December 2013 Issue of The First Amendment

THE FIRSt AMENDMENt
December 2013
ERROR
Editorial |6 Article |14-15 D e a t h o f t h e Te a P a r t y | 16 - 17 If Politicians got M a j o r s | 12 - 13
Issue IV.iii 1
THE FIRSt AMENDMENt

Political Discussions of The Lawrenceville School
Founded 2010 Ex Ore Discipulorum Veritas
elcome to The First Amendment. This publication serves as a platform for the world views and political perspectives of The Lawrenceville School community. We hope that you use this magazine not as a partisan mouthpiece but rather as a way to engage in a constructive debate on the issues of the day. While the First Amendment to the Constitution grants us freedom of speech and the right to civil debate, how to appropriately accomplish these ends remains a controversial issue. Yet one thing we can agree on is the value of hearing opposing perspectives for an inclusive and prosperous society. In a community that can often ignore what happens outside of its gates, this magazine serves as inspiration to discuss those issues that beset the world beyond. It is this inspiration that fulfills one of the most important parts of the Schools mission statement: responsible leadership, personal fulfillment, and enthusiastic participation in the world. We love to argue here at Lawrenceville, but rarely does anyone seem to leave a conversation adopting a different stance. So as you read The First Amendment, please take the time to understand the viewpoints that differ from your own. If you still disagree, then feel free to tell us in as little as two sentences or a full article. Send your submissions to: FirstAmendmentLville@gmail.com -The 4th Board
THE FIRST AMENDMENT

EX ORE DISCIPLORUM VERITAS
Editors-in-Chief Shubhankar Chhokra 14 Andreas Vandris 14 Executive Editors Stephen Clarke 14 Andrew McLaughlin 14 Ombudsman Malcolm Palley 14 Associate Editors Jimmy ODonnell 15 Jared Solomon 15 Editor-at-Large Jonathan Marrow 14 Design Editor Ashlyn Lackey 14 Graphics Editor Isabelle Gotuaco 14 Jeremy Berman 14 Senior Columnists Maya Peterson 14 Sarah Pieringer 14 Copy Editors Maeve Devlin 14 Kyle DSouza 14
Senior Staff Caroline Armour 14, John Avendano 14, Amber Boykins 14, Matt Ramey 14 Staff Writers Rajiv Balasuriya 15, Joon Choe 15, Aulden Foltz 15, Jonas Frumkin 15, Anuj Krishnamurthy 15, George Lankas 15, Sabrina Li 16 Aleks Stajkovic 15, James Stevenson 16, David Xin 15, Patrick Yu 15, Jason Zhang 15, Karen Zhang 15 Artists Annie Guo 15, Whitney Huang 15, Karen Zhang 15, Lisa Zhu 15 Faculty Advisor Robert Shaw P14 16
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- Amendment One, The United States Constitution
INSIDE
EDItoRIaL INtERNatIoNaL
A Glitch in the Works | 6 Shubhankar Chhokra 14

NatIoNaL
A New New Deal | 26-27 Jared Solomon 15 Nelson Mandela | 30 Anuj Krishnamurthy 15 Typhoon Haiyan | 31 John Avendano 14
Courtesy of the White House
Raise Your Glass | 10-11 Anuj Krishnamurthy 15 Backward | 14-15 Jimmy ODonnell 15
Death of the Tea Party | 16-17 George Lankas 15
Clinton v. Clinton | 25
Patrick Yu 15
New Asia | 34-35 Joon Choe 15 The Unsung Martyr | 38-39 Caroline Armour 14 and Amber Boykins 14
The Worlds Oldest Profession | 40-41 Sabrina Li 16
FEatURES
Bloomberglessness | 20-21 Rajiv Balasuriya 15 Pivot to Asia | 24 Jonathan Marrow 14 Clinton v. Clinton | 25 Patrick Yu 15 Political Procrastination | 42 James Stevenson 16
If Politicians got Majors | 12-13 Matt Ramey 14
A New New Deal | 26-27

Jared Solomon 15
Top 5 Speeches | 18-19 Aleks Stajkovic 15 Only in America: Mayors | 22-23 Jonas Frumkin 15 Poll-Literacy | 28-29 Spectrum: Pledge of Allegiance | 32-33 Karen Zhang 15 Africa Crimes Map | 36-37 Jason Zhang 15
CoLUMNS A Little to the RIGHT: Political Parties | 7 Sarah Pieringer 14 MIDDLE of Nowhere: Hats in Irwin | 8 Jeremy Berman 14 LEFT Wondering: Rape Culture | 9 Maya Peterson 14
New Asia | 34-35

Joon Choe 15
Pop Perspective: Fit to Run | 43

Issue IV.iii 3
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

f
Dear Editor, Based on her recent column, it seems that senior columnist Maya Peterson 14 fails to understand that cultural appropriation, both natural and harmless, results from the emerging globalization of our world. The growing pains of our diversifying culture will not be alleviated through fear of insult but rather through active acceptance of differences, regardless of what form that acceptance comes in. Certainly, we must be careful to preserve the cultures and teachings of the past, but our cultures obsession over political correctness only leads towards the creation of even more unnecessary taboos. Rather than viewing the usage of things such as the Native American headdress or Hindu Bindi as disgusting and ignorant, these items should be celebrated as multiculturalism that will eventually lead to the translation over of deeper cultural values. Emulation compliments the culture being copied, yet some twist these tributes into perceived mockery. Often negatively misrepresented, the cultural assimilation trend should be encouraged rather than feared. -Cal Fullerton 15
Dear Editor, I write in response to the article Check Mate by Anuj Krishnamurthy 15, which argued that the United States should not intervene in Syria. Looking at the events in Syria objectively, it should be obvious that the United States needs to become more involved in directly attempting to quell the civil war raging within the Middle Eastern nation. If for no other reason, the U.S. should have intervened in Syria due to Bashar al Assads decision to use chemical weapons against his own people, in direct violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. In signing this pact two decades ago, nations like the United States agreed to ban the use of chemical weapons and to intervene any time these horrific weapons were used. The United States must keep its word and show all nations around the world that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated under any circumstances and that their use will be met with strict and immediate consequences. The United States, as the worlds only superpower, has a responsibility to assist foreign citizens when their nations abjectly turn against them and begin to use military force to suppress their natural rights. The U.S. has already failed to act in response to similar situations in the past, notably the Rwandan genocide and the Liberian Civil War. America should have acted swiftly and decisively to stop the horrors occurring in Syria. We instead risked further isolating itself from a world, endangering a region in desperate need of foreign assistance. -Clay Stone 14
Political, Economic, and Social Discussions of The Lawrenceville School
THE FIRST AMENDMENT
4 The First Amendment
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dear Editor, Last month, The First Amendment featured an article titled A Response to the Navy Yard Shooting by Fernando Guerrero 15. He claimed that banning firearms would not effectively resolve our nations gun violence issue, and the only effective resolution would be to require additional background checks when selling guns. In addition, he failed to acknowledge that the Sandy Hook shooting of 2012, the second deadliest mass shooting in American history, was perpetrated by Adam Lanza. Lanza suffered from mental health issues yet used his mothers guns to take the lives of twenty-six elementary school students and teachers. Considering Lanzas access to firearms through his mother, background checks could not have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy. The article also states that greater safety can be achieved through tak[ing] our safety into our own hands. However, it does not recognize that safety would already be ensured if a stricter ban on handguns and assault rifles existed. In the response, tens of statistics conceal the greater message of the gun control issue: since the Columbine shooting of 1999, 258 lives have been lost in the United States due to mass shootings. In my opinion, the government must take direct action to prevent such future tragedy, and ban sales of the weapon that has taken so many lives.
-Daisy Wislar 14
Dear Editor, In the last issue of The First Amendment, Jason Zhang 15 wrote about how America should intervene in the Syria conflict in an article titled Leaders of the Free World. While he did have many interesting points, he appears to have forgotten to note that America has enough to deal with on the home front. It is true the America is the cornerstone of democracy and with that, beholds the apparent responsibility to both establish and promote freedom around the world. During nearly any other time I would acknowledge that aiding people in Syria should be an important objective, especially since the U.S. does have interests both in Syria and the neighboring areas. However, with the American economy in the tank, the unemployment rate so high, the recent government collapse, the uneasiness over many social policies, the healthcare debacle, and the act of our own removal from other global conflicts, another task would simply burden us. Americas top priority should be to re-secure its footing within its own borders and already involved interests before delving into new territory. -Eric Chen 15
Dont let democracy die; send your opinions to...
firstamendmentlville@gmail.com
Issue IV.iii 5
Editorial
The First Amendment
IV.iii
Editorial A Glitch in the Works

hile Lawrenceville dealt with its own technological woes in its residential life meeting last week, the Obama administration attempted to triage a similar situation, the blame for which avoidably fell upon the commander-in-chief himself. Something as trivial as a computer glitch shouldnt be Obamas Iran hostage crisis, his presidential pardon, his Katrina. But, as a product of partisan manipulation and the presidents own folly, it seems like it is. The online federal exchanges fiasco, or the tactlessness with which health care is being dealt with altogether, did not start becoming Obamas fault when he took personal responsibility for issues that he obviously had little oversight over (being the bigger man is essentially political suicide). No, Obama shot himself in the foot when he embraced the Obamacare label as a hallmark of his pet policy rather than the pejorative that it really is. President Obamas hubristic desire to be a president whos actually famous for his domestic policy (please) has distracted him from our most pressing priority: foreign policy. It seems that the American ethos only selectively reflects our rather exceptionalist but legitimate desire to be the worlds sole superpower in election years. Well, keeping lesser nations in the greater American hegemon is a full-time job that Obama needs to work for.
Shubhankar Chhokra 14
Syria could have been his big break-- the chance for our president to prance into the international scene and either impose contrived American morals and intervene or feign concern for the cost of maintaining an active military and stand down. Instead, he wavered, allowing the U.N. to take the rebound and make a decision, that is at best, on behalf of the international people instead of the United States. At
Obamas too preoccupied serving as the literal equivalent of a GoDaddy.com girl to formulate and abide by a single, conclusive foreign policy doctrine.
worst, the decision on Syria was on behalf of Putin, who, reinvigorated with his new life as a bachelor and a newly found interest in journalism, acted swiftly and decisivelyeverything that Obama didnt do. Russia continues to challenge American authority with its recent power play with Ukraine, trying to hinder the countrys entry into the European Union in pursuit of Putins painfully obvious campaign to create the Soviet Union 2.0. Obamas too preoccupied serving as the literal equivalent of a GoDaddy.com girl to formulate and abide by a single,
conclusive foreign policy doctrine. Speaking about dangerous alliances with Russia, President Obamas fickle approach with Iran thrusts our nation further in this bottomless diplomatic vacuum. Last week, after the administration supposedly reached some sort of closure on the nuclear deal with Iran after more than three months of slothlike diplomacy, Obama stated, If you ask me what is the likelihood that were able to arrive at the end state...I wouldnt say that its more than 50-50. Regardless of whether hes explicitly making an unforgivably inappropriate reference to to the Joseph Gordon-Levitt movie, most citizens dont want their commander-in-chief to compare the totally feasible feat of solving a minor diplomatic issue to surviving cancer (Dr. Obama needs to work on his diagnoses). His diplomatic stratagem of closing his eyes until Irans nuclear program disappears cannot sustain for much longer. To a point that I do not care much about the nature of the decision so long as it is made, I beseech the Obama administration to make up its mind. A recent Economist cover, despite its disregard for the nuanced art of cover aesthetics (s/o to Izzy for out-arting a national publication), depicts the president neck-high in water, drowning in an ocean of diplomatic mishaps and imprudent hesitations of his own making. Obama can escape this watery grave if he takes a page from the Lawrenceville Athletic Department, and goes all in. Bridge the gap between your rhetoric and your actions. Focus your attention outside of the Washington bubble. The alternative is being a premature lame duck in The Economists ocean.
A Little to the RIGHT
Column
The First Amendment
Sarah Pieringer 14/Senior Columnist So I guess you could say I am experiencing a bit of a political identity crisis. A self-declared centrist/ moderate/independent/what-have-you, I hope to spend a good deal of time this year allowing current events and political quagmires to mentally marinate and keeping you all up to date with what I come up with.
hen I turned eighteen, I was delighted. Even when the twenty-seventh person reminded me of all the newfound privileges that come with reaching the age of majority, my enthusiasm remained fueled and aflame. Some of these rights were more exciting than others. I could finally order off of infomercials, I could pierce mywell, anythingand I could try my luck at the New Jersey lottery. On the other hand, I was now old enough to be sued, sent to prison, or worsejury duty. However, above all, there was no honor I was more excited for than the right to vote. Suffrage meant that my thoughts mattered to Uncle Sam. I was shocked when I found out that not everyone voted. The estimated percent of eligible voters who cast a ballot in the 2012 election was 57.7%. That means that 93 million eligible citizens did not cast ballots. I know I am an idealist, and I admit that I am nave, but I see something hope-
ful in the promise of a government by the people, for the people. So when I happily announced to my parents this summer that I was registering to vote, my parents exchanged a look and said it was time that we had the talk. I raised my eyebrows in panic because I thought that I had already had the talk. However, the talk I was given that day bore no resemblance to the one I endured many years ago while driving to the Freehold mall. My parents launched off on what seemed like a perfectly rehearsed explanation for why I should register to vote Republican. They told me about the beauty of small government and low taxes. Less is more was the name of the game, unless of course we are talking defense spending. As they spoke, I flashed back to the President Kerry? Now thats scary sign that decorated my front lawn on Halloween circa 2008. I remembered going to the voting booth with my mom and
IV.iii asking her who she was going to vote for in some local election. All the Republicans, she replied as she flipped the switches on names she had never seen before. They were branded with a red-elephant label, and that was good enough for her. I politely let them say their piece, but the whole time I stifled a smile behind clenched teeth. My infallible parents, the smartest, most dependable people in my world, were dead wrong. But its not their beliefs that I disagree with. Our countrys democracy machine is broken. When political parties first emerged in the election of 1796, the founding fathers who saw their value justified them as temporary coalitions for specific controversial elections. Todays two-party system represents decade of entrenched affiliations and alliances that transcend generations. We see it all over our campus. On the streets of Lawrenceville, Republican is a dirty word but Id wager that a good number of my Democrat classmates dont really know what that even means. Now before you grab your torch and pitchforks, Im not saying that belonging to a political party signifies stupidity. However I often find that especially amongst high school students, these labels might indicate a shade of ignorance. They say that education takes an empty mind and replaces it with an open one. So in 2016, Im voting for Nader.
Courtesy of LightSoup
Issue IV.iii 7
MIDDLE of NOWHERE
Jeremy Berman 14/Senior Columnist
Column
The First Amendment
Im here to give you some trivial non sequiturs with nontrivial implications. An independent with no filter, Im here to take the party out of political party because the only true usage of the word should be to describe Irwin ragers. Join me as I shove the real world into the Lawrenceville bubble.
communities pillars to make the most effective legislation, and I think it is time Lawrencevilles hat pillar evolves. Gay marriage and its support are becoming increasingly prolific as it is difficult, if not impossible, to come up with a valid counterargument. The country held a close-minded strict
was having a bad hair day and wanted nothing more than to wear my hat while conversing with some girls at the wok line. I was feeling confident. Just as I cleared the steps and was making my way to the right side of the line to get my delicious, slippery noodles, I made eye contact with one of the scarier teachers. He pointed at my head and I was regrettably forced to take off my hat, revealing my subpar hair. Needless to say, my wok experience was less than satisfactory as I couldnt even muster up the self esteem to reach for water chestnuts-- the most important ingredient when making balanced and textured Asian cuisine. Why does our school ban hats in Irwin? I can understand why hats might be undesirable in a classroom setting, as class dress is rumored to encourage more scholarly conversation and motivation. But what could the school possibly gain from my not being able to wear a hat in Irwin? Irwin, for good reason, isnt held to class dress. Why the discrimination against hat wearers? I think the hat situation at Lawrenceville, when boiled down to the reasons behind it, is a lot like gay marriage in our country. We hold our country on pillars of ideals. And as our country progresses and social norms evolve, these pillars evolve too. We can see this most recently with the countrys push toward gay marriage. It is important that we constantly evaluate our nations and
Why the discrimination against hat wearers? I think the hat situation at Lawrenceville, when boiled down to the reasons behind it, is a lot like gay marriage in our country.
definition of marriage, but we are progressing and our view on marriage is evolving. Gay marriage is so popular because it is innocuous. It has no effect on straight married people, yet it means a great deal to the gay population. With no inherent downsides, supporting gay marriage, or at least equality in government benefits, seems to be a no brainer, especially at such an accepting and protean school. Wearing hats in Irwin is as innocuous as gay marriage. It is a way to express ones self that is more acceptable and appropriate than how some people dress at Irwin (not that I think any clothing should be banned, but just saying). So why do we ban it?
Maybe because it is not tradition? The School has changed many traditions that affect the students far more than a simple hat issue. The foremost of these changes is becoming a coed school: is it not tradition that had kept Lawrenceville a testosterone-fueled, no-females-allowed boys club? A more recent change in tradition is class dress. Unlike our Hill School peers who still need to attend classes in coat and tie, the Lawrenceville class dress has relaxed these requirements.With traditions, consistency is key, and seeing as class dress has changed with the times, so should our hat policy. Lets call it what it is. Lawrenceville restricts hat-wearing because thats how its been. Thats how our community has defined the proper way to dress. But in a place of almost no dress code such as Irwin, wearing hats should be allowed. The anti-hat pillar at Lawrenceville must be knocked down. Let us wear our hats; they arent hurting anyone and it would make those bad hair days much easier. Im sure a lot of you have been thinking, How could you possibly compare the grave issue of gay marriage to an unimportant, minuscule hassle like not being allowed to wear hats in buildings? Well, I would say I agree with you, to some extent. Gay marriage is certainly a more important and pressing issue than hat wearing. However, I believe it is always important to make comparisons. It is how we learn from historys cyclical nature and it is how we can form our own opinions and morals. We can use the hat issue as a microcosm for gay rights, or just forget this hat article all together. But I think we should all try to find the comparisons, no matter how ridiculous, to better understand the bigger and more complicated issues-- of course being careful not to oversimplify the bigger issue, which Im surely a little guilty of. I do, however, stick by my comparison and believe it is as fitting as a new flat brim, still in need of wearing-in.
LEFT Wondering
Column
The First Amendment
IV.iii
rape perpetuates the belief that rapes are either made up or not actually rape. Somewhat recently another Republican Richard Mourdock, treasurer of the state of Indiana, had the audacity to claim, Even when life results in that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen. Are you kidding? And regardless of whether their statements were clarified or retracted after overwhelming backlash, rape culture is a salient part of our government that is affecting the lives of women everywhere who must live within the laws of a government that questions the legitimacy of sexual assault and, unknowingly, condones it. One of the most obvious characteristics of rape culture is victim blaming. Victim blaming is the name given to the asking of questions such as What was she wearing? What was she doing there? Was she drunk? Was she flirting with him? all questions that are common when mentioning the sexual assault of a woman. This sort of questioning implies that it is a womans job to prevent assault or rape, when in reality, it should be a mans duty to understand that no means no. No means no, regardless of whether a woman is wearing a kneelength skirt and long sleeve shirt or is completely naked walking down the street. No means no, whether a woman is sober or drunk (a drunk individual cannot legally give consent anyway). No means no, whether a woman was flirting, kissing, touching you or not. No means no. It does not meanconvince me, and it never will. Disclaimer: I realize that this article focuses solely on cases of the heterosexual rape of women, but the given word limit makes it impossible to explain the complexities of cases involving heterosexual rape of men or homosexual rape of men or women. I acknowledge these often ignored dimensions of sexual assault and hope to write about them at a later date.
Maya Peterson 14/Senior Columnist

I am a woman; I believe that I should hold dominion over my body, not a mans dogmatic religious agenda. I am a person of color; I know what its like to be questioned more than a white person and trusted less. I am queer; I know how it feels to be treated as a second-class citizen, and have my love for people deemed abnormal, because the Bible says so. I am not a Democrat, surely not a Republican. I believe in being myself and not trying to assimilate in order to appease those who cant handle .
change
oys will be boys. Weve all heard it since we were children. At the beginning, it gives boys an excuse to wrestle each other or pull girls hair, but we have to consider the implications of a culture that teaches young boys that they dont need to take responsibility for disrespectful and sometimes violent behavior and teaches young girls that while they are taught to be polite and sweet, it is okay for boys to be rowdy. It may seem harmless, but, when considering rape culture, we as a society must eliminate the boys will be boys mentality. Rape culture, although hard to define emphatically, is a plague. It stems not only from the idea that boys are naturally rambunctious, but also from the trivialization of rape. Students, without thinking twice about the meaning of their words, will say, That test raped me! upon finishing a tough exam; athletes will gloat about winning a game by a landslide by announcing that they raped the other team. And what do they mean by rape? Succeeding without meaningful opposition? Conquering? Taking advantage of weakness? While browsing the Internet Ive seen the Rape Sloth with a caption that says, Knock knock Just kidding, forced entry and Oh you dont want sex? Challenge accepted. The word rape and the idea of sexual assault being used as a source of pride and even
comedy perpetuates a culture that condones rapea rape culture. Rape culture is not only obvious on the Internet; it permeates our media and therefore is imposed on the masses. The majority of Hollywood comedies starring a group of men places sex or the pursuit of high on their list of priorities, if not placing sex above
It may seem harmless, but ... we as a society must eliminate the boys will be boys mentality. Rape culture ... is a plague. It stems not only from the idea that boys are naturally rambunctious, but also from the trivialization of rape.
all. These films tell the stories of men who, in American Pie for example, try and get women drunk in order to have sex with them. Both boys and girls, young and old, are exposed to this behavior and it becomes normalized and, unfortunately, hilarious. Rape culture looms in the world of politics as well. Most commonly, rape is spoken about upon mentioning abortion. Todd Akin (R-MI) stated that legitimate rape couldnt end in pregnancy because a womans body would shut down. There are two major issues with his statement. One, this is not even close to a scientifically proven fact and two, claiming that there is a difference between legitimate rape and illegitimate
Issue IV.iii 9
National
The First Amendment
IV.iii
RAISE YOUR GLASS
20th century legislation, 21st century needs

Anuj Krishnamurthy 15
Courtesy of the Rouhani administration.
n 1933, the Roosevelt administration passed the Glass-Steagall Act, named after two Democratic senators who sponsored the bill. A direct response to larger banks mismanagement and poor investment practices, the Act was a prominent piece of regulation intended to curb the ability of banks to make potentially disastrous, risky deals. The Act stipulated that commercial banks (those that hold customers deposits and grant loans) cannot engage in the same activities as investment banks, such as trading securities. Thus, commercial banks were ultimately forced to carefully manage peoples money, and could not spend deposits on risky trades. The Act also founded the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (F.D.I.C.), which, even today, guarantees bank deposits up to $250,000, discouraging people from pulling their deposits out and allowing banks to retain their pools of cash and stay afloat. The advent of the mortgage-backed securitya financial package in which commercial banks sold home loans to investorsand
other financial innovations served to erode this key piece of financial regulation throughout the twentieth century. Finally, in 1999, the Clinton administration oversaw and supported the passage of the Gramm-LeachBliley Act, which repealed many measures of Glass-Steagall and did away with the mandatory separation of commercial and investment banks. Unfortunately, this act of financial deregulation was highly detrimental.
In a modern financial environment characterized by quick trades and unscrupulous transactions, strict financial regulations need to be put in place to protect the hard-earned savings of average Americans.
Commercial banks began to grant subprime loans to people who couldnt afford them, then packaged these loans into mortgage-backed securities and sold the securities off to investment firms. Initially, these trades were highly profitable, but as time went on, the instability and unsustainable nature
of the system became apparentbut it was too late. The year 2008 saw huge bank shutdowns, property foreclosures, and mass layoffs, all due to the profit-geared, volatile system of trading that had evolved following the repeal of Glass-Steagall. In a modern financial environment characterized by quick trades and unscrupulous transactions, strict financial regulations need to be put in place to protect the hard-earned savings of average Americans. Glass-Steagalls repeal unleashed a wave of poor financial practices, bringing shortterm profit to company executives and shareholders. In the end, however, these get-rich-quick bank policies cost taxpayers immensely through the large government bailouts needed to revive languishing financial firms and businesses. In the 21st century, it is absolutely necessary to restore Glass-Steagalls central measures, particularly the separation of commercial and investment banks. Problematically, the basic premises of commercial and investment banks are starkly different. Commercial banks are supposed to be conservative and careful
National
with the money deposited by average Americans. On the other hand, investment firms deal with complicated financial vehicles and the money of wealthier Americans, who can afford to engage in high-risk trading. Combining the two, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, cultivates a demand for high profits, which can only be met with the high-risk trading of investment firms. A prominent political movement in Washington to reintroduce Glass-Steagall has developed in recent
The First Amendment

get access to F.D.I.C.-insured deposits when you do, Warren says. Reintroducing Glass-Steagall would also distribute financial assets more fairly and equitably to more banks, diluting the severity of the possible consequences of a particular bank failing. Before the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the five largest banks in America possessed 13% of assets. By 2009, that percentage swelled to 38% in 14 years. The rise of supermarket banks like Bank of America and Citigroup indicates that the financial industry is far too wrapped up
IV.iii
grow to gargantuan sizes undermines the ability of local banks to provide credit to the communities they know, understand, and have a vested interest in protecting, as the larger banks are only interested in making a quick buck. The Glass-Steagall Act helped to pull Americas ruined financial system out of the worst economic climate this country has ever endured; it most certainly can help now, in a post-recession America stumbling through an anemic recovery and still dealing with the deleterious antics of mega-rich banking firms.
years, especially after the ineffective nature of federal regulatory policy became apparent. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is a vociferous proponent of reinstalling Glass-Steagall. She is fundamentally against the notion of government financial protection through the F.D.I.C. for firms that like to make high-risk trades with public funds on a large scale. The central premise behind a 21st century Glass-Steagall is to say, If you want to get out there and take risks, go and do it. But what you cant do is you cant
in a small number of banks. This phenomenon increases the potential devastation that could be unleashed if one of those banks fails and increases the amount of federal money (provided by taxpayers) that would be needed to help those banks stay afloat. The rise of these banks also indicates that local banks those based in local townships, tailored to specific community interests are losing business. Local banks are important, to some extent, for the success of local businesses and economies. Allowing a few banks to
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
- Thomas Jefferson
Issue IV.iii 11
Lawrentians and politicians share a lot in common: both like to talk (often without substance), have mastered the art of evading responsibilities (My computer crashed!), and are almost entirely devoid of any sort of private life. These eerie similarities beg the question: What would happen if politicians attended Lawrenceville? If the recent escapades of Toronto mayor-turned-crack-addict-in-denial Rob Ford serve as any indication of how politicians operate, we predict that if they entered our schools hallowed gates, they might not pass our less-than-merciful disciplinary standards. Below are instances of politicians breaking major Lawrenceville School rules:
! S IF POLITICIANS GOT JOR A M

Matt Ramey 14 and the Board
Senator Rand Paul, (R-KT)
PLAGIARISM
If Paul were a student at Lawrenceville, he would likely be expelled for multiple instances of plagiarism. In previous speeches, Paul copied from a Wikipedia article without citing the website. You would think that medical school would teach you to put a little more effort into sourcing, but the best reference the heir apparent of the Paul dynasty could come up with was Wikipedia. Really? Senator Paul even plagiarized in his book, Government Bullies,borrowing from reports by Forbes magazine and conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation. Furthermore, Senator Pauls nationally televised Tea Party response to Obama carbon-copied a passage from an A.P. report. At least he can claim to be consistently unoriginal. The Junior Senator from Kentucky has shown no remorse in regards to his plagiarism, making it clear that the only reason he was restructuring his office to avoid these errors was to make people leave [him] the hell alone. Multiple instances of plagiarism and no apology? Sounds like someone needs to go from Washington D.C. to the Lawrenceville D.C.
Former President Bill Clinton (D)
Former United States President William Jefferson Clinton claimed that when he was a Rhodes Scholar studying in the United Kingdom, he tried marijuana, although he qualified his statement later, saying he didnt inhale. Clinton would have to have quite a bit of explaining to do about his drug use to the School and would probably need a better excuse for possessing illegal drugs than claiming that he thought not inhaling meant not using the drug. Of course this was not Clintons only brush with the law. While president, Clinton lied under oath about his gal pal Monica Lewinsky, a charge that led to his impeachment. Clinton survived this presidential scandal and is living in post-retirement bliss. Lying may keep you in the Oval Office, but itll take you away from the oval tables (Harkness).
Drugs LYING
Mayor Rob Ford
Let us ponder the inspiration Mayor Robert Rob Ford of Toronto, who would be in clear violation of Lawrencevilles drug policy. Ford, a conservative politician, won the mayoral race for Canadas largest city in 2010. Recently, Ford was caught on video smoking a cocaine pipe in a well-lit room, an act he naturally considers less heinous because he was in a drunken stupor. At Lawrenceville, Ford would have a first time offense penalty of a major reported to colleges, athletic suspension, drug counseling courses, and random drug tests. For months before his admission of his wrongdoing, Ford consistently denied the fact that he ever engaged in crack-cocaine consumption, opening another ethical gray area. Rob Ford literally lied about using drugsprobably not the best political move. Though to be fair, unlike most politicians, he has been somewhat punished by the Torontos City Council: they have stripped him of all effective power. The greatest twist of all: despite lying, doing crack, and saying unprintable words on international television, polls indicate that Rob Ford has a higher approval rating than President Barack Obama.
Rob Ford is disciplined by Dean of Students Nancy Thomas H01 P04 07 // Joon Choe 15
Vice President Joseph Biden (D)
Our Vice President would be in trouble as well. Biden was caught plagiarizing twice during his 1988 presidential bid while he was serving as a senator from Delaware. First, in the Iowa debate, he used part of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock as his own. Bidens academic record was not what he claimed it to be either. However, he differs from his libertarian partner-in-crime in that he appears remorseful and apologetic about the matter, blaming himself for the oversight and inviting Kinnock to his inauguration as Vice President. Later in the campaign, however, he plagiarized Robert F. Kennedy and John F. Kennedy in his speech to the California Democratic Party. Granted, Biden was a bit more inventive with his sources-- at least it wasnt Wikipedia. Biden had started his crime-ridden career before these incidents. In law school, Biden was caught plagiarizing and was forced to retake a class. What is the Disciplinary Council to say about Biden?
In fear of obliterating what remains of the readers faith in humanity, I chose not to discuss former Washington, D.C. mayor Marion Barry, charged with possession of drugs after being caught on video only to be re-elected, or former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, who tried to sell a Senate seat. Lawrentians do differ from politicians in one big way, though. Theyweare young and driven, with the potential to change the face of American politics for the better.
Issue IV.iii 13
National
The First Amendment
IV.iii
BACKWARD
Disregard glitches, get money.
Jimmy ODonnell 15
series of conspicuous failures left Healthcare.gov, an all-embracing centerpiece of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or Obamacare, almost out of service as consumers have reported difficulties in signing up and enrolling throughout October. The website has struggled to accommodate more than 20 million Americans who have accessed it since its disastrous launch on October 1, with high traffic frequently resulting in corrupted, often unusable data. Experts have criticized security flaws, inadequate server capacity, and outdated and poorly integrated back-end systems. President Obama has acknowledged the botched rollout but repudiated much of Republican ridicule and pessimism in its wake. Now, while developers slowly mend the broken system and Obama continues to stand adamantly by his signature law, Americans wonder whether its initial stumbling will have lasting effects for their health care, their politicians, and their families. At the heart of Obamacares rough start lies a surprising demo-
graphic: young people. Even as Democrats were still pushing Obamacare through the House and Senate, they foresaw that the laws success would hinge on the participation of young, healthy people to offset the cost of carrying older, sicker Americans, who tend to generate far more in medical bills than they contribute in premiums. Supporters and detractors alike agreed that for the system to work, everyone would have to buy in. The
Millions of Americans, including cancellation victims and the precious under-35 demographic, felt cheated by their government as they watched its complex information technology project freeze up and fall apart.
plan cancellations that followed the launch of the online exchangean unpopular measure, but one crucial to the implementation of the new systemwould provoke only minimal discontent as the majority of Americans quickly found that they could purchase reasonably priced new cover-
age on Healthcare.gov. Instead, they quickly found that they could not. Millions of Americans, including cancellation victims and the precious under-35 demographic, felt cheated by their government as they watched its complex information technology project freeze up and fall apart. Obama had promised repeatedly that health care costs would decrease by an average of $2,500 per family, but the small number of enrollments (and large proportion of older Americans therein) had already caused a spike in prices. He had promised that if you like your plan, you can keep it, leading some to believe that the president knowingly lied. He had spearheaded the effort to ram Obamacare through the House and the Senate without bipartisan support and defended it from a series of major legal challenges, including a suspenseful Supreme Court case. The court ruled in favor of the law last June. Such frustrating delays and proudly-touted empty promises, all amid polarizing political theater, all but prepared Americans to forgive. Once ambivalent Americans, whether
National
shattered by disappointment, annoyed by incompetence, or outraged by perceived betrayal, will surely distrust the Obama administration even after its flagship program ceases to flounder on the national stage. But more than hostile public sentiment troubles the future of Obamacare. If the enrollment numbers for the 20- and 30-somethings on which it depends continue to lag, the program could face serious setbacks in its first year. Though the law guarantees an infusion of federal cash to protect insurance companies from shortfalls in the next few years, this only serves as a stopgap measure. The so-called millennial generation must have
The First Amendment

an invincible 20-something than a $400 per month private insurance plan. With discouraging stories of plan cancellation and rising insurance costs still streaming from liberal news outlets, their general attitude toward Obamacare does not seem likely to change. This reception of the law forecasts persistent economic difficulty and turmoil in American health care, if not O b a m a c a r es s l ow, eventual failure. At
IV.iii
elections. The laws economic footing in the participation of younger people was a presumption whose inherent
At a minimum, the launch of Healthcare.gov will seriously damage the Obama administration and stall the progress of universal healthcare in America; at a maximum, its strain on the economy and on public trust will reduce the Democrats to the minority party in the 2014 midterm elections.
risks have engendered much controversy embroiling the Obama administration now. The website, as a sort of anti climax to years of argument and hype, cemented what was probably already destined to be a lackluster reaction from young people. It functioned as a catalyst for the economic instability rooted in the policies of Obamacare itself. Since Obama will not repeal his major presidential legislation anytime soon, policymakers will see and confront the long-term consequences of the Healthcare.gov rollout through the end of his presidency in 2017 and even beyond. It took a little technological glitch to bring down an entire administration.
With discouraging stories of plan cancellation and rising insurance costs still streaming from liberal news outlets, their general attitude toward Obamacare does not seem likely to change.
an economic stake in Obamacares success, but at present the tax penalty for noncomplianceabout $95, projected to rise slightly each year could easily seem more reasonable to
a mum, launch of Healthwill seriousthe Obama tion and stall of universal America; at a its strain on and on public duce the Demminority party in the
minit h e care.gov ly damage administrathe progress healthcare in maximum, the economy trust will reocrats to the 2014 midterm
HEALTHCARE.GOV BY THE NUMBERS 106,000 people bought insurance through online exchanges in the first month. The administration hoped the above statistic would be 500,000. 27 million people visited online exchange websites. Millions will have their existing policies canceled because they do not meet administration
standards. In the early days of the website, the servers could only handle 1,100 people at a time.
Issue IV.iii 15
National
The First Amendment
IV.iii
DEATH OF THE TEA PARTY

George Lankas 15
uch like the economy, fads fade into recession. Things society was once infatuated withMyspace, the Harlem Shake, pet rockshave disappeared into oblivion, replaced by equally trivial things that consume our time. While fads seem relatively innocuous, it appears that one has taken over a once prestigious American institution-- the political system. The Tea Party came out of nowhere, but with the broadcasting powers of the Fox News Corporation and a calculated campaign movement in 2009-2010, the Tea Party fad brightened the minds and filled the hearts of all Americans (read: white males over the age of 64) with its radical,
With the broadcasting powers of the Fox News Corproation and a calculated campaign movement in 2009-2010, the Tea Party fad brightened the minds and filled the hearts of Americans (read: white males over the age of 64) with their radical, almost anarchical doctrine.
almost anarchical doctrine. At the height of the Great Recession, the Tea Partys platform of creating jobs for hardworking Americans, reducing taxes, and instituting other patriotic economic measures sat warmly with the citizens living in states
where economic success was as rare as a cool summer night in Alabama. The Tea Party looked as if it would engulf the entire Republican Party, setting its radical ideology as the new standard for conservatives. Yet during this past off-year election, it appears as though the Tea Party has hit a wall as so many fads often do. A seemingly quiet off-year election this past November is beginning to appear as a more significant indicator for future elections. As national media largely emphasized the stories of three battleground races, pundits often dismissed this election as nothing more than a simple establishment of political norms and instead focused on the presidential
National
election of 2016, over three years away. Yet as the recent government shutdown brought an inordinate amount of news coverage back to the daily happenings of Washington, and more specifically Tea Party members involvement in the fiasco, other races also began drawing national attention. As the Virginia Governors race was embroiled in stories of corrupt fundraising, outlawing contraceptives, and questionable business dealings, Virginians had two choices: an extreme, right-wing Tea Partier or a slimy, liberal business-dealing Democrat. Virginia, a swing state, made its decision clear: no Tea Party. In a close victory, Virginians surprisingly voted in Democrat Terry McAuliffe in a 47 to 45 point victory over Ken Cuccinelli. Like any fad, once the novelty goes, so does the interest. If Virginia, a pivotal swing-state, goes blue like it did in this gubernatorial race, the nation itself may tip blue, resulting in yet another Democrat in the Oval Office in 2016. In Lawrencevilles home state of New Jersey, the race for the governors mansion did not end until the fat lady sang. Chris Christie battled against Democrat Barbara Buono in
The First Amendment

the traditionally Democratic New Jersey. Christie won by a tremendous 22 point margin, solidifying Christies position as a strong Republican candidate for the 2016 presidential
IV.iii
Republican primaries if he decides to run for office. Whether or not it is a fad, it cannot be denied that the Tea Party itself is destroying and dividing the entire Republican Party. The government shutdown demonstrated that leaders of the Republican Party do not want to associate themselves with the Tea Party. Representative Aaron Schrock (R-IL) fittingly retorted, The reality is theres a much larger population within our caucus that recognizes reality for what it is. The shutdown proved that a minority had the ability to go against the will of the majority. As the nation picks itself up by its bootstraps, it will inevitably move forward. The economy as a whole will improve, as will necessarily the economic condition of those who are struggling. Hopefully, this progress will reduce partisan extremism, creating in its place parties that work towards a common goal. A fad lasts for only a few short years before it is replaced by a different one. The 2016 presidential election will determine whether the Tea Party is a fad or is legitimate party here to stay. Until then, this nation will remain a house divided, even on the simplest of issues.
The government shutdown demonstrated that leaders of the Republican Party do not want to associate themselves with the Tea Party. Representative Aaron Schrock (R-IL) fittingly retorted, The reality is theres a much larger population within our caucus that recognizes reality for what it is.
election. However, Christie is generalized as more of a Centrist Republican, often criticized by Tea Partiers for being too liberal, but in the blue state of New Jersey, this centrism proved to be what voters wanted. His landslide victory only contributes to the demise of the Tea Party. Many now square him off against Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz for the 2016 Republican primaries. With such an overwhelming victory in New Jersey, it appears that Chris Christie will take a larger slice of the cake in the
NOT AMERICAS CUP OF TEA

Disfavorability ratings for the Tea Party has increased from 37% to 69% for Democrats, 24% to 49% for Independents, and from 10% to 27% for Republicans between February 2010 and October 2013.
Statistics courtesy of Pew Research
2010
2011
mid 2013
late 2013
Issue IV.iii 17
Top American
Here is a list of the most impressive, dynamic, and resonating political speeches in American political history.
5. Democratic National Committee Keynote Convention 1976Barbara Jordan

Best Line: We are a people trying not only to solve the problems of the present, but we are attempting on a larger scale to fulfill the promise of America. In 1976, Barbara Jordan spoke in front of the Democratic National Convention as the first African American woman to deliver the Keynote Address. An ardent democrat and Civil Rights activist, Jordan discussed the issues of poverty, workers rights, and Civil Rights as imperative priorities. She believed the Democratic Party held the solutions to these discriminating problems and best represented the principles on which our nation was founded. Using simple rhetoric and strong declarative sentences, Jordans speech was an inspired effort against the increasingly regionalized politics of the time, in favor of a return of a government working together to promote ideals of equality and opportunity for all citizens.
Speeches in History
Aleks Stajkovic 15
Best Line: Ask not, what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. John F. Kennedy was elected as President of the United States at a flourishing time in U.S. history. America had become an increasingly capitalist society with an expanding amount of white and blue-collar job opportunities, in addition to a tremendous increase in the birth rate due to the return of Word War II soldiers. However, contention with Communism and the Soviet Union was unwavering, and racial inequalities still remained. Kennedy, in his speech, empowered the American citizen to maintain the values of our country and to expand on the greatness of America through his or her civil duties. In essence, Kennedy created a collective domestic feeling of camaraderie and responsibility among the next generation of Americans to benefit the country.
4. J.F.K. Inaugural Address
18 TheAmendment First Amendment 18 The First
3. F.D.R. Inaugural
Best Line: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. In contrast to the sanguine ambiance during JFKs inauguration, Franklin Delano Roosevelt entered office at a much more pessimistic time as a result of the Great Depression. Roosevelts speech addressed the economic panic and diminishing pride Americans were facing. Workers no longer wanted material wealth, but instead only cared about supporting their families at any cost. Franklin understood this desire and promised his citizens that he would return Americas prosperity. Most importantly, after many Americans lost faith in the government because of the Hoover Administration, Franklin reassured the public that they could trust the constitutional system and democracy to better their lives.
2. I have A Dream-Martin Luther King Jr.

Best Line: I have a dream that one day right there in Alabama little black boys and little black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. MLK was a determined Civil Rights activist whose beliefs for a nation to uphold its principles of equality culminated in his speech given at the Lincoln Memorial. While most of Kings written speech is not extremely well remembered aside from the I have a dream peroration, Kings dynamic persona, bombastic voice, and emotionally charged determination for racial emancipation is whats remembered today. In his vision of social reform, King spoke of the continual abuse of African Americans, and chastises the democratic principles of America for being exclusive towards other races. Kings demand for equality, the principle America had been seemingly founded upon, echoed not only through the United States, but also through the entire world, and increased the awareness for a political and moral concern.
1. The Gettysburg Address- Abraham Lincoln

Best Line: Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. At about three minutes in length and fewer than 300 words long, The Gettysburg Address showed to the American public that the sacrifices of the Civil War were a struggle not just for the union, but also for a birth of freedom. The greatest strength in Lincolns speech, according to this years Weeden Lecturer, Professor Allen Guelzo, derived from his commitment and passion for maintaining democracy. By emphasizing the values of human equality and the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln wanted to prove that a government of the people, by the people, for the people could, and would succeed.
Images courtesy of White House Press Office and James Joyner
Issue IV.iii 19
National
The First Amendment
IV.iii
BLOOMBERGLESSNESS
Rajiv Balasuriya 15
Courtesy of NYC office of Public Advocate
ill de Blasio was just 28 years old when he first became involved in politics. He started off by working to make David Dinkins mayoral bid in New York City a reality. The young politician in the making would go on to play a part in the Presidential re-election of Bill Clinton. De Blasio is a strong-willed progressive who has pledged to increase taxes on the wealthy and usher in a new age of equality and opportunity in New York City. We are a tale of two cities, de Blasio exclaimed commenting the serious gap between the wealthy and poor in New York City. To fight the aforementioned inequality, De Blasio has promised to tax the wealthy and use the money to
fund city programs for young atrisk children. It is no surprise that his campaign was mainly funded by public union groups. Yet, perhaps the most surprising and promising prospect of de Blasios time in office is that he
Such a feat was certainly accomplished in part by his pleasant and personable nature, a stark contrast to his seemingly hyper-logical predecessor.
was elected not only by the poor, the minorities, and the marginalized, but also by the wealthy. De Blasio, despite his liberal rhetoric,
managed to capture 64% of New Yorkers who earn $100,000 dollars or more per year. Such a feat was certainly accomplished in part by his pleasant and personable nature, a stark contrast to his seemingly hyper-logical predecessor. De Blasios agenda just might usher in a new era of untold prosperity in New York City. By taxing the wealthy, in order to give the poor a higher standard of living, de Blasio hopes to help lessen the tremendous gap of living standards between the wealthy minority and those of lower class. As mayor, he also aims to help make rent more affordable for poor tenants, many of whom were evicted following the 2008 financial meltdown. Furthermore,
National
The First Amendment
IV.iii
his plans include making sure that racist practices by law enforcement, such as the highly controversial stop and frisk procedure are discontinued. De Blasios commitment to treat all races equally certainly is part of the reason he easily won the minority vote. In addition, de Blasio has promised to work to make sure that there is an easy path to em-
BY THE NUMBERS
NYC 21.2
...his plans that, if executed, will certainly improve the lives of LGBT citizens tremendously.
ployment for former convicts, and that potential employers have to first consider when they were incarcerated and for what crime they were incarcerated for before dismissing them. He will push to do this because too often former convicts, incarcerated of even minor crimes, get dismissed by potential employers for having a criminal record. This then leads to them committing more crime so as to remain financially solvent. Instead of punishing these people further, De Blasio wants to enable former convicts and the poor so that they may live a better life. On social justice, De Blasio furthers his egalitarian viewpoint, he believes in supporting the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community by expanding health insurance coverage for LGBT families, providing more support to those suffering
Percentage of New Yorkers Under the Poverty Line
Median Household Income in Dollars
50,895
Body Bags Purchased by the City in 2012
5,500 892
Thousands of NYC Immigrants Who Voted In the Last Presidential Election
Current Minimum Wage for NYC Workers in Dollars
7.25 96
Million Dollars Spent On Running NYC elections in 2012
from HIV/AIDS and pushing to end discrimination of the LGBT community in local government. His stance on LGBT citizens is not surprising given his status as a liberal politician, yet clearly his plans that, if executed, will certainly improve the lives of LGBT citizens tremendously. However, it is not only LGBT citizens whom Bill De Blasio wants to increase the health coverage for, he also has been fighting to keep hospitals open and push for more nurses to operate in public schools. He also wants to expand the health coverage of blue-collar workers. This is another way he wishes to improve the lives of the poor people in New York City. With the ever increasing cost of living in NYC, many poor tenants have been unable to afford health insurance. Under de Blasio, they certainly have much to look forward and derive hope from given that their new mayor has promised to protect and further develop health care coverage for the poor of NYC. In addition to all of this De Blasio wants to make his city more sustainable. He plans to commit to the use of renewable energy and help every building in New York reduce its energy use. With the elections past him and his political agenda clearly outlined, Bill De Blasio looks as if he may be the mayor who improves New York City immensely under the umbrella of a new age of opportunity, mindfulness and tolerance will be experienced by the lucky denizens of the largest city in the United States.
Issue IV.iii 21
The First Amendment
Only in (North) America:

Mayors Edition
Jonas Frumkin 15
A concise list of the freaks, goofballs, and nutjobs who make us unforgivably (North) American Stubbs: Talkeetna, AK
One thing is instantly apparent when meeting mayor Stubbs is his lack of a tail. Yes, Stubbs is a cat famous for his tail, or rather, lack thereof. When the citizens of Talkeetna, Alaska were underwhelmed with their mayoral choices in a recent election year, they decided to turn to a local celebrity: the tailless kitten, Stubbs. Over fifteen years the citizens of Talkeetna have expressed their overwhelming support for their feline mayor. According to his owner, and secretary, Lauri Stec, Stubbs has the strong support of his constituents, mainly because of Stubbs low tax policies. This unusual Mayor has gained a following far beyond the humble borders of Talkeetna, amassing more than 16 times the number of fans on Facebook than Talkeetnas mere 800 residents.
Courtesy of Stavrolo
William Hale Thompson: Chicago, IL

William Thompson or Big Bill as he was known, was the Mayor of Chicago from 1915 to 1923 and again from 1927 to 1931. It is the latter term that he is famous for, and Thompson is commonly referred to by many historians as the worst mayor in American history. Thompson gained his name both for his height and weight, standing over six feet tall and weighing more than 300-pounds. Big Bill was famous for his theatrics including riding a horse into City Hall and staging a debate between himself and two rats. More importantly Bill was famous for being one of the more corrupt Mayors in American history. He was unable to run for reelection in 1923, after his campaign manager was implicated in soliciting bribes from school supply vendors. However, to keep his name in the headlines until he could run for mayor again, Big Bill lead an expedition to the South Seas in order to find tree-climbing fish. The expedition didnt make it past New Orleans, but Thompsons coffers were refilled and he returned to Chicago. In 1927, Thompson ran against his successor, Mayor William Dever who had gained a reputation for closing businesses (speakeasies) and upholding prohibition. In order to be reelected, Thompson promised to leave speakeasies alone and not interfere with the criminal activity of gangsters. A grateful Al Capone was said to have shoveled $100,000 into Thompsons election campaign. Thompson let Capone have whatever he wanted including appointing a gangster as city sealer and he let Capone run a gambling operation a block away from City Hall. His alliance with Capone came back to haunt Thompson as he lost to a candidate that highlighted Thompsons ties to organized crime. In the end, Thompson died in 1944 a despised but very wealthy man.
IV.iii
Barry Layne Moore: Hampton, FL

Barry Moore, the Mayor of a small town in Northern Florida, was arrested on November 26th for possession and distribution of oxycodone. During the arrest, the local Sheriffs office referenced the recent debacle of Rob Ford in Toronto saying, This isnt Toronto. This was a reference to the fact that Ford remains in office and not in a jail cell despite being videoed using cocaine. To be fair, Hampton is a much smaller town of only 500 against Torontos 2.6 million. However, Moore is facing more trouble than Ford, Moore is currently in jail with bail set at $45,000.
Courtesy of Florida Times Union
Rob Ford: Toronto, Canada
Rob Ford swept into office in a wave of optimism promising to take back control for the people. He used so powerful catchphrases like stop the gravy train and respect the taxpayer to showcase how he planned to clean up City Hall. Ford also benefited from, supposedly, coming completely clean with the public. He detailed his previous homophobic slurs, drunken outbursts, and, among others, his imfamous quote that Orientals work like dogs. Fords openness about a DUI and a marijuana change in 1999, led to his gaining a ten-point bump in the polls. Ford eventually won the 2010 mayoral election with slightly more then 47% of the popular vote.
Courtesy of West Annex News
However, soon the public began to turn on Ford when he denied the new charges against him as Mayor and refused to leave office. The extensive list of allegations against Ford since he entered office includes: bringing prostitutes into the mayors office; physical altercations with numerous staffers, journalists, and Toronto councilors; racist comments to numerous minorities including mocking the accent of a Pakistani taxi who he called Paki. The first and most prominent allegation against Ford is that he purchased and used cocaine; but he is also suspected of using marijuana and has been accused of drinking and driving on numerous occasions, as well as supposedly making sexual remarks to a aide. Ford is also famous for wildly exaggerating what he has accomplished in office. Some of his more famous fibs including claiming to have saved $1 billion Canadian dollars for Toronto and claiming to have reduced Torontos debt. He has also made statements claiming to be the reason Toronto is an economic powerhouse. Recently, it emerged that Ford offered 5000 canadian dollars and a car to buy the video of him smoking crack from a drug dealer. While the claims against Ford mount, he cant legally be removed from office until the next election in the fall of 2014.
Issue IV.iii 23
National
The First Amendment
IV.iii
THE PIVOT TO ASIA

Do less, America.
Jonathan Marrow 14
Courtesy of Pete Souza
uch discussion has been made of the Obama administrations Pivot to Asia. The Obama administrations theory goes like this: after a decade of the war on terror in the Middle East, America needs to shape its priorities and refocus its gaze on Asia where China is developing into a world superpower. This theory sounds good. But in practice its a load of hogwash. Although its true that our policies and engagement in the Middle East have caused conflicting views since 2001, the idea that theres a light switch in policythat we turn from the Middle East and turn to Asiais ridiculous. Our engagement in the Middle East was farcically shortsighted and ill-timed, with the generally disastrous war on terror, the calamitous invasion of Iraq, the inexorable blood-letting of Afghanistan, none of which has helped to solve the underlying problems in that troubled region. And now we want to take the strategies we employed there and use them for Asia? In the past decade, while our focus is said to have been on the Middle East, weve actually made great strides in Asia, forging multilateral economic and diplomatic alliances, strengthening regional organization like A.S.EA.N., and wisely adjusting our policy to-
wards China in the 21st century. Weve moved closer with China on issues of human rights, North Koreas nuclear program, economic competition and so on. In fact, our main points of con-
logical sentence that says because China is powerful, we need to pay attention to them. Instead, weve retreated to that age old American institution: the xenophobic, isolationist, military-industrial, zero-sum, jingoistic, machismo of the American people. (Our most publicized action has been to add troops in countries around Chinas borders like in Japan and Australia: no matter that Chinas army equals ours in size, or that it has nuclear weapons as well. No, this is the exact same strategy we would employ against some desert dictator.) We risk setting up Courtesy of Pete Souza easily avoided, unnecesflict seem to have been over the Middle sary, and potentially catastrophic confrontations between the two strongest Because we think the logical nations in the world. Moreover, in the sentence that says because Chi- hype over these inane issues of essentially masculinity-on-overdrive compena is powerful, we need to pay tition, we are losing discussion of imattention to them. Instead weve portant moral issues that we previously, retreated to that age old Ameri- when our attention and resources were can institution: the xenophobic, elsewhere, pursued: Tibet, freedom of isolationist, military-industri- speech, liberalizing reform. So lets call this pivot what it
al, zero-sum, jingoistic, machisreally is: a darned stupid stunt that mo of the American people.
East: over Sudans human rights issues, or interventions in Libya or Syria. So heres what the Obama administrations pivot really offers: unbridled militarism. Because we think the
anyone with a brain would realize is stupid. We need to keep the soldiers, the masculinity, where it belongs: in the hyperjingoistic Middle East, and leave mature negotiations to adults like China. More and more, they seem like the mature older brother-- not us.
National
The First Amendment
IV.iii IV.i
CLINTON V. CLINTON
Who wears the pants?
Patrick Yu 15
n the fall of 1971, one of Americas most powerful couples was born at Yale Law School. William Bill Clinton met his wife-to-be, Hillary Rodham. The couples achievements, driven by both their political and private ambitions, have contributed to Americas current political dynamic and have moulded the nation in multiple ways. The astounding accomplishments of Bill and Hillary Clinton reflect clearly their brilliant political ideologies and illuminate how their beliefs were shaped by their relationship. Before entering the world of politics, both Bill and Hillary Clinton were law professors at the University of Arkansas. There, they had contrasting teaching styles, which accurately represent their unique characteristics. Hillarys teaching was described by students as confident, organized and hard-lined, with Bills comparatively relaxed and open. While Bill Clinton was regarded as one of the easier law professors at the university, frequently discussing politics in class with his students, Hillary gave the hardest exams and held lofty expectations. Their distinctive personalities, demonstrated by their respective teaching styles, formed a basis for their incredibly successful careers in Washington. Bill Clintons charismatic appeal has allowed him to become the 42nd President of the United States, and Hillary Clintons perseverance has proven pivotal in this challenging era of American foreign policy and in the U.S. senate. The superb match of Bill and Hillarys per-
sonalities have paved the way for their prominence as one of Americas most influential couples. For Bill, the race to the White House entered perilous straits as rumors circulated about his affair with Gennifer Flowers. When all seemed lost, Hillary took the spotlight and spoke on 60 Minutes, deflecting attention from the affair and coming to her husbands rescue. Bill Clinton was then elected President in 1992; Hillary became his first lady. As the Clinton Administration drafted what they hoped to be a signature healthcare plan to provide a comprehensive program for all
Before it was Hillary Clinton who supported her husband through the long and enduring campaigns, but in the future it just might be Bills turn.
Americans, Bill Clinton turned to the person he trusted most to complete the task: his wife. However, the health care plan proved to be unsustainable and unpopular, garnering Hillary Clinton much criticism. Although the healthcare plan was impractical, Clinton and his administration were able to accomplish much more than many critics expected; their feats include the longest expansion of the American economy in history and the lowest poverty rates
and government spending in 30 years, all culminating in Clintons reelection in 1996. He was only the third Democrat to achieve so since the Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. Until recently, many considered Hillary Clinton in the shadow of her husband, but after her presidential campaign and appointment to the office of Secretary of State, this is certainly not the case. Hillary Clinton is often praised for her intelligence and determination as Secretary of State, with a string of successes and few high profile gaffes. Her deft handling US-China diplomacy demonstrated her skill in strategic maneuvers. Her vision of economic statecraft, much like the vision of Bill Clinton, assisted many American companies to win business overseas and helped stimulate domestic economic growth. Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic nomination, is described by Bill Clinton as far more experienced now in all the relevant ways than when I took office. Before he was elected President, Bill Clinton had never served in Congress and had almost no foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton has served two terms as the first female Senator of New York and as Secretary of State for the Obama administration, gaining abundant experience in multiple levels of the political sphere. Before, it was Hillary Clinton who supported her husband through the long and enduring campaigns, but in the future it just might be Bills turn.
Issue IV.iii 25
International
The First Amendment
IV.iii
A NEW NEW DEAL
Irans at the center of an international game of Deal or No Deal

Jared Solomon 15
n Sunday, November 24th, international diplomats in Geneva announced a new deal with Iran- one to limit Irans nuclear capabilities in exchange for an easing of sanctions from the rest of the world. The main purpose of the deal is to ensure that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons; the country currently has the resources to do so and has recently built the necessary infrastructure to harness nuclear power. With one more step, however, Iran could use its newfound nuclear capabilities as a weapon if it accessed purer uranium than it currently possesses. Some world leaders, including President Barack Obama, believe that Iran should be able to access peaceful nuclear power, and this deal should serve to prove Irans motives as nonviolent. Motivated by Irans progressions in the nuclear field and its ever-apparent potential to produce nuclear weapons, the deal calls for a temporary halt in the Iranian nuclear program. The six-month freeze for which the deal calls for will give world leaders time to negotiate a further
deal with Iran that would scale back parts of its nuclear program and ensure that the nuclear power could not be used violently. Mohammed Javar, the Iranian foreign minister, declared his hope for a restoration of trust between Iran and the West as Iran develops new abilities that will enable it to peacefully progress. While the deal appears promising, it has created controversy among American diplomats and poli-
Both Democrat and Republican congressmen have expressed their disappointment with the deal, fearing that the terms will not freeze major components of the Iranian nuclear program...
ticians. Both Democrat and Republican congressmen have expressed their disappointment with the deal, fearing that the terms will not freeze major components of the Iranian nuclear program and that international cessions concerning current sanctions are too large. New York Senator Chuck
Schumer stated that the temporary cessation fails to adequately limit Irans capabilities, and that the terms of the deal on a whole do not seem proportional. Critics of the Iranian nuclear deal have spoken out, but President Obama, a major proponent of the deal, has attempted to address these critics and defend the agreement. Obama said that criticizing the deal was good for politics but not for security, and defended it by saying that we cannot commit ourselves to an endless cycle of conflict. The time allowed for by the current deal should give international leaders an opportunity to meet and determine a more complete agreement, one that hopefully satisfies more people. That said, the Israeli government has also voiced concerns about the deal. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu denounced the current deal as a historic mistake, speaking for Israeli fears that by easing sanctions even temporarily, the United States and other countries have majorly weakened their defenses against Iran. The Israeli government is firmly convinced of Irans intentions
International
to produce nuclear weapons no matter what, and believes that the current deal will reduce global leverage over Iran while failing to adequately ensure that Iran cannot produce any nuclear weaponry. The current Iranian deal seems promising, yet as many have emphasized, a conclusion is far from being reached. The agreements key characteristic is its ephemerality, as it only freezes parts of the Iranian
The First Amendment
IV.iii
A case against negotatiating with terrorists
NO COMPROMISES
Courtesy of the Rouhani administration.
nuclear deal for six months to allow for further deliberations. That said, whether or not the current conditions of the deal are adequate remains up for debate. The Israeli government certainly feels that the sanctions revoked according to the agreement will prove to be a tragic mistake as the international community gives up valuable leverage. This sentiment has been echoed throughout the United States, as others fear that Irans own concessions will fail to prevent the production of nuclear weapons. The outcome is yet to be decided, and the deal could easily end with either party on top. Whether ending tragically as Israel predicts or in Obamas promised camaraderie, the deal nevertheless has the potential to be truly historical. such terrorist groups.
Infographic modified from Facts for a Better Future
Issue IV.iii 27
Political Literacy At Lawrenceville We Asked, You Answered

The First Amendment conducted a 10-question survey to test the political literacy of Lawrentians. The questions ranged from national to international in nature, covering topics from the U.S. Speaker of the House to Hezbollah, an international militant group in the Middle East. Based on the first 100 responses, we conducted analysis to reveal how much Lawrentians really know about politics. The results are broken down by a variety of factors: question, Form, political affiliation, etc. Heres our breakdown:
POLLITERACY
Total # Questions Correct

30 25 20 24 23
Participation
II 13% V 47%
16
III 15%
17 13
People
15 10 5 0
IV 25%
Independent 4%
10
Other 35%
Democrat 36%
Questions correct
The data shows a bi-modal distribution of scores - perhaps corresponding loosely with those interested in politics and those who are not. 79 of 100 people scored six or less correct answers, meaning that almost 4/5 of the people who took the survey failed in the academic sense (<60%).
Republican 25%
The Ten Questions
1. Who is the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives? 2. Who is the current Secretary of State of the U.S.? 3. Name a justice on the U.S. Supreme court. 4. What is the difference between Obamacare and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? 5. Who is the current president of Syria? 6. In what country is Hezbollah based in?
7. What Cuban-American senator gave the Republican response to President Barack Obamas 2013 State of the Union address? 8. Who is the leader of North Korea? 9. What was the 2012 Obama presidential campaign slogan? 10. In what country was an American diplomatic mission attacked on September 11, 2012, the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks?
Answers 1. John Boehner, 2. John Kerry, 3. Answers may vary 4. Theyre the same. 5. Bashar al-Assad, 6. Lebanon, 7. Marco Rubio, 8. Kim Jong Un, 9. Forward, 10. Libya
# Questions Correct By Party Affiliation

6 5 4 3 2 1 0
There is little variation in the number of correct responses by party affiliation (or lack thereof ). Most had around four correct answers, with the independents scoring slightly higher. This perhaps can be attributed to the small sample size (only four independents).
Democrat
Republican
Other
Independent
Questions Correct On Average
100 10 4
Students surveyed Questions
3.9 Total
Some Common Misconsceptions: Heres the Truth

Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House.

# Questions Correct By Gender

5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Female Male 3.2 4.4
A: John Boehner
Obamacare is the new version of the Affordable Healthcare Act. A: Trick question: theyre
the same!
On average, males scored higher than females. The diference can be perhaps be attributed to the high number of males sampled vs. females (43 vs. 57 respectively). The average score was 3.9/10 - quite low.
The September 11, 2012 attacks on the American diplomatic mission occured in India, Iran, or Afghanistan. A: The attacks took place in Benghazi, Libya.
The Lawrenceville bubble is isolating in every sense of the word. We oftentimes become so caught up with our own endeavors that we lose track of the outside world. These results show that there is much room to improve our knowledge about politics. Being knowledgeable about current events and the political landscape will enable Lawrentians to develop a more complete understanding of the world and prepare them for the future.
Issue IV.iii 29
International
The First Amendment
IV.iii
Nelson Mandela
The man who made the Long Walk to Freedom a little bit shorter
Anuj Krishnamurthy 15
Courtesy of United Nations
n Thursday, December 5, 2013, Nelson Mandela, the principal proponent of democracy and leading emancipator in twentieth-century South Africa, passed away in his home at the age of 95. The announcement was made by the countrys president, Jacob Zuma, and it has been confirmed that Mandelas body will be buried in the village Qunu, where he grew up, as per his request. The legendary statesmans quest to secure equality and freedom for South Africas marginalized minorities was a fascinatingly eventful journey. After spending his childhood as a herd boy in a small village, he studied law and commenced his political and social crusade as a member of the African National Congress, a political organization founded in direct response to the governments maltreatment of black people. In 1964, he was accused of sabotage and terrorism by the government for his anti-apartheid efforts, and Mandela was sent to a prison rock quarry on Robbens Island. Fortunately, in the face of international pressure, the South African government released him in 1990, and in 1994, his lifes dream a goal for which he spent 27 years in jail came to fruition. A non-racial democracy was finally founded, and Mandela was elected the first black president of South Africa. In 1995, he published his renowned autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, in which he recounted his time as a prison inmate and the terrible hardship he and fellow political prisoners encountered during
their years in jail. In 1999, at the end of his first term, he relinquished his presidential seat and peacefully allowed the next administration to lawfully take control an unprecedented move on a continent known for power-hungry autocrats and unstable governments. Known for his forbearance, sense of community, and ability to bridge chasmic racial and political dichotomies for the common good, Mandela, affectionately known as Madiba by his colleagues and admirers, attracted supporters from all over the world. President Obama gave a short speech about Mandela on Thursday night, during which he embraced Mandelas resounding legacy and summed up the sentiment shared by politicians, community leaders, and artists from virtually every country in the world: We
Known for his forbearance, sense of community, and ability to bridge chasmic racial and political dichotomies for the common good, Mandela by his colleagues and admirers, affectionately known as Madiba, attracted supporters from all over the world.
have lost one of the most influential, courageous, and profoundly good human beings that any of us will share time with on this Earth. He no longer belongs to us he belongs to the ages, Obama said. Ultimately, what made Mandela so exceptional was his magnanimity
and integrity. He was never a promoter of black nationalism or retribution against South African whites, despite the immense pains black people living in the country had to endure. According to those close to him, Mandela possessed an unyielding confidence and a level of empathy that transcended racial and political divides. Walter Sisulu, an African National Congress official, commented, That is [Mandelas] gift. He will go to anybody, anywhere, with that confidence. Even when he does not have a strong case, he convinces himself that he has. Furthermore, Mandelas strong grasp on the problems plaguing South Africa, such as poverty and racial tension, allowed him to promote national and ethnic self-sufficiency in South Africa. He emphasized rebuilding and regrowth among shattered black cultures in his nation, and refrained from injecting foreign philosophies, like communism and those brewing in post-independence India, into South African politics. Mandelas system helped to heal the wounds inflicting upon his countrys people, fostered reconciliation, and engendered a powerful peace in the African continents wealthiest country. He won the Nobel Prize in 1993 for his efforts. Ultimately, Mandelas shortened the universal long walk to freedom-- his legacy lies in how South Africa will go about growing, building, and expanding on the traditions of equality, fairness, and democracy that its first president worked so hard to create.
National International
The First Amendment
IV.iii IV.i
Typhoon Haiyan
With superpower comes super responsibility

John Avendano 14
s an American citizen of Filipino descent, I cringed while perusing through the images of destruction and disarray in Tacloban as well in other parts of the disaster struck Philippines. Typhoon Yolanda, also know as Haiyan, was the deadliest typhoon to hit the Philippines on record and has killed at least 5,632 Filipino citizens. Leaving several parts of the Philippines completely devastated, the lives and futures of thousands in Southeast Asia have undoubtedly been forever damaged. As a country, America has collectively donated and promised more than $33 million in relief efforts in aid of the Philippines. Indeed in recent years and throughout history, the United States of America has prided itself as a country that has always provided aid to countries in need, perhaps in hopes that one day, when America is in a crisis, the international community will return the favor. Yet in an era of a faltering economy and a government struggling with several internal issues such as debt and war, some critics question if our country should really be going above and beyond to satisfy its, apparently, inherent altruistic desires. A country that has recently recovered from major problems of unemployment should, maybe, consider its involvement in dealing with other countries national crises as a secondary objective. Throughout its history, America has always willingly devoted itself to helping other countries in need; within 10 days of the Haiti earthquake in
Courtesy of Commander, U.S. 7th fleet
2010, Americans donated more than $300 million to relief efforts. It is interesting to note, however, that the actual percentage of Americans who have been engaged with the news about the typhoon is a mere 32% , a number seemingly diminutive when compared to the 60% who followed the Haiti earthquake and 55% who followed the Japan Tsunami. Unsurprisingly, Sandra Miniutti, vice president of marketing and CFO of Watchdog Charity Navigator, has noted that Americans have likely been preoccupied with a number of other issues; 32% of the population noted their top news concern was the U.S. economy, while 37 recorded the health care rollout as most interesting to them. These figures, in the eyes of perhaps 65% of the population, create some questions as to why our gov-
This type of leadership- moral leadership- is important for us to exhibit in tough times; on our countrys part it shows our willingness to put others needs in front of our own, despite the problems we may face.
ernment continues to squander our countrys funds away towards what, to them, is not the paramount issue at hand. Moreover, outside sources reveal that outside our government, only 17% of American citizens have committed to donating to Philippine relief efforts themselves. With numbers like
these, an outsider would perceive the majority of citizens in our country to be apathetic to the catastrophe that recently occurred. Despite others concerns, however, I believe our country should continue to provide aid to the Philippines in its time of despair. Several news sources have reported that the Philippines typhoon rebuilding will take roughly five years and accumulate costs up to more than two billion dollars, making the United States donations thus far appear futile. Our country has traditionally been perceived by the world as a superpower, and with this reputation comes a responsibility on our part to lead and take charge in times of disaster. The United States should not waver; it should be there to help. This type of leadership- moral leadership- is important for us to exhibit in tough times; on our countrys part it shows our willingness to put others needs in front of our own, despite the problems we may face. I say this not out of personal bias and pity for my native country, but rather as a concerned citizen who sees our countrys power to truly make a difference. Several charities are providing relief in the Philippines, including the Yolanda Medical Relief, Project HOPE, nd Global Impact. The road to recovery for the Philippines will evidently be long and daunting; but simply raising awareness through donations such as yours will make the path back to normalcy so much easier for thousands of Filipinos.
Issue IV.iii 31
ON THE SPECtRUM:
ONE NATIoN UNDER GoD
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The Pledge of Allegiance, which public schools require students to recite in 43 states under varying degrees of strictness, has incited controversy for including the two-word prepositional phrase, under God. In 1954, America added the phrase to the Pledge to distinguish the United States from other nations, particularly the Soviet Union, which had adopted atheism as its state doctrine. Previous versions of the Pledge included no mentions of God. Since then, the inclusion of under God in the Pledge of Allegiance has been debated everywhere from the sets of talk shows to the Supreme Court. Most notably, atheist Michael A. Newdow brought the issue to court several times between 2001 and 2010. On September 4th, the Massachusetts Supreme Court heard another case against the Pledge, which has yet to be decided. As a judicial court once more discusses the legitimacy of these two of the thirty-one words in the Pledge of Allegiance, voices from various areas of the political spectrum are sure to once more pitch in to the debate.
Children are left with a bad choice: either stand up and recite something against your beliefs, or opt out and be ostracized. -Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, an atheist group
Children every morning are pledging their national unity and loyalty in an indoctrinating format, in a way that that validates God belief as truly patriotic and actually invalidates atheism.
Attorney David Niose
I think that our representatives have spoken over and over again and that if these people really dont like [the under God version of the Pledge], they dont have to live here. - Dana Perino, Fox News Host
32 32The TheFirst FirstAmendment Amendment
The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political communityA profession that we are a nation under God is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation under Jesus, a nation under Vishnu, a nation under Zeus, or a nation under no god, because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.
- Judge Alfred Goodwin
The whole argument that under God wasnt placed into the pledge for religious purposes is bogus. I hope people recognize this is not against God or people who believe in God. Its about the government not treating people equally on the basis of their lawful religious views.
- Michael A. Newdow
The presidents reaction was that this ruling is ridiculousThe Supreme Court itself begins each of its sessions with the phrase God save the United States and this honorable court. The Declaration of Independence refers to God or to the creator four different times. Congress begins each session of the Congress each day with a prayer, and of course our currency says, In God We Trust. The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision and the Department Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress.
Former White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer
Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok. Whats next? Will the courts now strip so help me God from the pledge taken by new presidents? - Sen. Kit Bond, R-MO
Issue Issue IV.iii IV.iii 33 33
International
The First Amendment
IV.iii
NEW ASIA
A continental surge in nationalism
Joon Choe 15
uring the last 5 years, China, Japan and South Korea have had a surge of nationalism due to the growing disputes in history, territorial claims and hatred against certain beliefs and races. The rising pride of Chinese power resulted when China declared ownership of the South China Sea. For the Japanese, pride has regained Japans confidence to assert its distorted history as fact to the world. Finally for Korea, China and Japans rediscovered arrogance has only resulted in more hatred against the Japanese people and domestic and foreign communist sympathizers resulting in various negative domestic political actions. More people in all these nations want the government to push for stricter control of their own society and stronger military in order to show other countries that they are willing to go to a great extent to regain all their past territories or regain their ancestors dignity. China and Korea have been having more anti-Japanese protests due to Japans assertion of its stance on comfort women (women who were
forced from their homes all across Asia to serve as sex slaves for the Japanese Imperial Army during WWII), the Japanese/Chinese territorial dispute of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, the Korean/Japanese territorial dispute of Dokdo (also called Liancourt Rocks or Takeshima) and many other culturally and historically clashing disputes that have existed for decades. The Japanese conservatives protested ontheir own to show to the world that
One may believe that such great national pride would unify the people as it faces its challenges ahead; however, for these three countries, nationalism has weakened diplomatic ties tin the form of essential trade and military alliances.
they stand by what their government is stating. One may believe that such great national pride would unify the people as it faces its challenges ahead; however, for these three countries, nationalism has weakened diplomatic ties in the form of essential trade and
military alliances. The nationalism has created tension between the nations because conservative majorities continue to persecute minorities who protest against widespread beliefs. For example, in South Korea, the newly conservative government has pushed the people to view communists and its sympathizers with disdain by showing current and past treasons that the communists have been caught doing. While catching the rebels within the nation is very important, such overly dramatized media work has helped the bigger liberal and conservative parties to have the power to dissolve smaller parties that may have been affiliated with the communists in the past. Blinded by this small red scare, the people are giving more support to parties that want anti-communist laws of the 1970s to come into effect once more. So what effects will new nationalistic proclamations and laws from East Asian governments have on the world? War? Probably not. But significant economic hardships for certain part of these countries will happen
International
sooner or later due to fragile diplomatic relationships Also, the increasing nationalism among the majority of these nations will make the minorities (especially those of different races) suffer for a longer periods of time. Furthermore, for nations like China, which is planning on expanding its maritime boundaries, new assertions of new territories will create more militaristic tension between East and South East Asian nations, which may create large financial loss especially since the new expansion is affecting 8 nations. The Republic of South Koreas problem is a rather odd one. While the peoples dislike for Japan and China is rising, the strongest problem is their elevated hatred against communists and communist sympathizers. This wont cause as many economic problems because it is a domestic issue (while some would even claim that the persecution of communist sympathizers is not an issue at all), but it will cause significant damage to the justice system and the fragile, fledgling democratic structure if the current national assembly begins to demolish socialist parties and reinstate the anti-communist laws that have disappeared into obsoletion and collective ignorance during the end of the latter part of the 20th century. Such blatant nationalistic arrogance must stop because it is and will always bring harm to all these countries and the larger, interconnected Asian culture. By supporting governments that persecute others for their beliefs and allowing them to break foreign relations by stating blatant offensive remarks against other nations will only destroy the stable and healthy nations that the people of all three countries have been working to construct for more than 60 years. Ironically, this new dog needs to learn old tricks.
The First Amendment
IV.iii
JOIN THE DISCUSSION

Do you have a response to any article in this issue? Tell us. Submit all letters to the editor at firstamendmentlville@gmail.com
Courtesy of Says it poster generator.
Issue IV.iii 35
In Focus | African Crimes

By Jason Zhang 15 and the Board
Ever since World War II, many countries have wanted to create an international court that would be able to serve international justice. Thus, in 2002, the United Nations passed the Rome Statute, creating the International Criminal Court (ICC). The court primarily prosecutes individuals for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. Recently, the Court was given the power to prosecute against crimes of aggression, but cannot legally do so until 2017. The Court exists to investigate and prosecute the most heinous crimes against humans.
Type of Crime:
Genocide - deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, caste, religious, or national group Against Humanity - offenses in that constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave degradation of human beings War - violation of the laws applicable in armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility
Mali
In 2012, the Northern Mali conflict reportedly brought news of rape campaigns, the use of child soldiers, and summary executions of Malian soldiers. The ICC is currently still investigating war crimes and crimes against humanity, and as of yet no indictments have been filed. No individuals have been charged.
Cte DIvoire (Ivory Coast)
The ICC is currently investigating accusations of violence, murder, rape, sexual violence, and other inhumane acts supposedly committed by the past president of the Ivory Coast and his supporters during the post-election period. Currently, three have been indicted by the ICC for crimes against humanity. Principal Figure: Laurent Gbagbo, former president of the Ivory Coast - charged with 4 counts of crimes against humanity.
Sudan
In February 2003, rebel groups commenced attacks upon the government of Sudan, accusing it of disregarding Darfurs non-Arab populace. Consequently, the government attacked and carried out ethnic cleansing against non-Arabs, resulting in the death of tens of thousands of civilians. So far, seven men have been charged with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Principal Figure: Omar al-Bashir, President of Sudan - charged with 3 counts of genocide, 5 counts of crimes against humanity, and 2 counts of war crimes.
Since 1987, Northern Uganda has been racked by violence between the government and the Lords Resistance Army (LRA), a rebel guerrilla group led by Joseph Kony. Kony and his army became infamous as a result of the film KONY 2012, which brought to light the use of child soldiers in the LRA. Principal Figure: Joseph Kony - (fugitive), leader of the LRA - charged with 12 counts of crimes against humanity and 21 counts of war crimes.
Uganda
Investigations in the DRC began in June 2004 and center around the atrocities committed during the Second Congo War. The war involved nine African Nations and 20 armed groups and death tolls amount to about 5.4 million. However, even after the formal end of the war, conflicts continued- mostly driven by the wolframite, coltan and gold trade. Principal Figure - Bosco Ntaganda, former chief of staff of an armed militiacharged with 3 counts of crimes against humanity and 7 counts of war crimes.
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
Issue IV.iii 37
International
The First Amendment
IV.iii
THE UNSUNG MARTYR
Courtesy of U.S. Department of State
Caroline Armour 14 and Amber Boykins 14 Presidents of Women in Leadership at Lawrenceville (W.I.L.L.)
Najia Sediqi, the head of the Ministry of Womens Affairs in Afghanistan, was shot dead in broad daylight on her way to work. Her predecessor, Hanifa Safi, died when was arranged to wed. This past August, Fariba Ahmadi Kakar, a female parliamentarian, was kidnapped by Taliban militants. Shortly after, unknown assailants ambushed the car of female senator Roh Gul Khairzad and murdered her eight year old daughter. In September, a top female police officer and a Sub-Inspector were shot while leaving her home. These horrific acts of violence against Afghan women become even more terrifying in context: they occurred not under Taliban rule, but amid the liberal reform of modern-day Afghanistan. Twelve years have passed since the Taliban were overthrown, yet many Afghans, the majority of whom are men, continue to subscribe to the belief that womens sole purpose
very day 354 girls between the ages of four and fourteen make the journey from their homes to the Zabuli Education Center, a free all-girls school located in the small village of DehSubz, Afghanistan. These girls know to walk quickly to and from school, to keep [themselves] covered, and to stare at their toes. They know the story of the girls school located on the other side of townone hundred girls were killed after someone threw hand grenades inside their classrooms. They know the stories of girls splashed with mineral acid on their way to school and of girls schools having their drinking water poisoned. These girls know both the violence they face and Afghan female leaders face.
These horrific acts of violence against Afghan women become even more terrifying in context: they occurred not under Taliban rule, but amid the liberal reform of modern-day Afghanistan.
a bomb suspected to have been planted by Taliban forces exploded under her car. She had been threatened for helping and protecting a girl who had married someone she loved instead of the older man she
International
The First Amendment
IV.iii
is to remain pure until the day they marry, after which their only purpose in life is to satisfy their husbands and take care of their children. Eradicating these traditionally sexist notions will continue to prove an uphill battle. That is not to say that there havent been marked improvements in the rights afforded Afghan women. Some Afghan women, joined by a minority of men, are taking a stand and actively fighting for their rights. Within the past twelve years, the countrys policymakers have passed legislation establishing the equality of male and female rights to education, political involvement, healthcare, and economic independence. Though violence and fundamentalist backwardness persist, Afghanistan has asserted its commitment to modern notions of equality and human rights. But this social progress has not commenced without significant opposition from within the government. Islamist conservatives not only challenge new legislation regarding women, which they see as sacrilegious, but also propose a return to ancient traditions. For instance, some lawmakers seek to legalize public stoning as a method of punishing those who commit adultery, a practice that was enforced primarily against women. Recently, the Afghan parliament passed a code of laws that virtually protects perpetrators of domestic violence by significantly complicating their conviction. The government also reduced the number of seats reserved for women on provincial councils, the Afghan equivalent of state governments. Increased violence toward wom-
en and efforts by conservative religious lawmakers to undermine reverse legislation protecting womens rights forecast a backslide in Af-
Legislative progress, however, is necessary to set off changes that could eventually modernize Afghan mens attitude toward women.
ghanistans social structure. To prevent any further backsliding in the fight for gender equality in Afghanistan, the United Nations should take immediate action to preserve those laws that have already been passed to protect womens rights. The United States has an obligation to urge other countries in the UN Security Council to support a policy that forces Afghanistans president, Hamid Karzai, to address the conservative government and take action to enforce womens rights laws. The Council, along with the
Human Rights Watch or womens rights leaders, could set a policy for womens rights that the Afghan government would have to follow in order to maintain its position in the UN. Instead of standing by a denial of rights, the UN should take action in defense of a group that constitutes slightly more than half of the worlds population. But reformers outside Afghanistan should expect conservative backlash within the countrys government against any action taken in support of women. Legislative progress, however, is necessary to set off changes that could eventually modernize Afghan mens attitude toward women. Without new policy, the victory of social and political gender equality over discriminatory violence seems inconceivable. The difference between action and inaction is simple: if the United Nations does not take measures to reverse the heinous human rights violations in Afghanistan, then it permits the nations men to stone, trade, and abuse women for their own needs.
Courtesy of Naisim Fekrat, U.S. Dept. of State, and United Nations (from top left clockwise)
Issue IV.iii 39
International
The First Amendment
IV.iii
THE WORLDS OLDEST PROFESSION

Sabrina Li 16
Courtesy of Marcus Walker
rostitution is a sticky subject. In Sudan for instance, it is punishable by death, while in other countries, prostitution is legal and is seen as a contributor to the economy. As of now, the United States, with the exception of Nevada, is one of the few Western nations that has made prostitution illegal. Those who support its legalization claim that a legal status would eradicate the criminal image of prostitution and would lead to safer working conditions for both prostitutes and clients. However, those who advocate its illegality rebut that, if prostitution was legalized, the door would be opened to more illicit acts. Prostitution dates back to as early as 2400 B.C.E. in ancient Sumerian and Babylonian
civilizations. From being seen as a sinful act in the Middle Ages to being perceived as a sacred temple act in certain societies, the perception of prostitution has undergone varying degrees of contempt
Those who wish prostitution to remain illegal assert that prostitution is not only damaging to the wellbeing of the state, but also to the wellbeing of the individualthe prostitute.
and acceptance over history and timejust as its perception continues to evolve today. While the perception has evolved, the strife of the vulnerable, impoverished women has not. There seems to have been an increase in the num-
ber of women and children who have been abused by the sex trafficking industry and their clients, and no action has been conceived to resolve this real and prominent issue. Those who wish prostitution to remain illegal assert that prostitution is not only damaging to the wellbeing of the state, but also to the wellbeing of the individualthe prostitute. Prostitution attracts crimes such as drug trafficking, spreads sexually transmitted diseases, and objectifies women. We should not be blinded by the antiquity of the practice and should view it through a modern lens. Prostitution, itself, is not your average, normal drug. While some of these women go into the business aware of its consequencesmany dont.
International
The First Amendment
IV.iii
The global sex trade has increased over the years, and, in many thirdworld countries, prostitution is not a voluntary act or job. Many agree to be smuggled into foreign countries under false pretenses, and only once there realize that they are being forced into sexual servitude. They are dehumanized and put into horrible situations from which they lack the resources to escape. This forced prostitution is more common than the public is currently aware of, mainly due to the fact that the Page Act of 1875, which declared that trafficking people into the US was illegal has been manipulated. This has resulted in millions of women and children being trafficked and forced into prostitution. The real enemy here lies in the pimps and the clients who put women into these horrible situations. By continuing the practice of prostitution, we are allowing women to remain slaves to the endless cycle of violence, drugs, and poverty. On the other hand, those who advocate the legalization of prostitution see it as a huge financial and health benefit to the state. If prostitution were to be legalized, states would no longer have to use their money on law enforcement, but would rather gain from the business through regulation, taxes and commerce. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 80,000 to 85,000 prostitution-related arrests were made in 2002, 2005, and 2006. The people being arrested are the prostitutes themselves, not the pimps or the clientsthe
real enemies at hand. The state would benefit financially from the legalization of prostitution, since the prostitutes would have to pay taxes to the state. Also, cities that would support prostitutes would benefit financially due to a predictable increase in tourism.
By continuing the practice of prostitution, we are allowing women to remain slaves to the endless cycle of violence, drugs, and poverty.
Another benefit to this legalization is the increase in the health of both the prostitutes and the nation. S.T.D.s and A.I.D.S. would diminish drastically, since prostitutes would no longer be restricted to back alleyways. It is believed that 80% of A.I.D.S. incidents result from contacts between married men and prostitutes, so this
legalization could greatly help the welfare of the population as a whole. Also, by legalizing the trade, prostitutes would no longer see themselves as criminals and would be more apt to acquire the necessary health care, rather than letting the fear of being turned in dissuade them. These benefits, however, may not address the issue of women and children who are still being brought into prostitution from countries where prostitution may never be legalized. While there are many benefits and disadvantages to either legalizing prostitution or rendering it illegal, neither action does anything to confront the real problem at hand: those who have forced these women into prostitution. These are the people who have controlled the prostitutes at every turnthe pimps and customers. They are the ones who have forced women into the endless cycle of drugs, deceit, and oppression.
A Red Light District in Bangkok, Thailand
Courtesy of moomoobloo
Issue IV.iii 41
POLITICAL PROCRASTINATION
What to watch over winter break...
National
The First Amendment
IV.iii
James Stevenson 16
character gives the series a flare responsible for much of the high praise it has received after the release of the first season. Spacey constantly breaks the fourth wall, engaging the audience in the experiences of Underwood in the struggles and conflicts within congress. The first season of House of Cards was released on February 1st 2013 through Netflix and after positive reviews is well on its way for its second season release in early 2014. Arguably the most well-known political drama in American history, The West Wing (1999) takes place within the West Wing of the
elevision touches many realms of our lives, from youth to adulthood. As children, we sat mesmerized by the engaging and more importantly, educational activities of talking animals. Our favorite reality TV shows and soap operas provided us with our thorough understandings of the modern world. How It Works and Mythbusters explained the intricacies of complex science and sufficed as sufficient preparation for the science final. But a relatively recent development in television series, points the cameras toward something new, politics. The introduction of political television dramas have changed our perceptions of both political lifestyles and conflicts. When what some consider documentary like political shows are made by the same people who brought you Desperate Housewives, you might want to hesitate before you process each frame as political fact. Whether you consider these shows truly informative or simply entertaining is up to you, but here are some insights on the top political television dramas. One of the most popular dramas in the last year, House of Cards (2013) starring Kevin Spacey portrays the devious political moves of a democratic representative Frank Underwood of South Carolina and his cunning wife Claire (Robin Wright). In his efforts to seek vengeance against those who made him false promises, Underwood uses the media and internal connections in order to maintain his status and climb the political ladder. Spaceys unique portrayal of the
Without a doubt, these shows serve as an interesting way to view the dynamics of our political systems.
White House as the Presidents staff deal with top priority legislative and political issues. The fast paced series transports the audience to the forefront of modern national conflicts. Spanning seven seasons, The West Wing takes an in-depth look at both Congress and the campaign trail. The plot follows the administration of President Josiah Jed Bartlet (Martin Sheen) in the difficulties they experience in making legislative progress and facing the opposition of their political opponents. This series is highly acclaimed for its intimate perspective of the endeavors of President and his senior staff in the effort to battle external and internal conflicts. After eight years, The West Wing ended with the conclu-
sion of its seventh and final season. Even after nearly a decade, The West Wing is still broadcasted and highly regarded as an enthralling interpretation of the political drama behind the doors of Americas leaders. Two frequently discussed political dramas are The Good Wife (2009) and Scandal (2012). However, unlike House of Cards and The West Wing, these two shows are dubbed legal and political dramas. With prior ties to high up politics, both protagonists pursue careers separate from their political pasts. In The Good Wife, Alicia Florrick (Julianna Margulies), whose husband is jailed for a public corruption and sex scandal, joins a prestigious law firm and throughout the series establishes herself as a powerful litigator. In Scandal, protagonist Olivia Pope (Kerry Washington) leaves her position as White House Communications Director to start her own crisis management firm. As both protagonists attempt to escape their political pasts, they discover that putting it behind them is more difficult than they anticipated. Falling in the top ratings, The Good Wife and Scandal have and likely will continue to evolve and define the political drama genre. Without a doubt, these shows serve as an interesting way to view the dynamics and inner workings of our political systems. But as is evident in all television shows, at least some of reality is distorted to maintain the fast paced intense dramas we see on the screen, for political dramas, are, despite their legitimacy, are still dramas. But regardless each of these shows offers a unique perspective on an important realm of American life. But if youre looking for a different style of show, one that puts you into the driver seat of modern politics, these political dramas are certainly worth watching. Hey, what do we have winter break for anyway?
THE POp PERSpECtIVE

AS THE POLITICAL RACE STARTS TO HEAT UP AND POLITICAL APPETITES START TO GROW, THE SPOTLIGHT HAS TURNED TO PHYSICAL APPEARANCES, MOST OFTEN TO THAT OF GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE. WE ASKED WHETHER POLITICIANS SHOULD BE FIT TO RUN, AND THE SCHOOL ANSWERED:
SHOULD POLITICIANS BE PHYSICALLY FIT IN ORDER TO RUN FOR OFFICE?

If their body gets in the way of their job, they have no business being a politician. -Henry Mayr
How people treat their body is their choice. What is more important is that they are able to make smart decisions for their nation. -Griffin Spolansky
Each person should be allowed to make their own decisions in life, and if they are aspiring to be in the world of politics without being particularly active, that does not affect anybody else. -Katie Santamaria Yes, because it shows a certain amount of self-control and discipline, which should be seen in a politician. However, this does not include Chris Christie as his great political skills make up for the fact that he is over-weight. -Anonymous Fitness neither affects how much one cares about the state they represent, nor does it affect ones opinions on political matters. -Anonymous
It does not matter what a person looks like, those who are in office should be the people who are going to make the greatest and most positive change for the regions they representing. -Neil Menghani A politicians eligibility to run for office should not remotely be affected by his/her level of fitness, as it has nothing to do with the skills needed to handle the positions responsibilities. -Panos Vandris Shouldnt our leaders set good examples for the people? Obesity incurs great health care costs and decreases productivity, and thats not the America we should show the world. -Anonymous No - they might place too much focus on physical fitness rather then government concerns. -Allison Huang
I think so. They could have a heart attack and die in office, and then where would we be? -George Lankas Politicians should be elected solely on how positively they will impact this country and if they know how to get the job done right, regardless of physical fitness. -Emily Galvin
As far as politicians go, it should not matter, the president, however, ought to be fit since he serves as a role model to a great portion of the nations youth. -Sammy Bhatia
Issue IV.ii 43
THE FIRSt AMENDMENt

A Student Publication of The Lawrenceville School Founded in the Bicentennial Year, 2010

December 2013 Issue of The First Amendment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

December 2013 Issue of The First Amendment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE FIRSt AMENDMENt

THE FIRSt AMENDMENt

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

A Glitch in the Works | 6 Shubhankar Chhokra 14

If Politicians got Majors | 12-13 Matt Ramey 14

A New New Deal | 26-27

New Asia | 34-35

Pop Perspective: Fit to Run | 43

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Political, Economic, and Social Discussions of The Lawrenceville School

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

4 The First Amendment

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dont let democracy die; send your opinions to...

The First Amendment

Editorial A Glitch in the Works

A Little to the RIGHT

The First Amendment

The First Amendment

8 The First Amendment

The First Amendment

Maya Peterson 14/Senior Columnist

The First Amendment

RAISE YOUR GLASS

20th century legislation, 21st century needs

10 The First Amendment

The First Amendment

! S IF POLITICIANS GOT JOR A M

Senator Rand Paul, (R-KT)

Former President Bill Clinton (D)

12 The First Amendment

Mayor Rob Ford

Vice President Joseph Biden (D)

The First Amendment

14 The First Amendment

The First Amendment

The First Amendment

DEATH OF THE TEA PARTY

16 The First Amendment

The First Amendment

NOT AMERICAS CUP OF TEA

5. Democratic National Committee Keynote Convention 1976Barbara Jordan

4. J.F.K. Inaugural Address

18 TheAmendment First Amendment 18 The First

2. I have A Dream-Martin Luther King Jr.

1. The Gettysburg Address- Abraham Lincoln

The First Amendment

Courtesy of NYC office of Public Advocate

20 The First Amendment

The First Amendment

Percentage of New Yorkers Under the Poverty Line

Median Household Income in Dollars

Thousands of NYC Immigrants Who Voted In the Last Presidential Election

Current Minimum Wage for NYC Workers in Dollars

Million Dollars Spent On Running NYC elections in 2012

The First Amendment

Only in (North) America:

William Hale Thompson: Chicago, IL

Barry Layne Moore: Hampton, FL

Rob Ford: Toronto, Canada

Courtesy of West Annex News

The First Amendment

THE PIVOT TO ASIA