Vinitsky ’17

Features EditorMatthew Stein ’17

Chief Graphics &Design EditorCindy Jin ’17

Graphics & Design Editor

Kate Epifanio ’18

Associate EditorLuke DeCresce ’18 & AlexSmall ’18

Copy EditorHadley Copeland ’18 & Ste-fan Reutter ’18

Faculty AdvisorLawrence Filippone

Special thanks to Sean

Ramsden, Phyllis Lerner &

Clare Burchi

Contacts and informationsLike us on Facebook at: facebook.com/firstamendmentlville

Email us at:[email protected]

FEATURED ARTICLES //

// THE CLINTON ESCAPADES 10-11

// PRO-DONATION RESTRICTIONS 16

// SATIRE: WEBB FEELS THE BERN 18-19

// POLITICAL PLAYLIST 14-15

// ANTI-DONATION RESTRICTIONS 17

// LIFE IN COMMUNIST CHINA 24-25

03

POP PERSPECTIVE: ABORTIONUnderstanding and interpreting Lawrentian’s perspectives on the federalgovernment, abortion and state intervention

THE PANAMA PAPERS

-

Remembering and honoring thememory of the 96 lives lost.


4/32

THE FAILURE

OF AMERICANDEMOCRACYAmerica prides itself on its democracy, claiming full credit for

the successful modern implementation and combination of Ro-man democracy and John Locke’s ideology. As strongly as Na-poleon, Hitler, and Stalin all fought for the spread of their ownideas, America fought for democracy endlessly. We witness thisfight in every foreign intervention, as each strives to bring Amer-ican ideals of liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness toall nations. From the Monroe Doctrine to the Vietnam War andbeyond, America refuses to sit on its hands and watch the worlddrift from what it dictates as the only way of governance—theWestern way. However, through an evaluation of America’s sys-tem of government, its many failures become apparent.Scarredfrom British colonialism, the Revolutionary War ingrained in eachAmerican an inherent fear of tyranny. Therefore, when establish-ing its government, America implemented all measures possibleto decentralize presidential power and distribute it to the people

instead. The latter is evident in America’s dedication to popularsovereignty in the extensive election process to determine ournation’s leader. The former appears in the ceaseless checks andbalances created to prohibit the coalescing of power.

The government divides into three branches: the legislative,the executive, and the judicial. This is the first deviation of poweras each branch can ultimately undo the actions of the others.Many Americans misunderstand the extent of power the Pres-ident truly wields; while he is granted the title “Leader of theFree World,” nearly all of his actions are undermined by Congress.Therefore, when the Senate or House is stacked against a Pres-ident, it is virtually impossible to make any decisions, however,the president receives the brunt of the criticism. This is just oneexhibition of democracy’s biggest flaws.

The power to create and refute laws has been spread so thinlyacross all the branches and their subdivisions that the Presidentactually has very limited power. The government shutdown in2013 highlights these flaws. The shutdown resulted from a stale-mate between the Republican House and the Democratic Senatefighting over Obamacare. But, unfortunately, America has createda convoluted system where everything can be contested. OnceObama managed to establish Obamacare, the Republicans inCongress sought to defund the program. How is this democracy?

When Obama was elected, so too were his policies. By attemptingto sabotage Obamacare, the Republicans in Congress sought todeprive Americans of the welfare they need deserve and most

Christa Sowah ’17

04

importantly, voted for. While tyranny hashistorically failed, the uber-inclusivedemocracy established by America hasproven to be an insufficient alternative.

States’ rights stand as another roadblock preventing real change from tak-ing place within America. Instituted toenhance the power of every individual,

the American government distributesthe country’s power to individual states.According to John Locke, a driving forcein the development of our democracy,each citizen possesses a set amount ofpolitical power. In other words, politicalpower is finite, and must be distributedto avoid the President from obtainingtoo much. However, instead of prevent-ing tyranny, states’ rights only preventchange. Since America’s birth, states’rights have been finding ways to circum-

vent the hard work of those in Wash-ington. Take the results of the Brownv Board of Education for example The


5/32

WHILE TYRANNY HAS HISTORICALLY FAILED, THE UBER-INCLUSIVE AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC MODEL HAS PROVEN TO BE AN INSUFFICIENT

ALTERNATIVE.

05

law to desegregate schools wasdetermined, yet states’ rights al-lowed some states to divert morefunding and support the creationof all-white private schools calledsegregation academies. What isthe purpose of establishing fed-eral laws if individual states can

ultimately bypass them throughloopholes?This problem is not one isolat-

ed in America’s past. It persiststoday in a variety of forms, themore recent and prominent beingthe North Carolina anti-transgen-der laws. It did not take longerthan a year for the South to undothe hard progressive work of theNorth. The Supreme Court rulingin the summer of 2015 that rat-

ified a law making gay marriagelegal. This was a monumentalstep forward for the LGBTQ com

munity as liberty and justice andfreedom for the pursuit of happi-ness became more real. However,states’ rights have allowed NorthCarolina to try and oppress thisgroup once again with their newbathroom laws forbidding trans-gender people to use the bath-

room of the gender they identi-fy with. The tireless work of onebranch goes to naught when yetanother division of power manag-es to undo it with ease.

It is extremely dangerous to thesecurity of freedom, liberty, and justice if the laws implementedby the federal government can becounteracted by individual states.This results from the numerousdivisions of power. American de-

mocracy is failing and it has beensince its conception. Worse thanAmerican democracy is the Amer

ican arrogance that urges the countryto spread democracy and look down onthose who deny it. Democracy is no working for you, America, how do youexpect it to work for others?


6/32

The world’s most influential bank controls near all of US currency, and we have no idea how it works.

By AndrewBrewer ’16

The United States Dollar is the world’schief reserve currency. In this position

of responsibility, the Federal Reservehas become arguably one of the most

influential banks in the world. Recently,Kentucky Senator Rand Paul proposed

a plan known as Audit the Fed to theSenate that would require greater

transparency of the Federal Reserve.The bill did not pass the Senate despite

having a 53-44 vote in favor, includingthe support of presidential hopefuls

Senators Bernie Sanders and MarcoRubio.

Since the Federal Reserve’s openingin 1913, it has never been fully

audited, despite the value of currencydropping 96% during that time frame.

It has never been fully transparent or

accountable to Congress or the American peoplewhile having a monopoly over the flow of U.S.

dollars. under Senator Paul’s proposed bill, theFederal Reserve’s discount window operations,

funding facilities, open market operations,and agreements with foreign central banks/

governments would all be inspected thoroughlyby Congress.

Many forget that the Federal Reserve played alarge role in the housing bubble that caused the

2008 recession by keeping interest rates too lowfor too long. Economist Friedrich August Hayek

(1899-1992) argued in Prices and Production thatlow interest rates increase investment, including

what he called “mal-investments.” A bubbleis created when over-investing happens in a

particular sphere such as housing and real estatein the mid-2000s. In 2008, those malinvestments

were Collateralized Debt Obligations

The Fed

Auditing

The Federal Re-

serve (Fed) is the

central bank of

the United States.

Through fiscal and

monetary policy,

the FED directly

controls interest

rates, which deter-mines how much

citizens spend.


7/32

Auditing the Federal Reserve couldelucidate the reasoning behind their

consistent failure to keep the economyunder control. The Fed failed during

the Great Depression and was a hugecause of this economic disaster. In a PBS

interview in 2001, Former Chairman

Ben Bernanke stated: “What happenedis that [the Federal Reserve] followedpolicies which led to a decline in the

quantity of money by a third. For every

$100 in paper money, in deposits, in

cash, in currency, in existence in 1929,by the time you got to 1933, there

was only about $65, $66 left. And thatextraordinary collapse in the banking

system, with about a third of the banksfailing from beginning to end… At all

times, the Federal Reserve had the

power and the knowledge to havestopped that… So it was, in my opinion,clearly a mistake of policy that led to

the Great Depression.” Let Congresstake a look at all of the Fed’s records for

the first time. For all we know, it might

prevent another economic collapse.A commonly employed argument

against auditing the Fed claims thatit would make the institution political

and biased. This notion is absurd. Howdoes a thorough investigation make

the bank political in any way? The NSAand IRS frequently assure us that if

there is nothing wrong one should not

be frightened at the notion of lookingat records. Why is the Federal Reserve

so scared then?According to the United States’

Constitution, is it not Congress’s jobto handle monetary policy? In an

interview, Representative Paul Broun

stated that “Congress has basicallyabdicated its duty to control moneyand the monetary supply and control

of our money supply as a nation over to

this semi-governmental agency that’s

not really governmental... In reality,we have had no auditing. We have

absolutely no idea what they’re doingover there.” This statement largely

dispels the argument that Congressand the public know what the Federal

Reserve is actually doing. Sure, the Fed

posts its transactions, or at least $850billion of the almost $4 trillion that itholds in bonds.

Due to the fact that the US dollar is

a fiat currency, and therefore has noth-

ing tangible assuring its value, hyper-

inflation is an unlikely but still very

feasible possibility. Personally, I believe

that the Federal Reserve should get in-vestigated and remain in check rather

frequently, especially when it’s createdmoney rarely trickles down. The last

thing we want is another economiccollapse. As Rand Paul said in an in-

terview with John Stossel “the Soviet

Failure to Act The Former Federal ReservChairman, Alan Greenspan (pictured below), admitted that he sawthe 2008 housing bubble comingbut the Federal Reserve was stinot to be prepared for it. The banoften overlooks the bubbles that creates and, even if it does, propeactions are hardly taken. This is problem because one of the Fedchief responsibilities is to watcand monitor the economy so thaissues such as bubbles do not occu

Union was brought down becausethey couldn’t determine one sim

ple thing….the price of bread. Andall these planners, but nobody can

determine the price of bread onlythe market can. You set the price

too low bread is all gone, set the

price too high it rots on the shelvesThe only thing that can figure out

the right price is the market.” Let us

have the same principle for interest rates and let the market decide

rather than artificially raising and

lowering rates with the Federal Re-

serve. Let’s figure out what the Fed

is actually doing.

07

Personally, I believethat the FederalReserve shouldget investigatedand remain incheck rather fre-quently, especial-ly when it’s creat-ed money rarelytrickles down.


8/32

By Zandra Campbell ’17

The Real Victims in N.C.

North Carolina has recently passed

some controversial legislation concerning

the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. The

“Bathroom Law” states that all govern-

ment owned facilities must provide single

sex bathrooms and prohibits people from

using any bathroom other than the one which matches the sex on their birth cer-

tificates. Essentially, the North Carolinian

government has blocked transgender,

gender fluid, and intersex citizens from

using the bathroom aligned with their

true genders. Supposedly, this act pro-

tects against sexual predators who would

rape and harass young women and chil-

dren. This reasoning, however, does not

account for the real danger transgender

people have to confront when they do not

use their preferred bathroom.

A transgender woman in a men’s bath-

room is likely to face the same harass-

ment and predation the act was designed

to prevent. One trans woman, Lara Naz-

ario, described “being told that [she was]

in the wrong bathroom” and how she

faced harassment and even violence. An-

other trans woman recounted her experi-

ences in a women’s bathroom as an ordeal

more complicated than a cisgendered

person could ever even imagine. Shedescribed having to whisper so that her

voice matched a woman’s timbre dress

especially femininely in order to remain

inconspicuous in a woman’s bathroom,

and even map out the bathroom’s escape

routes. In doing mundane activities, such

as using the bathroom, transgender wom-

en fear the possibility of being kicked out,

having the police called, or even beingphysically attacked. Transgender wom-

en should be able to use the women’s

bathroom without fear of being harassed.

Places as common as bathrooms, which

cisgendered people use without a second

thought, should not be “landscapes of ter-

ror” for transgendered people.

Furthermore, the North Carolinian

government believes that by preventing

transgender women from using the bath-

room of their preferred gender they are

protecting their daughters and children.

This belief is absolutely absurd and fails

to stand to reason, for government offi-

cials largely ignore that transgender men

exist as well. This act will not only force

transgender women to use the men’s

bathroom and face harassment there,

but will also force transgender men to

use the women’s room. It is unlikely that

transgender men will harass women. Yet

by the logic that conservatives in the

North Carolina government subscribe to,transgender men, who are frequently in-

distinguishable from cisgendered men

Discriminatory laws in North Carolina miss their mark

08

belong more in a women’s bathroom

than transgender women. Essentially, the

government is saying that some ink on

a piece of paper is more important and

more deserving of respect than the rights

of the very real human being.

This law is also flawed in that it alsofails to dictate which bathroom would

be used by intersex people, who are born

with both male and female genitalia. Not

only does the Bathroom Law discredit the

lives and experiences of transgendered

people, but it also fails to even acknowl-

edge the existence of people who do not

fit into the binary of sexes.

Republicans make a point: predators

would be able to use whatever bathroom

they chose to. However, when the North

Carolinian government puts transgender

people in a position where they can be

harassed, it tells transgender people that

their rights and their safety are less im-

portant than the rights and safety of other

people. This is not simply trying to protect

the daughters of North Carolinians; this is

transphobia, and it is unacceptable. When

passing laws, governments must think of

all their constituents, and North Caroli-

na’s ignoring the safety and rights of the

transgender community demonstrates itsprejudice against a huge portion of the

people it is supposed to protect


9/32

09

Obstructionism: the style of politicsthat focuses on impeding the progress

of the opposing party. Until now, it wasobsolete. Many credit the emergence

of obstructionism to the 1987 defeatof Judge Robert Bork’s nomination. Ob-

structionism isn’t inherently a bad idea,as it allows for different ideologies to

keep legislative power in check. Forinstance, if a conservative president

were to excessively take advantage ofa majority-republican congress to enact

executive order, obstructionist politi-

cians could hinder his one-dimensionalexpansion.

Unfortunately, 21st century politics

has not experienced the idea form ofobstructionism. In 2006, Judge Sam-

uel Alito, who graduated summa cumlaude from Princeton and was United

States Attorney for the District of New Jersey from 1987-1990, only received

four positive votes from Democraticsenators. More than two dozen sena-

tors, including Barack Obama, HillaryClinton, and other prominent congress-

men went as far as voting to complete-ly deny Judge Alito’s consideration. An

example of obstructionism at its worst,

our country’s selfish political motives

have obstructed great leaders from as-suming positions. Both Democrats and

Republicans have been guilty of thisbehavior, but 2006’s liberal escapade

wasn’t nearly as ridiculous as the GOP’sreaction to President Obama’s Supreme

Court nominee this year, Judge MerrickGarland.

Judge Merrick Garland graduated as

the valedictorian of Harvard College,Class of 1970. He went on to volunteer

as a speechwriter for Congressman Ab-ner J. Mikna, and later achieved part-

ner status at Arnold & Porter, wherehe worked until 1989. Wanting to be-

come involved in public service, JudgeGarland left Arnold & Porter to become

Assistant U.S Attorney, eventually join-ing the Clinton administration in 1993,

where he worked in the Criminal Divi-

sion of the U.S Department of Justice. Judge Garland would go on to review

cases involving Guantanamo Bay (alOdah vs. United States) and voting rights

(Alexand vs. Daley). In short, Garland is

the most qualified Justice nominee seen

by the Senate in years. However, Repub-licans such as Senate Majority Leader

Mitch McConnell seems to disagree.In February, Justice Antonin Scalia died

while on a hunting trip, instigating an in-ter-party battle for a replacement. Days

later, McConnell stated, “The American

people should have a voice in the se-lection of their next Supreme Court Jus-tice… therefore, this vacancy should not

be filled until we have a new president.”

Since then, the Grand Old Party has re-

fused to consider Judge Garland, an ac-tion based in reasoning that is heavily

flawed.

McConnell stated that he wants “the

American people [to] have a voice in theselection”, completely ignoring the fact

that the people do. The American peopleelected President Obama for two terms,

and thus Obama’s nomination is a prod-uct of the leadership the American peo-

ple have approved. Additionally, Ted Cruzrecently stated on Meet the Press that “It

has been 80 years since a Supreme Court

vacancy was nominated and confirmed in

an election year…. there is a long tradi-tion that you don’t do this in an election

year.” However, this claim has little basisin fact, as the last successful nomination

and confirmation occurred in 1987. The

GOP cites tradition as a reason to disre-

gard Obama’s power to nominate a Jus-tice. However, this in turn undermines

the national tradition that Republicanshave historically held dear, the reverence

for the literal reading of the Constitution,an interpretation of the constitution that

in no way undermine the President’s

power during his seventh year.As frustrating as this recent display of

obstructionism is, the GOP’s reaction to

the nomination of Garland is emblematicof a larger issue, the inability for our bi-

partisan Congress to put pride aside and work together. Garland is considered by

some to be a moderate Democrat, and inhis pro-prosecution stance on criminal

law, even more conservative than JudgeAntonin Scalia. However, the GOP let

such an opportunity for leadership slip

through their fingers. Now, with cases

emerging concerning transgender rights,gun control, and states’ rights, it is more

important than ever for our SupremeCourt to be able to be the powerhouse

of social justice and objective thinking ithas been in the past.

The Partisan CourtThe controversy regarding Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court appointment

By Will Madonia ’18


10/32

gressive side of the issue. Typically, I’d agree withthis. However, when asked on an NPR interview ifshe believed in gay marriage all along and was

waiting to show her support for it at a time at which America was ready for the progression, she

laughed, “I have a great commitment to this issue.”Why would she lie about her own, clear words?

It’s because instead of expressing her own trueopinion, she instead tries to appeal to whatever

opinion the majority of the US is currently holding.Same-sex marriage isn’t the only issue for

which Clinton has tried to cover her pandering.

In 2008 Hillary said, “Shame on you, Barack Oba-ma,” in response to his disagreement with heruniversal healthcare plan. In this angry, ranting

speech, she even went as far as to call Obama’sactions “undemocratic.” However, in a 2016 de-

bate with Bernie Sanders, she stated: “The Dem-ocratic Party has worked since Harry Truman to

get the Affordable Care Act signed.” Now, she istrying to hide her past disagreements with oth-

er major players in the Democratic Party. Shefought with Obama about healthcare in 2008,

which is not a problem, but now she is trying toact in unity with him in an attempt to garner as

much Democratic Party support as possible andappeal to Sanders’ young, progressive voter base.

The topic of Hillary Clinton’s emails is anoth-er blatant attempt to cover up the truth on her

part. During the House of Representatives SelectCommittee on the attacks on the US embassy in

Benghazi, Clinton stated repeatedly, “90-95% ofmy work-related emails were in the state system.”

House Representative and attorney Trey Gowdyresponded by revealing that nobody else has ever

cited that figure before and asked for a source.

Clinton claimed that she learned her statistic from

the State Department’s analysis of emails on thestate system. However, the Inspector General has

stated that less than one percent of those emails were currently released. Gowdy caught Hillary flat-

out lying in front of Congress and inflating her own

statistics by 90% in an attempt to cover her own

tracks. At a UN Security Council meeting, Hillaryalso said: “The server contains personal commu-

nications from my husband and me.” However, her

own husband, Bill Clinton, stated at a Clinton Glob-al Initiative panel in Denver that “the only time[he] got on the Internet, [he[ did two emails, and

The Clinton Escapades

Former United States Senator Hillary Clinton is currently a front-

runner in the 2016 election, with millions of voters’ support. Re-cently, however, she has encountered a lot of criticism due to a vid-

eo that came out in January of 2016 entitled, “Hillary Clinton lyingfor 13 minutes.” Her immense dishonesty and constant pandering

to various audiences must be taken into account during voting.In 2015, she spoke in the very liberal state of New Hampshire

and said, “I take a backseat to no one when you look at my recordin standing up and fighting for progressive values.” However, in

the same year, she stated at an event in the more conservativestate of Ohio, “I get accused of being kind of moderate and center.

I plead guilty.” This major discrepancy in her political views wasquestioned intensely by Anderson Cooper at a Democratic Party

debate in October. In the face of his criticism, Clinton responded,“Actually, I have been very consistent over the course of my en-

tire life. I have always fought for the same values and principles.”This is a flat-out lie, and every American should be aware of this.

Let’s start with her views on same-sex marriage. She deliv-ered various speeches against same-sex marriage between

2002 and 2010, stating that she believes that marriage is a sa-cred bond between only a man and a woman. She is entitled

to that viewpoint, but, as gay-marriage became more acceptedby the mainstream, she flip-flopped her opinion entirely and

released a video declaring her support for same-sex marriage

in 2013. Now, many Hillary supporters bring up the argumentthat any person’s opinions change all the time, and we shouldn’thold it against Clinton that she decided to switch to the pro-

By Luke DeCresce ’18

Addressing Dishonesty and Fraud of the Democratic Front-Runner


11/32

[he] ordered Christmas presents froma reservation.” Clinton is clearly try-

ing to hide something in her emailsand while the emails themselves may

or may not be sensitive, regardless,the fact remains that she is lying to

Congress and the people. What kindof President would she be? Not one

the American people should want.US Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter

101 Section 2071 decrees that anyone who willingly to conceal, dam-

age, or destroy a document belong-ing to an officer or clerk of any branch

of the US government or attempts todo so is subject to three years impris-

onment or a fine and is banned from

ever running for any kind of public

office. Clinton herself has admitted

that she used her own private email

address and server while she was theSecretary of State, which is outside

of the reach of state-operated emailservers that are meant to be used by

public officials By electing to forgo

the decision to work as Secretary ofState without using her state email

address, she kept any documentsshe sent off of state servers, mean-ing that those emails she sent are

no longer subject to the Freedom ofInformation Act. By doing this, she

attempted to conceal documentsfrom the records of the US govern-

ment. By the law of the US, HillaryClinton should not be allowed to le-

gally run for office. Instead, she has

somehow managed to escape the law

of the very nation she wants to lead.Perhaps the most entertaining seg-

ment of the 13-minute long video isthe exposure of Hillary Clinton’s lies

regarding her visit to Bosnia in the1990s. She tried to inflate her foreign

policy experience through this visitby claiming her plane was “landing

under sniper fire” and that “there was

no greeting ceremony” upon arrival.Sinbad, an American stand-up come-dian who accompanied Clinton on

the trip, denied any immediate dan-ger. When asked about this, she called

him a “comedian.” However, the videoevidence of the landing in Bosnia de-

picts Hillary and her daughter greet-ing soldiers, children, and reporters

all in the open space of the tarmacand not threatened by any snipers.

Hillary is not nearly as solid of acandidate as she makes herself out

to be. She has flip-flopped on im-

portant issues (same-sex marriage,

universal healthcare, NAFTA) anddenies it. She has tried to hide her

emails through blatant, barely-hid-den lies and deceit. She has also

tried to inflate her own experiences

as an executive politician through

her blatant lies in retelling her visitto Bosnia in the 1990s. The truth is

that we cannot know what to expectfrom her if she enters the Oval Office

and despite what she tries to tell us,she has a terrible track record in re-

gard to honesty and transparency


12/32

STRAYING FROM THE ESTABLISHMENTAN EXAMINATION OF DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN POLITICS IN THE 2016 ELECTION

// KEVIN XIAO ’19

As both the Republican and Democratic primary processesnear an end, we can finally assess the aftermath of the blood-

bath that is commonly known as politics. In light of the recentnews that both Senator Cruz and Ohio Governor Kasich haveboth dropped out, leaving businessman Donald Trump as the

presumptive GOP nominee and the Hillary Clinton’s inabilityto conclusively block the Democratic Socialist Sanders fromthe Democratic nomination, the rising power of the anti-es-tablishment candidates becomes stunningly clear. However,the people’s shift to the outsider vote should send a verystrong message to today’s career politicians: after 8 years ofyour insincere promises and the disenfranchisement of themiddle class, it’s time for real change in America. This mind-set is clearly reflected by Mr. Trump’s signature brutal hon-

esty and Senator Sanders’ slogan “Enough is Enough” and “AFuture to Believe In.” The most contentious issues betweenthis election’s establishment-backed and outsider candi-dates have been the issues of taxes, political contributions,and foreign policy, which all of the candidates have spokenextensively about. The voters’ shift to political outsiders likeMessrs. Trump and Sanders symbolizes a new era in Americanpolitics, one both the Republican and Democratic establish-ments must embrace and adapt to be successful in the future.

Although the rise of these anti-establishment candidateshas been based largely in rhetoric and publicity stunts (i.e.“Feel the Bern” or Trump’s remarks on the Mexican border orMuslim immigration), there are many sound platform pro-posals that conflict with the interests of party candidates.

Most notable have been the issue of political contribu-tions. Many high-ranking political officials have been ac-

cused of serving the interests of their donors rather thanthose of their constituents, thus the creation of a system“makes the rich richer and the poor poorer.” Senator Sand-

ers and billionaire Trump have publicly come out againstthis system, with Trump self-financing his campaign and

Sanders only taking small contributions to avoid beinglabeled as corrupt by being influenced by their donors.

Many political analysts and strategists have prophe-

sied that summer of 2015, and 9 months have come andgone. While the bold remarks of Donald Trump may haveturned away multitudes of potential voters, he has cer-tainly aroused the attention of many disenfranchised vot-ers who are angry over the lack of progress and changein the current government. By claiming to speak for the“silent majority” of voters and upset the “political rul-ing class,” Trump’s ardent supporters have flocked to the

polls and fueled his rise to the top. Likewise with BernieSanders, his support for free college tuition and the im-plementation of a wealth redistribution system, he hasresonated with a large part of the Democratic elector-ate. However, the rise of these outsider candidates hasnot been entirely unpredictable. The increasing politi-cal polarization of the nation has led to candidates thathave vowed to fight the norm and defy party leadership

to success. These separate factions within both partieshave splintered the Democratic and Republican parties.

So you may ask yourself, what is the solution and how canwe reconcile this divide between these separate parties? Apolitician must be willing to step up on both sides of theaisle and establish the common ground for the two sides.There will inevitably be differences and disagreements be-tween the establishment and the outsiders, but to restorethe continuity of both parties, this must occur. Although this

election cycle may be too late for this compromise candi-date, the two party system of the United States will not re-main intact without this political savior in the near future.

12

STRAYING FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT


13/32

13

BROKERING DEMOCRACY THE FUNDAMENTAL HYPOCRISY BEHIND THE PUSH FOR A CONTESTED CONVENTION

Throughout this tumultuouselection process, rumors have beenswirling about the possibility of abrokered convention in order todecide on a Republican candidatefor presidency. A brokered conven-tion occurs when none of the can-didates running in the primariesreceive the necessary amount ofdelegates to win the nominationoutright, so a candidate has to be

decided through the re-pledging ofdelegates during the party conven-tion. Although all other candidatesfor the Republi-can nominationhave withdrawn,the possibilityof preventingTrump’s ascen-sion to the pres-idential election

are as lively asever. Many Re-publican offi-

cials hope tostop Trump fromreceiving theparty nomina-tion by prevent-ing him fromreceiving the necessary amountof votes, albeit by a small margin,then choosing any politician they

believe represents the Republi-can party better, such as Cruz orKasich. Regardless of how an indi-vidual feels about Trump’s policiespersonally, we need to see this aswhat it is: an infringement on theentire basis of our primary system,a system rooted in Democracy andthe power of the people to choosewhom they wish to see represent-ing them.

As of now, Donald Trump holds1161 delegates, compared to Cruz’s567 and Kasich’s 160. Rubio contin-

ues to hold the 169 delegates hewon during the primaries he was in-volved in instead of releasing them,an attempt to help thwart Trump’spath to the necessary amount ofdelegates, in order to maintain achance in a brokered convention.402 delegates are still available,and 1,237 are needed to win thenomination outright. Therefore, ifKasich and Cruz are able to retain

more than 326 delegates combinedout of the 402 delegates left, Trumpwill not have won the primary out-

right, and will most likely end upfighting for the nomination at the

contested convention alongside

the other politicians. The party sys-tem was created with this policy inorder to ensure that when severalcandidates run in the primaries, ifthe race is close enough, a victorycannot be declared by simple ma-jority, allowing delegates to ensurethey are choosing the candidatethat accurately reflects the views

of their constituency. However, inthis election, it is apparent that this

push for a brokered convention isnot out of dire need to representthe constituency. Instead, it is an

obvious attempt at political engineering, disregarding the opinionand votes of the majority of the Republican party in order to avoid acandidate Republican officials be

lieve they will not be able to control.

I am not saying this is not an understandable move by the leaderof the Republican party, as DonaldTrump as their candidate could lead

to an implosion of the Republicanparty. But this is against everythingthat both America and the Repub

licans stand for. Toquote Rand Pauformer Republicanpresidential candidate in the primariesRepublicans want “agovernment so smal[they] can barely see

it”. To interfere withthe decisions of thepeople contradictthe platform of theRepublican party, soto push for a brokered conventionwhen no other candidate comes within

twenty five percent of Trump’s dele

gate count is hypocritical, and quitfrankly, un-American. The people o

the Republican party have spokenand they want Donald Trump. Evenif Trump does not receive the 1237delegates outright, there shouldbe no question as to who the Republican candidate will be, unlesvoting patterns change drasticallyin the remaining primaries, whichis highly unlikely. Let us not utilizea political loophole in order to forward our political agenda - instead

respect the basis of American democracy, and understand the premise of one person, one vote.

// EMMA PINTO ’17


14/32

F i t t o

B r i n

g O u t

t h e R e

v o l u t i o

n a r y

i n Y o u

P o l i t

i c a l

P l a y l i s

t

B y M a i a

B e r n s t e

i n ’ 1 7

a n d A

l e x a n

d e r S

u k a c h ’

1 8

“ Y o u c a n g e t k i l l e d j u s t f o r l i v i n g i n y o u r A m e r i c a n s k i n ”

- B r u c e S p r i n g s t e e n


15/32

F i g h t t h e P o w

e r

- P u b l i c

E n e m y

T h e R e v o l u t i o n W i l l N

o t B e

T e l e v i s e d - G i l S c o t t - H e r

o n

S u n d a y B l

o o d y S u

n d a y

- U 2

7 O ’ C l o

c k N e w s / S i l e n t N i g

h t

- S i m o n a n d G a r f u n k e l

A m e r i c a n S k i n

- B r u c e S p

r i n g s t e e

n

A s s u m m

a r i z e d b y

P u b l i c

E n e m y ’ s b

a s s

p l a y e r B r i a

n H a r d

g r o o v e

, “ i t ’ s a

b o u t

fi g h t i n

g a b u s e o

f p o w

e r ”. T h i s h

i p h o p

s i n g l e

m e a n s

t o r o u s e

t h e r e

b e l i n u s

a l l.

“ T h e r e v o l u t

i o n w i l l b

e l i v e ”

O n e o

f U 2 ’ s

s i g n a t

u r e s, t h i s

r o c k h i t

i l l u s t r a

t e s t h e h

o r r o r s

o f t h e ‘ 7

2 B l o o d y

S u n d a y

i n c i d e

n t i n N

o r t h e r

n I r e l a

n d.

“ T h e r e ’ s m

a n y l o s

t, b u t

t e l l m

e w h o

h a s

w o n. ”

T h e u n i q u

e p a i r i

n g o f a

b e l o v

e d C h

r i s t m a

s

m e l o d

y w i t h

v i o l e n

t n e w

s s e g m

e n t s i n

t e n d s

t o u n s

e t t l e.

.

S p r i n g

s t e e n s i n g s a b o

u t t h e

t r a g i c

d e a t h

o f A m a d o u

D i a l l o

, w h o w a

s s h o t 4 1 t i m e s

b y f o u

r N Y P

D o f fi c

e r s i n

1 9 9 9

, a l l o f

w h o m

w e r e a c q u i t t e d

o f a l l c h a

r g e s. T h e

s o n g

e n c o u r a g e

s l i s t e n e r s t o

t a k e a

d e e p l o o k

a t t h e

s y s t e m

s o f r a

c i a l o p

p r e s s i o

n i n t h e

U n i t e d S t

a t e s.


16/32

T H E C

A S E F O R

D O N A T I

O N

R E S T R I C T I O N S

P O I N

T

16

10 billion dollars. In an exclusive interview with C-SPAN, Meredith McGe-

hee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Directory, stated that the money spent to fi-

nance the 2016 presidential election will sum up to 10 billion dollars. To be able

to run a campaign at a national scale, money is essential. Candidates receive mon-

ey from areas such as public funding programs to private large contributions.

But during the current 2016 presidential race, candidates are promising campaign

finance reforms to persuade voters that their campaigns have been financed constitu-

tionally. Candidates are arguing that the current campaign finance policies are ob-

solete and reform is necessary in order to ensure “less corruption” in the government.

But I firmly disagree with campaign finance reform because it fails to solve is-

sues properly and poses even greater problems. Funding a candidate is anoth-

er way to express one’s right to free speech. Regardless of occupation, socio-eco-

nomic status, or influence, everyone is entitled to support a particular candidate

by funding his or her campaign. If reforms are put in place, then the First Amend-

ment would be violated, and ironically these bills would be unconstitutional.

Not only are proposed campaign finance reforms unconstitutional, they are also quix-

otic. The current Congress would not approve any bill, and the issue would add to ten-

sions in the present political gridlock. Republicans in both houses of Congress are against

these reforms. With only Democrats supporting campaign finance change, the Dem-

ocratic and Republican efforts to make bipartisan rectifications will be futile. A specif-

ic example of this congressional impasse to make reforms was the DISCLOSE Act. Thebill was introduced in 2010 after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling allowed

unlimited spending on express advocacy by social welfare nonprofits and trade asso-

ciations. But the bill was defeated by Senate Republicans three times over the course

of two years. According to Paul Blumenthal, a reporter who specifically covers cam-

paign finance, “The bill did not even receive a hearing in the House after Republicans,

aided by the undisclosed ‘dark money’ the bill is meant to bring to the light of day.”

Even if one ignores that campaign finance reforms would be unconstitutional and

impractical, any reform would only add to illegal donations. Wealthier donors will con-

tinue to evade the current rules and donate higher amounts to the candidates. Both

soft money and independent expenditures are aspects of campaign finance which are

inadequately monitored and thus reform would do nothing to prevent an affluent do-nor to utilize these existing alternatives. Campaign finance reform will only increase

the influence wealthy citizens have on campaigns. If the reforms allowed spend-

ing limits to be uncapped, it would lead to increased corruption and allow wealth-

ier constituents to have an unhealthy amount of control over the election process.

Evidently, campaign finance reforms will only result in negative impacts. The re-

ality is that reforms will never take place because of the political stalemate in Con-

gress. Not only are amends for campaign finance unrealistic, but they would also go

against the very principle that lends its name to this magazine. On top of reforms be-

ing impassable and unconstitutional, it would directly increase illegal donations. In

order for campaign finance to experience true reform, we must first acknowledge that

the system is broken. Merely raising the spending limits does very little to democ-

ratize the election process and will only serve to widen the gap between the middleand upper class. Legal limits have always been easy to evade and will continue to be.

R I S H I B

A G

A R I A

’ 1 9


17/32

Elections today need stricter laws to mediate the influence of big business.Otherwise, the United States will continue to remain in a limitless cycle of

economic and social suppression. The Democratic National Committee (DNC)recently reversed a ban on campaign contributions by lobbyists, disrupting

the national balance between the potency of the wealthy industrial titansand the electoral power of the general public. In response, Democratic U.S.

presidential candidate Bernie Sanders launched a petition Sunday pushingback on this recent decision to try and give back the voting power to the peo-

ple instead of these companies. This quarrel has, once again, caused Ameri-cans to reflect on the rules and regulations that monitor money in politics.

Electoral financing has always been an issue for the United States. Since theelection of William McKinley (R) over William Jennings Bryan (D) in 1896, elec-

tion financing remains a growing viru s that directly harms the core of the Amer-ican political and ideological philosophy: democracy. The system is fundamen-

tally corrupt; if a poli tician’s election depends on the amount mo ney he or shereceives, then this candidate will obviously cater to the requ ests of large institu-

tions to get the jump over other candidates. Therefore, the needs of the people wi ll get buried underneath this st ruggle to appeal to the ri ch . Bernie Sanders

constantly alludes to this problem in the 2016 p residential election because ofits ability to skew the elections toward those who can be bought by the wealthy.

The numbers say it all. Just within the Democratic Party, the gap betweenthe two candidates says volumes about the mindsets of the candidates.

Hillary Clinton, while claiming to represent a large portion of undervalued workers and social activists, cannot match her words wi th her contradicto-

ry actions. According to the Federal Election Commission, contributions tothe Clinton campaign amass to a grand total of $112 million, surpassing

those of all other candidates. Of this figure, $28 million come from dona-tions under $200, while over $65 million come from donations exceeding

$2,000. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders’s campaign has more modest sup-porters. Of his total $72 million campaign, over $62 million come from do-

nations under $200, while less than $2 million come from those over $2,000.

Despite Sanders receiving large donations from lobbying firms on WallStreet, his official records show that he promptly refunded these donations.In order for the American people to have trustworthy and transparent elec-

tions, the reforms that Obama set in motion regarding the strict oversight ofall election income near ly 8 years ago mus t follow through to completion. Only

when these reforms are actuated can the presidential elect ions become groundsfor meritocracy and a reflection of the voices of the people. Despite his harsh

criticism of Obama for his excessive flexibility when it comes to the r ights of thecommon people, Sanders applauded Obama’s leadership in this law by calling

it “a noble step” to prevent the flow of “big money.” Bernie Sanders often usesthe line, “Our average contribution is $27,” in many of his debates to show that

his suppor t comes from the common people, not the illustrious banks on Wall

Street. Money can buy many things; however, it should never be able to buy elec-tions, laws, or the d ignity of our nation’s most valuable possession: demo cracy.

T H E C A S E A G A I N S

T

D ON A T I ON R

E S T R I C T

I ON S

C O UNT

ERP OI NT

R A J B

A

G A R I A ’ 1

7


18/32

// ALEX SMALL ’19

WEBB IS FEELING THE BERN

Jim Webb is many things: an author, moviestar, army

commander, and kind of a politician. Now he’s a BernieBro. Last week, the former Assistant Secretary of Reserve

Affairs publically endorsed presidential hopeful Bernard

Sanders of Bronx, NY. The endorsement is just the mostrecent in a string of hardcore liberals expressing theirsupport for the Senator from Vermont. But why?

Although Jim Webb has only spoken out formally once,

speculation for the reason behind his support has been

floating around for a long time. Ever since Jim Webb ran

for president, watched one debate from the stage, anddropped out, main news sources such as the New York-

er, the Akron Daily, and Fox News have questioned JimWebb’s new favorite front-runner. Initially Jim Webb vio-

lently supported Lincoln Chafee, until he was informeda month later that Mr. Chafee had never even been in

the running. The confusion, as reported by MSNBC, camefrom a stray rodent emerging from Hillary Clinton’s pant-

18

suit that made it’s way to the blank podium reserved for

Joe Biden. Jim Webb, while intently staring into nothingduring the debate, caught a view of the whiskers, and

mistook the rat for the Rhode Island politician. After

Jim Webb was told multiple times, the Secretary of theNavy self reported his realization, taking full credit. “Iam glad to have independently concluded that Mr. Cha-fee is no longer running; I am therefore restarting my

campaign,” said Webb from his Submarine in Norfolk.After being informed that Jim Webb lacked both the

funding and ideas to be a serious contender, Mr. Webbstated, “but can’t my forehead compensate?” After a few

weeks of deep thought, Mr. Webb opted to publicallyannounce his favorite Democratic Nominee. After hear-

ing of the options, Webb deduced, “although the onlyoptions are a socialist and a woman, I will continue to

stay faithful to my party, and have therefore electedto endorse Bernie Sanders. President Webb signing off.”


19/32

19

After being asked about Sanders’ platform, Webb

noted “seems sturdy enough. I know the man’s old,but as long as he keeps his balance he should be

fine.” Then after being explained what a platform

is, Webb took an hour to look at the papers. After

careful consideration, Webb announced, “I’m not surewhat domestic policy means, but I think Mrs. Clinton

will most likely do a better job with that. Otherwise,Sanders seems to have some A1 ideas. I am comfort-

ed by this knowledge.”Webb then was questioned on his role in either can-

didate’s cabinet. Responding with a furrowed brow,he let some drool slip before commenting. Yet, CNN

was able to pull the following out: “I mean, if I get tolook at ships I’m cool.” Sounding certain enough in his

oral genius, Webb dropped the mic and walked out ofthe press room.

Wolf Blitzer caught sight of the movie writer while

walking past a Denny’s on L Street, and was able tosnatch a few statements. Between mouthfuls of the“All-American Grand Slam” breakfast deal, Jim Webbpleasantly responded to Blitzer’s questions. Pressing

the importance of credentials, Blitzer directly askedWebb, “what is your stance on social issues?” Laugh-

ing, Webb retorted, “you can ask anyone, but my so-

cial skills are fine. Thank you for your time though, Mr.

Cooper.”


20/32

By Alex Mauro ’18

Not Too Hot, Not Too Cold

20

On Monday, April 25th, President Obama announcedhis plan to dispatch 250 special forces soldiers to Syriato assist rebels in combating the Islamic State. Whilemany have recoiled at the thought of another long termconflict similar to the American interventions in Iraq, Af-

ghanistan, or Vietnam, Obama made the right decision.

By sending in the right amount of highly trained spe-cial forces troops into Syria to act as intelligence unitsand military advisors, Obama avoided a war against ISIS

while still providing aid to the cause to stop them.Syria has been severely debilitated since the begin-

ning of its devastatingly destructive civil war that beganin 2011. However, tensions have only grown worse sinceallegations arose that Syrian President Bashar al-Assadused chemical weapons on civilians in 2013. At thattime, America began to contemplate military interven-tion, particularly with ground troops. Since then, more

blood has been shed in Syria, and worse, only furtherdestruction is in sight, thanks to the looming threat ofISIS.

ISIS is one of the most serious threats the UnitedStates has faced in decades, and must be eradicated. In2014, al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks,disavowed the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, claimingthat both organizations were too radical. Since then,ISIS has inspired or carried out 26 attacks on Western

soil, which have left 2,000 dead in Syria alone and havedisplaced an estimated 9,000,000 Syrians over thecourse of the civil war. Western attacks include the re-cent attacks on Brussels, Paris, and Ankara, as well asdomestic attacks such as the San Bernardino shooting.1,200 people have lost their lives to ISIS in these sense-less attacks and this does not include the tornado ofdestruction ISIS has lead in Syria and Iraq, persecutingChristians and killing senselessly. If ISIS continues theseattacks without Western intervention in any way but in-effectual bombing, then ISIS will only grow in power.

In the future, they may even bring the fight to Americathrough terrorist attacks. A concise strike against ISISnow will save thousands of lives in the future with min-

US Special Forces in Syria


21/32

2

imal cost. ISIS has created a gash in the safety of theWest, and US Special Forces are the Band-Aid to stopthe bleeding.

The worry about American engagement is thatthe dispatching of ground troops will lead to a pro-

longed war. After all, the Vietnam War began withthe US sending 3,000 military advisors to South Vi-etnam, which eventually escalated to 500,000 com-bat troops at the height of Vietnam War. This policylead to not only one of the first US military defeats,

but also one of the most unpopular wars in Americanhistory. Then again in 2003, the United States invad-ed Iraq, and won the initial conventional war againstthe Iraqi Military under the rule of Saddam Hussein

with 148,000 troops. American however was soondragged into a prolonged, fruitless conflict against

another guerilla coalition force. Both of these mili-

tary failures through the predominant use of groundtroops prove that United States’ conventional war-fare does not work against guerrilla forces such asISIS. As war changes, so too should the strategy ofthe United States Armed Forces. American tacticsmust reflect both the political agenda of the United

States, as well as the most efficient way to defeat

the enemy. Obama has proved that America can do just that by sending in the extra 250 special forcestroops to Syria to support the rebels combating ISIS.

Around fifty US special forces personnel have been

deployed in Syria so far, and according to PresidentObama, their “expertise has been critical” as the Islam-ic State’s front lines are shrinking back. The specialforces are training Syrian troops, providing tacticalexpertise, and acting as forward observers, helpingto pinpoint the numerous US airstrikes against ISIS.The special forces, including Green Berets and Del-ta Force members, are equipped with high-precisionlaser markers and telescopes to help point out keytargets. Providing this military expertise is far morebeneficial to the fight against ISIS than sending in

hundreds of thousands of US soldiers, as it reduces

US casualties and allows the Syrians to fight theirown war while still eliminating the threat of the Is-lamic State Unlike Afghanistan where the goal of

training the native military was to pass the baton tothem and withdraw US forces (which was a colos-sal failure), US special forces in Syria are gatheringintelligence and acting as a supporting role to thelocal military, thereby making them more efficient.

Along with this, small teams have been livingamongst in Syrian villages and providing intelli-gence, which can help to weed out ISIS membersand identify key training locations. This proves tobe more effective than sending in platoons of tanksand divisions of combat troops, which would be ef-fective against a discernable enemy. However, whenthe enemy does not wear a uniform, it is impossibleto know who to shoot at, and therefore taking downtargets is nearly impossible without civilian casual-ties. With smaller special forces teams, there is noneed to send in large groups of troops at all. They act

as recon for the US-trained Syrian rebels, and there-fore reduce our actual involvement in the war whilestill eliminating the threat of the Islamic State.

ISIS is a sore situated directly in the Middle East, which festered out of a devastating civil war. With alarge social media presence, ISIS is one of the mostdangerous threats the world has faced and if left un-checked, it could cause a plethora of problems in theforeseeable future. The United States needs to facethis challenge in a better way than it has previouslyin Vietnam or Iraq, where the main fighting force was

ground troops. President Obama’s decision to bolsterthe special forces presence in Syria is a perfect wayto begin to push back ISIS.


22/32

22

By Sam Cabot ’17

Exposing Dirty Money and CorruptionWhen news of a massive leak of

private documents from the Pana-

ma-based law firm Mossack Fonsecahit the internet, the world cringed; itproved their worst fears around the

increasing problem of income ine-quality. For years it was a well-known

that the rich were able to evade taxesand distribution of wealth by hiding

their earnings at “off-shore” tax ha-vens. However, what wasn’t common

knowledge was how they did it. Withthe release of what will go down in

history as the “Panama papers,” the

world can stop speculating. In thefollowing days, politician after politi-cian was outed as being part of the

massive scandal that seemed to af-fect almost every country internation-

ally. Citizens from the U.K to Icelandcalled for answers in response to the

appearance of their prime ministersafter Süddeutsche Zeitung, a Dutch

newspaper released 2.6 terabytes of

data. Within these documents was

a variety of e-mails, PDF files, pho-

to files, and excerpts of an internalMossack Fonseca database showedhow hard individuals tried to keep

their identities secret when dealingin this, sometimes, illicit internation-

al business. Although this is techni-cally not illegal and is seen by many

as a logical step to pursue businesstransactions, the fact is that the va-

riety of different people, from mafia

bosses to celebrities, use this type of

service and should be criticized and

condoned extensively for their partic-ipation in a world of hidden money.

The people who say that the leak

is just some sort of misunderstandingand are trying to downplay the sig-

nificance of such documents should

think seriously about what political

corruption looks like in the 21st cen-tury. Long gone are the days when

politicians would be paid off in hard

cash. Instead, the paper trail is thinner

due to these private off shore com-

panies where politicians can storetheir money in dubious investments

and firms. Recently, Russian President

Vladimir Putin came under fire inter-

nationally when the Panama Papers

implicated people close to him dur-ing the release of the documents. In

the U.S, the notorious 2010 “CitizensUnited” Supreme Court case made it

so that businesses can funnel unlim-ited funds into political campaigns

and subsequently made political

corruption a reality. Frankly, peoplearound the world are become moreand more discontented by this type

of legal unscrupulousness which hasbecome a reality in today’s politics.

In the spring of 2011, a series ofpolitical revolts commenced across

the Middle East. Now known as theArab Spring, young people across the

region rose up against the inequali-


23/32

23

ty and corruption that has existed inthe ruling families of their countries.

These wealthy families for years hadbeen hiding and stealing money from

their people. In fact, one of the mainpolitical groups that was implicated

with the release of the papers wasthe family of previous Egyptian pres-

ident Hosni Mubarak who was over-thrown during the 2011 revolts. The

documents were mostly related toPan World Investments, a BVI based

group owned by Mubarak’s son. In-

terestingly enough, the U.S had fined

Mossack Fonseca back in 2013 forfailing to do due diligence on Mubar-

ak who was deemed a “high-risk” per-son. Regardless, the Egyptian people

have been facing this type of corrup-tion for years. The Egyptian Initiative

for Personal Rights “estimated thatEgypt’s treasury loses up to LE5 bil-

lion per year in tax revenue due tocompanies using tax havens to shield

their assets.” For a country with a GDP

of only $272 billion, that much moneyloss has hurt the country significant-

ly. Egypt is not an outlier, however.

Other controversial heads of state ortheir associates have been exposed

as well by the Panama Papers suchas Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi, SyrianPresident Bashar al-Assad, PakistaniPrime Minister Nawaz Sharif, former

Iraqi Vice President Ayad Allawi, andUkrainian President Petro Poroshen-

ko. In many third world economies,the lack of income equality and lack

of opportunity for the lower classesand young people are common warn-

ing signs of a potential revolution.Unless world leaders unite to stand

up to this corruption, we may seeanother insurrection like the Arab

Spring quite soon.The Panama Papers hold great im-

plications for the future of the world’sstability. Not only is the leak a prime

example of the dark underworld ofinternational business, but moreo-

ver, another sign of the growing ine-quality in the world over the last 50

years. One can see this in the rise of

people like Bernie Sanders and Don-ald Trump in the U.S Elections, whoare known as fresh faces in politics.

COUNTRIES INVOLVED IN THE PANAMA PAPERS SCANDAL

People, the polls seem to show, are

disgruntled with standard, traditionapolitics and are using the elections

to see change. Internationally, thedissatisfaction is found in the rise of

Marxist and Fascist groups in manycountries and the instability of many

previously-stable governments due toan increase in the number of protests

and riots. Secondly, the release of thePanama Papers will not be an isolated

incident. In the Internet Age, this typeof information leak will become more

and more commonplace and it will be

necessary going forward for business-es to be transparent in their dealingsor else feel the ire of common people

Inequality however is not a growingissue and is not purely economic, as

seen in the Arab Spring where therewere immense social repercussions

All in all, the Panama Papers and therepercussions of their publishing are

not to be taken lightly and insteadshould be a learning moment for

businesses and governments aliketo be more honest, transparent, and

moral in their dealings.


24/32

Daniel Wang ’17 The Frustrations of Communism

Despite my Canadian citizenship, I’ve always considered

Beijing, China to be where I grew up, where I’ve been influ-

enced the most, and therefore my home. Sadly enough, how-

ever, the thought of going home during those three months

of summer often inspires conflicting emotions. While it is a

place where I can relax in my own bed, spend valuable timewith a family that I see so little of these days, and venture

past the vicinity of my downtown apartment without se-

curing prior permission, the price I pay sometimes makes

me question if it is worth it. To an outside observer, China’s

most distinguishable trademarks often stereotypes itself as

a country where a majority of global consumer goods are

manufactured, where knockoff brand-name electronics can

be bought at less than a third of the price, where its aca-

demically accomplished students flood American colleges

with applications each year, and where the Great Wall- Chi-

na’s most distinguishable tourist attraction- is situated. Whilethese attractions and novelties to a Westerner certainly serve

as incentives for a visit, China’s national image stands for so

much more than just these elements on the surface, many of

which are detrimental to national unity and advancement.

Unbeknownst to the majority of short-term visitors to the

country, the average Chinese resident’s struggle is direct-

ed, sadly, against their own government, which, to this day,

exists as an authoritarian political machine that deprivesthe population of basic human rights and civil liberties.

Ever since its establishment in the 1920s, the Communist

Party of China (the ruling and only recognized party within

the Chinese political system) has envisioned a controlling

environment with subservient citizens and sought to elim-

inate political opposition. The very name itself, People’s

Republic of China, remains one of the biggest hypocrisies

within the administration. The elements of individual au-

tonomy, freedom of speech, and democracy denotative-

ly associated with the term “Republic” has not and, under

constant efforts at suppression and prosecution undertak-en by the government, cannot be integrated into the lives

of individual residents. Instead of detailing every problem


25/32

rooted in the Chinese government and suggest ways to fix

it (which many has done), my motive in writing this piece

is to narrate my own struggles against an authoritarian

system and, through illustrating the discrepancy between

my life at Lawrenceville and back home, contextualize the

problem and provide a first person perspective on the issue.

Perhaps the biggest issue I have is keeping up with the

world during the summer. By going back to China, I exit theLawrenceville bubble, but end up in another one that iso-

lates me from life as I know it. The reality of the banned

websites means that the only possible way to keep in touch

with everyone from Lawrenceville is through Skype, which

is a joke all by itself. Not only are the famous social media

websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube

blocked by the Great Firewall of China, the list of banned

websites has since expanded to include indispensable ones

that I rely on to function. Lawrenceville’s email system uses

the Gmail medium, which means that I won’t be able to re-

ceive any updates from the school about the college pro-

cess, my schedule next year, and any other information. I

was recently informed that even the Common Application,

a website that pertains to high school students around the

world, had been partially blocked in China, along with the

majority of official websites of Universities. For the govern-

ment to partially block a website is to make its connection to

mainland routers so weak and slow that they are essentially

inaccessible. Like a lot of other Chinese-American boarding

students, I own a Virtual Private Network (VPN), which in

theory should allow me to access websites from a location

outside of mainland China, thereby circumventing the Great

Firewall. In practicality, however, China’s Internet speed issignificantly slower than what is presented in America, and

it is reduced for a reason. A VPN system requires a reliable

and strong connection to establish the network; as a result,

VPN only seldom works in China. Despite the most advanced

fiber optics network installed in my home, the connection is

still not even close to being comparable to that of Ameri-

ca’s. With no viable solutions around the Wi-Fi problem, it

means that I would have to do all of my college research

before and after the break, and copy and paste every appli-

cation into word documents to transport back into China.

The Firewall also means I would remain oblivious to thecurrent events outside China for three months. The govern-

ment has done everything they can to sever international

bonds and keep out foreign influence. Major news websites

including CNN, Fox News, and the New York Times have all

been blacklisted to prevent domestic residents from gaining

an international perspective. As a substitute, the Chinese gov-

ernment-controlled press publishes pro-State propaganda in

what I cannot call Newspapers, and for half an hour everyday

starting at 7pm, every channel on the Chinese cable listing

broadcasts a series of national news. These pieces of news all

report on the general prosperity and progress that China as a

country is making. Through these optimistic and, on most days,extremely selective and biased reports, it is supposed to gal-

vanize national opinion and eliminate any doubt the general

public may hold toward the capabilities of the government

Lastly, another act by the government that I find to be

particularly aggravating is the lack of freedom of expres-

sion within the society. The aforementioned hypocrisy of

China’s Republic means that its people do not have the op-

tion to voice their discontent through democratic elections

and being involved in the political system. The government

controlled and heavily centralized Chinese media wouldnot allow for opposition deemed detrimental to the state

Deprived of democratic tools to combat a government that

has earned the disapproval of many, the people’s only op-

tion left is to voice their grievances in private-owned blogs

One of the more infamous blogs is named WeChat, where

ordinary civilian users have the ability to come into contact

with articles written in stark opposition to the government

and can mass-distribute these pieces with a single click. It

should come as no surprise that the Chinese government

has recruited thousands into an administration under the

civilian surveillance who does nothing else but surf the

web everyday. The identify pieces of rhetoric that must be

destroyed, and they simply have the ability to take down

an article at its source, therefore wiping it from existence

The bright side of a seemingly job-well-done by the Chi-

nese government-- to control and suppress the issue-- is that

more and more of China’s population is able to voice their

alternative views of the government through increased ac-

cess to Internet. These pioneering rebels, who still exist as

a minority amongst a predominantly poorly-educated and

misinformed public, are generally the more politically aware

economically affluent, college educated, and open-minded

individuals with ties and background in Western culturesRecent conspiracy theorists have proposed that the rea-

son China has gradually increased its internet and infor-

mation censorship to block off access to foreign University

websites is to keep the “Best and the Brightest” within the

country, uncompromised by Western values. For China, such

a globally significant country with nearly one-fifth of the

world’s population to present itself as an extremely retro-

gressive and obstinate country- a country that would rath-

er sacrifice ameliorated levels of general education that

involved a broader and more comprehensive global per-

spective than admit to shortcomings and twenty-first cen-tury problems within its own governmental policies is the

reason why the thought of going back to China, a coun-

try that I still consider my home, gives me apprehension

.

25


26/32

The Untold Villain of the... // BY WILLIAM HWANG ’19

out, they are doing so with outrage.

But the force succeeded for so long withthat campaign because the legal system didnot deliver justice to the families. Even this

time, properly publicly funded and accommo-dated, ultimately vindicated by the unlawful

killing verdict and exoneration of Liverpoolsupporters, the families suffered a process

that was often deeply unsatisfactory.From his raised seat in the makeshift court-

room in a previously empty Warrington office

block, Goldring noted at the end, in his char-

acteristically formal manner, how “agonisingly

difficult” it had been for the families. He ac-

knowledged, with some grace but profoundunderstatement: “I know on occasion you

26

On a Saturday evening of April 15, 1989, more than 50,000 people

gathered at the Hillsborough Stadium in Sheffield, England, for the

opening of FA Cup Semi-Final football match between Liverpool and

Nottingham Forest. In order to relieve a bottleneck of exuberant Liv-erpool fans trying to enter the venue before kickoff, police opened an

exit gate and people rushed to get inside. More than 3,000 fans werefunneled into a standing-room-only area with a safe capacity of just

1,600. The resulting crush and chaos in the stands prompted organ-izers to stop the game after six minutes. Police on the pitch initially

concluded the crush was an attempt by rowdy fans to surge onto the

field, but as officers approached the stands, it became apparent peo-

ple were suffocating and trying to escape by climbing the fence. Thetragedy left 96 Liverpool fans dead and another 766 injured, and was

recognized as “The worst sports disaster in the British History” accord-ing to the BBC. This event later became known as the Hillsborough

disaster, which would leave many families in sorrow and despair asthey fought for justice over the course of 27 years.

When Jurors returned verdict of unlawful killing of 96 Liverpool fansthis last month, it took less than 27 minutes. So simple, so powerful, so

emphatic – and obliviously just. So why on earth did it take 27 yearsto arrive? I am not the only one who needs to ask this question. Every

journalist, every politician – indeed the whole country – needs to alsopress for an answer. That’s because until there is a broadly shared con-sensus on how the breathtaking injustice of Hillsborough happened,

we will not be able to make this the moment of change needed.The simple truth about 15 April, 1989 and its aftermath has been

sitting quietly in official files for years. If the state had wanted the

families to have it earlier, it only had to say the word. But still the

country refused. Parts of the story are still missing, held by those in

power wishing to keep the files privy. This fact is deeply worrying,

spurring us to question the law enforcement and government of Brit-ain.

The judiciary appears, actually, to believe that inquests are morepeople-friendly than high courts. Mainly, it seems, because they are

mercifully free of wigs. But the process remains formally divorcedfrom normal life. Hearing the most grounded, loving of families’ need

for the truth about their loved ones’ deaths was unnerving from thestart. Only in courts, there to serve the public yet somehow so inacces-

sible, is a boss requirpt the jury, against the protests of the bereavedfamilies’ lawyers, one area of the establishment which has monumen-

tally failed them for years was omitted: the legal system itself.

The hard-bitten police force flouted its duty to protect the safety of

54,000 people invited to Sheffield that day when the authorities let

people into an unsafe and squalid football game. Officers began to

cover up their inadequacies and slander the people they were paid toprotect, even as horror was descending. And now that the end of pro-

ceedings has freed the bereaved families and their lawyers to speak


27/32

Now the newgenerationin Parliamentmust makeHillsborough amoment whenBritain changed

for the better.

27

have not agreed with my decisions.”

The truth is that during many traumatic legal battles – which couldnot be reported until afterwards because the jury was absent – thefamilies and their lawyers bitterly challenged Goldring’s rulings.

The sole fact that the families must wait for a shambolic quar-ter-century of bumbling and costly inquiries, inquests, lobbying and

lawyers reveals the ineffectivity of the legal system of Britain. The

system still leaves a lingering sense of justice unfulfilled. In fact, no

one has been properly blamed and punished. Nonetheless, there arepositives about Hillsborough to which we can cling. At least this coun-

try was able finally to open up and look itself in the mirror. And in an

increasingly atomised world, it provides a reminder of what true sol-

idarity can achieve. This tells us that change is possible. So just as a

new generation of campaigners had to come to the fore, now the newgeneration in Parliament must make Hillsborough a moment whenBritain changed for the better

...Hillsborough Saga


28/32

PUERTO RICO

RELIEVING

On Monday, May 1st, Puerto Rico failed to pay over

$370 million in bonds. This default is a direct result

of the Island’s frightening economic crisis. Right now,

Puerto Rico has a debt of about $70 Billion- more thanany American State. The economic crisis on the Island

has reached catastrophic extremes. Over 44% of the

Island’s population of 3.5 million is currently living in

poverty, and more and more public services are being

shut down by the day. Over 150 schools have already

been closed. To worsen matters, large numbers of

Puerto Ricans are migrating to the continental Unit-

ed States, further weakening the island’s tax profit.

Legally, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the

United States. While the island is allowed to display

its own national flag and have a local independentgovernment, it is ultimately subservient to the Amer-

ican Congress. Puerto Ricans are considered Ameri-

can citizens, but the Island is not an American state.

This ‘gray area’ regarding Puerto Rico’s autonomy is

what makes economic recovery seem almost impos-

sible. During the 70’s the American government didpass certain tax breaks which brought a myriad of

industries to the island. However, in 2006, Congress

voted to end many of these tax exemptions, pushing

industries away and harming the Puerto Rican econ-

omy. To recover, the Puerto Rican government started

selling bonds. However, due to the island’s unique le-

gal status, the Puerto Rican government loosely reg-

ulated these sales which allowed Wall Street banks

to pocket over $900 million simply from managing

Puerto Rico’s bond trade - Further weakening the is-

land’s economy. Had there been more clarity in lawsregarding Puerto Rico’s autonomy, such economic

hardships could have been avoided

Gianluca Minardi ‘17


29/32

In extraordinary cases, American municipalities can

apply for Chapter 9 bankruptcy as an immediate relief.

Since cities or states can’t simply liquidate all their

assets, this type of bankruptcy allows municipalities

to renegotiate their debt to creditors under govern-

ment protection to ensure that crucial public services

will not stop working. Most recently the city of Detroit

went through this process. However, due to an amend-

ment passed in 1981, the American congress does not

allow Puerto Rico to apply for Chapter 9 bankruptcy.

From this , it seems like Puerto Rico’s only alternative is

to save money by closing more schools and hospitals.

It’s the United States’ duty to do something about

Puerto Rico. A big part of Puerto Rico’s crisis comes

from their own government’s mismanagement, and

America should therefore not simply “bail out” Puerto

Rico’s debt. However, America has always influenced

Puerto Rico’s economy. Indeed, certain tax exemp-tions did provide jobs for Puerto Ricans, but, from

creating a free trade that dates back to the Span-

Documents

The First Amendment: May Issue