ZEITGEIST The Spirit of the Times

– February 2013

Editor-in-Chief: Daniel Passarelli ’13 & Mark Giannini ‘13 Publisher: Andrés Ramos ‘13

Leaders of the Political Awareness Club

President: Owen Gibson ‘13 Vice President: Charlie Mastoloni ‘13 Secretary: Nick Schuermann ‘14

About the Club In a matter of years, our generation will be the status quo. We will be running the businesses and casting the votes and contributing to the culture that will serve to identify our country for decades to come. As such, it is our duty to cultivate a devotion to political curiosity and vigilance so that we can shape this future in the most well-informed manner we possibly can. The Political Awareness Club is a part of that cultivation, providing an environment for students to discuss and debate what is going on in the world and develop their own unique perspective they can carry with them into the adult world. We meet on Thursday afternoons in Mr. Szabs’ room (B407). All are welcome to attend. NOTE: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the Contributors and are in no way intended to reflect those of Fairfield Prep as an institution.

INSIDE THIS ISSUE Pg. 3 Military Religious Culture – Tom Garzillo Pg. 6 Chinese Foreign Policy – Charlie Mastoloni Pg. 9 Libertarian Party - Ryan Brickner Pg. 11 Gun Control – Charlie Mastoloni Pg. 14 Capital Punishment – Pat Miles Pg.16 Affirmative Action – Jack O’Connell Pg. 17 Fiscal Cliff averted? – Owen Gibson Pg.19 Inauguration Speech – John Clark

God’s Guns

By: Tom Garzillo ‘14

With the announcement of his withdrawal from the US Military Academy, Cadet

Blake Page shines light on an often ignored aspect of the United States Military:

the culture of Conservative Christianity. Although the military claims to be tolerant

of all beliefs and creeds, reports of discrimination against atheists have persisted

for years. This bias is not confined to the walls of West Point, however.

Throughout the entire US army around the globe, secular members often face

unfair and downright illegal treatment.

Page was merely months away from graduation at the prestigious Academy,

widely regarded as one of the greatest military institutions in the world. However,

Page has said that he left the college due to a culture he accused of being rife with

“discriminatory policies” and “blatant violations of oaths” by instructors and

fellow cadets. He cites events such as being ridiculed as a “heathen” by his

teachers, and being informed by an officer that he would always fail as a leader

unless he filled the “hole in his heart”, presumably with religion.

While this discrimination is in no way justifiable, one can certainly

understand its existence. Approximately 77% of the military identifies as Christian,

while only 22% claim to be secular or atheist. In addition, Southern residents make

up approximately 45% of the US military, with Montana, Wyoming, Oklahoma,

Alaska, and Texas possessing the highest proportional – to – population rates of

enlistment. It is no coincidence that these five states are some of the most

conservatively religious in the nation. 33% of military chaplains identify as

Southern Baptist, while it was not until earlier this year that the very first military

event geared towards nonreligious members occurred in US history.

These statistics do little more than to highlight the truth: the US military is

largely a Christian organization, whose culture is one of evangelical Christianity.

While this in itself is not inherently wrong, the intolerance towards those of

different belief is. Such an overwhelmingly Christian majority enables military

higher-ups to ignore the plight of inequity while atheists and other non-religious

are left with nowhere to turn for help. However, this discrimination is not always

so passive. Page recalled countless occasions in which he and other known atheists

were denied requests to leave campus for “relaxation” outings usually granted to

students. However, this culture of Christianity is not relegated to just the Academy,

as reports of so called “conversion missions” have come out of Afghanistan.

General Order Number One explicitly prohibits the spread of religion by US

soldiers in areas where they are deployed, yet this order goes largely ignored by

many US soldiers. A Vanity Fair article detailing the conservative Christian

domination of the military details occasions in which Bibles written in Dari were

mass produced and distributed to Afghan civilians, as uniformed missionaries (a

clear violation of US military law) went unpunished as they walked through

marketplaces attempting to convert Afghani citizens.

West Point is not the only

military institution affected by this

plight. A chaplain at the United

States Air Force Academy was

known to tell cadets that they

must let Christ into their lives or

forever “burn in hell.” On one

occasion, flyers advertising Mel

Gibson’s The Passion of the

Christ were placed on the chairs

of the main dining hall. In

addition, understandable outrage

arose in 2005 when the head

coach of the Air Force Academy’s

football team unveiled a banner in the locker room loudly proclaiming “Team

Jesus.” However, school administrators rarely take punitive action in these affairs.

In fact, the aforementioned chaplain was condoned by the Academy, who cited that

this inflammatory language was “common” in the services. While the US military

is top notch at turning out the world’s greatest soldiers, the Christian culture is

overwhelmingly oppressive to those who do not share similar beliefs.

In today’s society, the effects of war are well known. PTSD and other

psychological trauma are horrifying contemporaries of battle, and our military does

much to assist those suffering. However, in many rehabilitation techniques and

gatherings, faith is placed at the forefront of the practice. Soldiers are often shown

films detailing how faith and religion can save them from depression or suicide,

calling belief an “invaluable” tool in the process even as nearly one quarter of our

armed forces identify as atheist. While faith is a valuable asset for billions around

the globe, the inclusion of it in military functions is unwarranted and unnecessary.

There are laws in place that ban mandatory attendance at religious services,

but while the military has taken great strides to end sexism and racism, this is one

area in which breaking the “law” goes unpunished. In 2007, soldiers returning

from Iraq took part in a required ceremony that was begun and concluded with a

Christian prayer. Other homecoming celebrations included prayers that ended with

“In Jesus’ name” or other religious remarks. These experiences, infuriating to non-

religious soldiers, were some of the many elements that led to a federal lawsuit

against the military regarding this issue.

Soldiers who attended the Air Force Academy would later speak of how

those who attended optional Bible research would often receive better jobs and

positions, while those who chose not to attend were pressured to by campus

organizations such as the Crusade for Christ’s Military Ministry. There are many

such organizations on US military campuses in America and bases around the

world.

There is hope for atheists and other nonbelievers, though. At Fort Bragg,

North Carolina, an organization known as MASH (Military Atheists and Secular

Humanists) was recently founded to help provide solace to those often

overwhelmed by the Christian majority. Another organization, the MAAF

(Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers), is found throughout the US

military all around the world. These organizations serve many purposes. They

unite those who happen to be outside the standard military clique, and more

importantly, give others the courage to come out as atheists in what can otherwise

be a hostile environment for this revelation.

The facts and statistics cannot be overlooked or denied, and they all lead to

one conclusion: the United States Military is largely the military of the

evangelically Christian, and a culture of discrimination and bias is all too common

in the institution. While the army is religiously “officially neutral”, the exuberantly

high number of Christian members easily trumps this official position. As stories

like that of Blake Page continue to trickle out from West Point and the Air Force

Academy, one can only wonder how long it will be before the US military

becomes the tolerant, open organization it deserves to be.

China: Gentle Giant?

By: Charlie Mastoloni ‘13

I was nominated to be a Global Young Leader along with various other students

across Fairfield County to potentially win a scholarship as well as attend an event

in NYC at the Council of Foreign Relations. I was lucky enough to hear from two

prominent speakers, Pir Zubair Shah, a Pakistani Journalist who works with the

New York times, and Adam Segal, an expert in the study of China domestic and

foreign policy as well as cyber conflict and cyber security in Asia. This article is

an overall summary of what I learned from Mr. Segal.

The first question that must be discussed when talking about Chinese

Foreign Policy is what China wants. The first thing that China wants is a peaceful

international realm where they can focus on domestic issues. At this time there

does seem to be some growing problems with domestic issues as various protests

have taken shapes in forms of pro Democracy movements. The next thing that

China needs to worry about is not scaring their neighbors. The reason this is, is

they want their neighbors to be able to trust them and deal with them in terms of

trading and strategic alliances. In comparison to the rise of Germany and Japan pre

WW2, they want the opposite. They want to be able to rise to power in a peaceful

way that does not jeopardize their economic success’ longevity. Moreover, they

want access to markets. The majority of their policy according to Mr. Segal, is

based upon how to get into new markets. Africa and Brazil are primary examples

of this. They look at these places and see opportunities for them to establish new

industry ties. One interesting thing to note as Segal told us, was that China is not

worried about the internal policies of these countries. Whether it is a country that is

being led by a tyrant or a democracy it makes no difference. All they care about in

places such as Africa and Latin America is what will make their economy grow

and help set them on track for economic success in the future. The fourth point

that Mr. Segal spoke about was regarding Taiwan. China basically wants to

squeeze out Taiwan and own it. This all leads into the final goal of China. The

final goal of China that Mr. Segal spoke about was how China wants to become a

superpower. They want to be viewed right next to the United States as a global

dominant force.

The next thing that Mr. Segal talked about is how China will get there. He

bought up quite a few interesting points on ways China goes about pursuing their

goals. The first way is through strategic agreements with Japan and the United

states. It is extremely difficult for them to sell their story as being a “good

neighbor”, as Mr. Segal described it. As a result China needs to work harder than

other countries to gain the trust of places like Japan. This leads partially leads into

the next way China goes about accomplishing their goals: Investments. China is

spreading various investments throughout the world in hopes that it will help

strengthen them economically. Mr. Segal also pointed out that China has built up

its

military substantially to help achieve their goals. Their defense spending has

doubled every year and it looks like it is not curbing anytime soon. The majority of

weapons that they create are focused on U.S strengths. Mr. Segal explained that

weapons such as anti-aircraft carrier missiles are a major area of focus.

Mr. Segal then went on to describe how Chinese policy overall had changed

since a year ago. The first reason that he pointed to was how China began to feel

about itself. The Chinese began to believe that they were rising while the west was

falling. Their idea of them being more dominant than the west was reinforced by

the financial crisis of 2008. As Mr. Segal put it, they began to realize that they

have a large amount of influence and power in the world. The next reason that

Chinese policy has changed has been because of domestic issues. China has been

underwent a leadership change for the first time in 10 years (as their government

changes once every 10 years). Before current leader Xi Jinping was chosen, there

was a great amount of uncertainty on who would get major positions at the top of

the Party. As a result, each one of the people striving for leadership had to act more

nationalistic than their counterparts in order to stand a chance of getting an open

spot. As a result, China recently before leadership was in a phase of extended

conservatism. Mr. Segal also pointed to more voices as a major catalyst behind the

difference in policy recently. The internet has allowed voices and opinions to

spread like never before and as a result while China can censor what people can

say, Mr. Segal pointed out that there is a short window where the Chinese can see

material on the internet that the government potentially does not want them to see.

An example of what the government of China would not want the people to see

would be the various revolutions that were taking place in the Arab Spring phase

of earlier this year.

After explaining on how China differed from a year ago, Mr. Segal spoke

about how we do not know exactly what will happen to China. He pointed to

leadership succession as a major factor. We don’t know much about the new

leaders of China. What we do know though is that these leaders will not be as

strong as the last ones. A major reason is because as each generation of leadership

come and go, it is further and further from the revolution that swept in

communism. As a result, the new leadership needs new policies to continue to

appease the people of the country. That will be a very difficult task for the new

leadership as China has many problems that need addressing according to Mr.

Segal. They lack any sort of social welfare net and as a result carry many unhappy

impoverished people. Mr. Segal talked about how the population of China while

growing, is aging fast. The working population is shrinking substantially in

comparison to those who are out of work because of age. The ratio from workers to

retirees is 1:6, which posts a big problem to the government. Another issue is the

lack of women according to Mr. Segal. While the notion seems comical on the

surface, evidence points to the fact that when there is not enough spouses for men

to take, they need other things to keep themselves occupied. These things could be

protesting or other anti-government activity because of their growing discontent.

As Mr. Segal put it, it will be interesting to see in the coming months how the new

government of China responds domestically. Personally I can say overall the

experience of listening to an expert such as Adam Segal speak was very

enlightening and very informative and I am lucky enough to have been chosen to

be the Fairfield Prep nominee to the Future Global Leaders Award.

The Rise of a three party State?

By: Ryan Brickner ‘14

Over the last 4 decades, the Libertarian party has silently waited and grown

stronger. In 2012, Gary Johnson led the most successful Libertarian presidential

campaign ever by vote tallies. This has many people ask “what’s next?” In recent

and semi-recent election there have been successful third party candidates in Ross

Perot, John Anderson, and George Wallace, which leaves us with the lesson that

third party candidates are able to pick up votes. Could 2012 be the first of many

where Libertarians poll strong, or will their momentum be stopped?

First of all, you need to know what a Libertarian is. At its base, it is fiscally

conservative and socially progressive. This means they on the most part side with

Republicans on matters like taxes, role of government, spending, regulation, and

the like. They align with Democrats on issues like abortion, gay rights,

immigration, and our involvement in other countries among other issues. The

Libertarian base has traditionally been a swing vote when not voting for a

Libertarian candidate, supporting Obama after years of Bush wars and a limiting of

civil liberties. Many left the president in 2008 though due to his increasingly

liberal approach to issues like health care and the budget issues that have become

prevalent.

They want government out of everyday lives as much as possible. Unlike

Republicans who also preach that, they follow through on it by not wanting

government equally in marriage and business. This could lead Libertarians to big

gains because of the changing electorate. While many people are still fiscally

conservative they are running away from the Republican party because of their

increasingly radical stances on gay marriage, abortion, and immigration. This may

lead to a large hole emerging among the voter block that can be plugged by the

Libertarian party. Their niche at first will mostly be Republicans who have

become disenchanted with the hardline social policy stances they have adopted and

Democrats who remain fiscally conservative but vote liberal because of issues like

gay marriage, immigration, etc. and those who have just become fed up with

“politics as usual.”

The direction in which the country is moving may also stand to benefit the

Libertarian Party. As more people become educated issues such as gay rights and

abortion will continue to skew liberal. This will become a huge problem for the

Republican party, especially in times when the economy is not the main concern.

Unfortunately for the Democrats though, these people may not immediately now

flock to them, as a large percent of people will remain fiscally conservative. This

creates a large base of people who are in between the 2 main political parties but

fall perfectly into the lap of the Libertarian Party. As long as they can mine the in

between group, the Libertarian Party stands to gain a lot in the coming elections.

Young people and Hispanics should be the largest groups for the Party because

along with supporting gay rights and abortion rights, they also support legalizing

marijuana, which an overwhelming amount of youths support and their support of

immigration will sway any Hispanics who are even a little fiscally conservative to

their side.

The Libertarian Party also faces some large

hurdles. Libertarians hold some controversial

positions such as the legalization of narcotics and

prostitution. These issues can be touchy at times and

will alienate potential supporters. The Libertarian

Party is also at a disadvantage at other parts. The foremost of the party’s issues

stem from a lack of capital. Without money, they cannot get out their positions or

mobilize their supporters effectively. This also leads into the name brand

disadvantage. Not many people have actually heard of the Libertarian Party and

know what they stand for. This issue should become less of a problem as time

wears on though because maybe by winning a seat here and there and running

successful presidential campaigns like Gary Johnson did. These things get out the

message of the Libertarians, which is the best thing that can happen to them. They

are also disadvantaged because of the mindset that by voting for a third party

candidate you are wasting your vote. If people continue to think like this the

Libertarians will never take off. This is a stigma that will need to be combated for

the Libertarian Party to truly have an effect on American politics.

Many signs point to the Libertarian party, within a couple of elections,

becoming a power party. They are on an upward swing and as their name gets out,

more people will vote Libertarian. Their views on many issues mesh with the

popular sentiment, which will greatly benefit them. Increased freedom and

liberties is a popular concept to many people. With a soaring debt and social

problems coming into the mainstream there is outrage geared towards both of the

main parties. If the Libertarian party can take as little as 1/3 of each party’s

supporters all of a sudden there are 3 main parties. With the extra support that will

come from an increased profile this goal is obtainable. Thus the 2 party United

States of America may become the 3 party United States of America.

2nd

Amendment

By: Charlie Mastoloni ‘13

“The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Those are the words in

the 2nd

Amendment of the Constitution that have been used to ensure that citizens

could purchase and possess firearms since the birth of our nation. It has also been

one of the most scrutinized amendments in modern times with one of the most

fiery lobbyist groups in the U.S, the NRA (National Rifle Association) pitted in

debate with pro-gun control proponents in a seemingly never ending debate

regarding gun regulation. In wake of the recent Sandy Hook Elementary School

shooting, the debate over firearms has once again reemerged in a more prominent

way than ever. Led by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein in her fourth full

term as a U.S senator, the re-institution of the assault weapons ban of 1994 seems

to be at the center of attention.

The bill, which was introduced on Jan 24th, proposes a number of sweeping

regulations. It seeks to ban the sale, transfer, importation or manufacturing of about

150 named firearms, plus certain rifles, handguns and shotguns fitted for

detachable magazines and having at least one military characteristic. It also seeks

to strengthen the 1994 ban by moving from a two-to a one- characteristic test to

determine what constitutes an assault weapon as well as banning firearms with

“thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons.” Finally, it seeks to ban the importation of

assault weapons and large capacity magazines as well as banning high capacity

ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The bill would grandfather

in weapons legally owned on the day of enactment and exempts over 900 specific

weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes. Overall, it would be the largest

gun control bill in recent time. It is my opinion that this bill should be a no-brainer

for everyone in the Capital.

The reason this bill is necessary is simple, it only needs to be explained in a

number, 1239. That is the number of deaths by guns since the Newtown tragedy.

That is an average of around 30 people killed per day because of guns. The total

number of homicides in the United Kingdom because of guns was 18. That same

year for the United States, the number was 11,493. The reasoning behind that is

simple, tighter gun regulation. While the NRA loves to say that video games and

violent movies are the cause, the reality is that is simply not true. The UK has

much of the same video games we do, the same movies, and often times share very

similar interests in entertainment. The difference though is that the UK bans

handguns and automatic weapons as well as having an onerous system of

ownership rules including hours of paperwork, criminal reference checks, and

mandatory references that are all designed to reduce as far as possible that guns

would fall into the wrong hands. Clearly there is great success, as they suffered

only 18 gun related homicides the same year the U.S suffered 11,493.

Now a critic of gun control might claim that the UK is nowhere near to the

same culture we have in the United States, however all one needs to do is point to

the gun homicides in 2009 in a country that has more frontier than we do,

Australia. Americans often argue that their country’s unique political culture and

ubiquity of gun ownership makes gun control laws unthinkable. Australia, much

like the United States, has its own “Wild West gunmen”. The ideals of freedom

and liberty we as Americans hold is very often the same politico the Australians

hold as well. However Australia realized that more guns do not mean less

violence. Following the Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania in which a man went on

a rampage and killed 35 people (the worst massacre ever in Australian history),the

then Prime Minister, John Howard set forth sweeping regulations that banned the

sale and possession of all automatic and semiautomatic rifles and shotguns coupled

with stronger background checks and a mandatory buyback scheme that

compensated owners of newly illegal weapons. Between the years of 1996-’98

over 700,000 guns were taken and destroyed by the government. The result was

astounding, as a 2010 study done by the American Journal of Law and Economics

showed that gun-related homicides in Australia plummeted 59% between 1995 and

2006. In the year of 2009, there were 36 gun homicides in Australia. It should also

be noted Australia has similar tastes in video games and entertainment that we do,

however once again reasoning why their homicide rate is substantially less than

ours must be attributed to the fact that they have successfully regulated guns.

The only argument that pro-assault weapon advocates have left after one can

clearly see from the facts that more guns does not mean less violence is that in case

the government suddenly turns into Nazi Germany, they should be able to defend

themselves. They should be able to have assault weapons to protect themselves

from the government. That argument in itself is ridiculous for a number of reasons.

The reality is that if the government did decide to turn into a fascist- brutal state

that wants to persecute its people we really couldn’t do anything about it. It really

would not be much of a battle with some Dirty Harry wannabe armed with a AR-

15 pitted against the might of the U.S. military, with their tanks, drones, and

hellfire missiles. If such a situation were ever to arise, which is ridiculous and near

impossible in itself, we would be at the mercy of the military.

While I understand that people enjoy hunting and enjoy target shooting we

must ask ourselves as a nation to what cost is this worth? Is it worth jeopardizing

the lives of thousands of innocent citizens just so someone can go to the range and

shoot a military weapon and pretend to be John Wayne for a day? Is it worth

potentially letting more innocent children die because we want weapons that were

made for the sole purpose of killing people? People must understand that unlike

rifles, shotguns, or arguably handguns, assault weapons were made with the sole

intent to kill people. You do not buy an assault weapon to go shoot some deer or

pheasants. The idea that citizens should be able to own these types of weapons is

obscene to me. The facts have shown in both Australia and the UK that less guns

means less violence. If we truly wish to make our nation a safer country, banning

assault weapons and instituting stringent gun regulation is the path we need to take.

The facts are there, and we owe it to our citizens to make this the safest nation we

can.

An Analysis of Capital Punishment

By: Patrick Miles ‘13

The practice of capital punishment has been prevalent since the dawn of

society, and has permeated nearly all aspects of society as a much looser idea for

the same time span. The roots of capital punishment stem from an isotope of the

concept of justice as fair and equal treatment. This is not a singular definition of

justice, as the broader definition in scope caters more to morality and ethics as a

larger concern, than simply equality in action. In today’s modern world, there is

evidence that we are drifting back towards stauncher opposition to capital

punishment, as it was in the 1930’s and 1960’s. This is evidenced not only by a

general social climate, but also by the evolution in the way executions are carried

out in, as well as polling data that has been collected and a decrease in the number

of executions in the last ten years.

With the standing history of capital punishment dating back to the origin of

society, assuming that the idea of equal retribution being a part of human nature is

rather safe. The argument for the continued practice of capital punishment then

almost automatically has some merit, as there can be an argument made towards

the opinion that we cannot fundamentally ignore or eradicate a singular aspect of

our nature of being. The idea of capital punishment is not only a supposed

enforcement of justice, but it is also thought to be a sort of preventative measure

for murder. The logic that one would not wish to kill another if one knew for sure

that death would await is certainly sound, as it follows a known aspect of human

nature, the will to survive. However, as an overall solution to the problem of

homicide, capital punishment certainly falls short. It is simply impossible to

eradicate, or even lessen current homicide levels with the system of capital

punishment, because the execution itself is innately homicidal. The idea of

preventing fire with the threat of an opposing fire would be sound, except that for

that threat to be taken seriously, it must actually be exercised. In the exercise of

that threat, the overall conflict has not been lessened, but rather added to. This is

what I believe to be the fundamental flaw in the way we handle not only capital

punishment, but our global approach to the enforcement of peace as well. It is an

attempted alleviation to the problem, not an attempted cure.

Execution rates can be seen to have a direct correlation with national

sentiment regarding capital punishment, as seen by the comparison of statistics on

both the number of executions, and polls regarding favour or opposition to capital

punishment, over the past 80 years. In 1930, when national opposition to capital

punishment was relatively high, the number of executions was just over 150. Over

the next 20 years, up through 1950, the number of executions per year rose overall,

just as the opposition to capital punishment declined based on polls. Furthermore,

as the opposition hit an all-time high in 1966, the number of executions within the

nation hit rock bottom. We see the same trend continue today, with the number of

executions decreasing proportionally to the increase of the opposition to capital

punishment. In 2010, opposition to capital punishment was its highest since 1972.

In addition to the ethical and moral arguments for opposition to the death

penalty, as well as the argument for viewing it as alleviation and not a cure, there is

also a practical argument for opposition, based on economic principles and cost

statistics. A statistical study done within the state of California shows that capital

cases have cost approximately $4 billion since 1978, and concluded that, “…If the

Governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without

parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a

savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years.” This statistic of savings on its own

makes our current system of capital punishment economically irresponsible, due to

the fact that the general effect on society of having a criminal executed compared

to having a criminal detained for life without parole is essentially the same, save

for some emotional variation of effect on family and other directly affected

persons. The fact that between 2009 and 2010 only 119 out of 3,117 capital cases

were settled by either commutation of the sentence to life in prison, successful

appeals, or by execution illustrates just how ineffective our system of capital

punishment is at the moment. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year

on capital cases, with the difference of outcome truly only affecting a miniscule

number of people when compared to society at large, and even then, the executions

only feed a desire for retribution, which in no way works to prevent the lasting

problem of homicide in this nation.

I believe that the issue of capital punishment will continue to go unsettled

for the foreseeable future, as we have only had one year out of the past hundred

when the opposition of it has actually been greater than the support of it. Even as

we are now returning to oppose the death penalty more than in the recent past, we

are still behind in terms of opposition of where we were in 1936. At the very least

I can make the conclusion that, based on the cost statistics of capital cases, the

system must be at the very least reworked, and hopefully amended altogether so

that our society no longer sees the prevention of murder as synonymous with the

crime.

Affirmative Action

By: Jack O’Connell ‘14

Affirmative action, by definition, is a seemingly positive and harmless practice.

Essentially, its purpose is to allow equal opportunities for people of marginalized

races, genders, ethnicities, and economic classes. On the surface, affirmative action

appears to be a practical method of ensuring inclusion for the merited.

However, this very practice designed to repel racism in American society is

currently in dispute. Abigail Fischer, a white female who applied to University of

Texas, was outraged when she was rejected. Fischer felt like she deserved to get in

because people of different skin colors were getting in despite lower grades and

test scores. In a matter of time, the Supreme Court will decide whether affirmative

action in public schools is constitutional. A lot more is probably predicated on this

case. The ruling will set a precedent regarding affirmative action in private schools

and the workplace.

As a possible future beneficiary of affirmative action, I hope it upholds. As an

objective bystander, I think it should uphold. Affirmative action helps create

diversity in places it may not be present otherwise. Granted, it is harder for an

Asian-American to get into a school than an African-American or Hispanic. In my

opinion, that is the lesser of two evils. A public school should have the goal of

reflecting its constituent’s racial makeup. Without affirmative action, that would be

nearly impossible to achieve. Consider the following: the ratio of Asian-Americans

who score a 700 or over on their Math SAT to blacks who do so is 25 to 1. How

could any semblance of diversity be achieved at a completely “fair” public

engineering school, for example, without affirmative action? The fact is not too

long ago African-Americans were not even allowed in our schools. Economically

speaking, some races are struggling. That should be accounted for.

Now, of course, some people will always say the following: a middle class Asian-

American with a great application is on lower footing than even a wealthy African-

American with just a good application. I challenge those to devise a perfect system

and get back to me when they do. The fact is I’d never be hearing from those

people again. There is no such thing in a matter like this. Qualified applicants will

get the boot every year in our nation’s public schools. Justice John Roberts, in a

dictum opposing affirmative action, says “The way to stop discrimination on the

basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” The fact is, once again,

that the system will never be perfect. Our nation, while technically integrated, is

still demographically very segregated. Encouraging diversity in public schools is

just a small step in remedying our still recovering society.

Fiscal Cliff Still Looming

By: Owen Gibson ‘13

The fiscal cliff, the combination of spending cuts and tax increases that

would have taken place on January 1st of 2013, has been avoided (temporarily).

The “cliff” consisted on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts under the 2010 Tax

Relief Act and a planned budget sequestration under the Budget Control Act of

2011. The sequester was established as a part of a compromise during the 2011

debt-ceiling crisis. The purpose of the sequester, and effectively, the fiscal cliff,

was to force Congress to address out-of-control discretionary spending resulting

from the 111th Congress’s inability to pass a budget, which has produced massive

federal budget deficits.

In the long-term, the fiscal cliff would greatly reduce the country’s debt-to-

GDP ratio, which would strengthen the labor market and increase economic

growth. However, it was predicted that in the short term, the fiscal cliff could

trigger a second recession, so it was imperative that the government compromise

and reach a bipartisan solution before the end of 2012.

Naturally, the fiscal cliff crisis revolved around divisive partisan debate. The

primary voice of the Democrats was President Obama, while the primary voice of

the Republicans was House Speaker Boehner. Initially, the Democrats wanted to

draw in revenue by raising taxes on the wealthy, while leaving entitlement

programs relatively untouched. Conversely, the Republicans wanted entitlement

reform, while leaving tax rates untouched.

Following the election in November, Obama made Boehner an offer: taxes

would be raised for individuals making more than $200,000 per year and couples

making more than $250,000 per year, while the blunt spending cuts of

sequestration would be replaced with more specialized cuts, particularly in the

defence industry. In December, Boehner responded with a counter-offer, in which

taxes would be raised for those who earn over $1,000,000 per year, revenue would

be generated by reducing tax expenditures, and the Medicare eligibility age would

increased from 65 to 67, among other things.

When Boehner presented his “Plan B” to the House, it became apparent that

his fellow Republicans would not support it, and the bill failed. The ball then

passed into the Senate’s court. The Senate raced to reach a deal and…the country

went over the fiscal cliff (for about a day). At 2 A.M. on New Year’s Day, the

Senate passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 by a margin of 89-8. At

11 P.M. on the same day, the House passed the same bill by a margin of 257-167.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, which was signed into law by

President Obama on January 2, 2013, settled the debate on the Bush tax cuts, while

simply postponing the budget sequestration for two months and leaving the debt

ceiling unchanged. Under the act, marginal income taxes would be raised on

individuals making more than $400,000 per year and couples making more than

$450,000 per year. In addition, certain tax deductions and credits would phase out

for individuals making more than $250,000 per year and couples making more than

$300,000 per year, estate taxes would increase on estates worth more than $5

million, and the 2% payroll tax cut would expire. However, the fiscal cliff is not

yet avoided.

The coming months will see multiple more Congressional battles over the

debt-ceiling, sequestration, and the federal budget. President Obama, who does not

believe the government has a spending problem and who originally wanted

executive control over the debt-ceiling, is looking to raise the debt-ceiling for an

extended period of time. However, Congressional Republicans feel it would be

irresponsible to raise the debt-ceiling without matching the amount of said raise in

spending cuts. After all, the only reason the government must raise the debt-ceiling

is because the government must borrow more money to fund its deficit spending.

At the moment, the Republicans are willing to extend the debt-ceiling for a

few months, in order to place the government’s focus on spending cuts and

entitlement reform, in anticipation of the sequestration deadline on March 1st. How

these legislative battles will play out in the coming months remains to be seen.

However, one can only hope the members of our government learn to compromise

in order to solve some of the most daunting financial problems in our nation’s

history.

The Next Four Years

By: John Clark ‘14

On the 21st of January, Martin Luther King Jr. day, the president was inaugurated,

and, in the spirit of the day, delivered a progressive speech that indisputably

presented the theme of his second term as Civil Rights and national unity, which

permeated each and every sentence of the speech. When he mentioned the

economy and the American class crisis, he seemed to send a message that since

Americans have an unwritten yet undeniable 'right to work,' that the struggle for

the middle class is a struggle for Civil Rights, saying, "For we, the people,

understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and

a growing many barely make it."

He introduced the movements that we most closely identify with Civil Rights,

saying, "We the people declare today that the most evident of truth that all of us are

created equal -- is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears

through Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall" However, the President's view of

the Civil Rights situation in the United States was defined by his repetition of the

phrase "our journey is not complete." After each repetition of the phrase, he

described a better possible future that would result from the success of each Civil

Rights movement. In doing so, he became the first President to use the word 'gay'

in his speech, telling the American people that "Our journey is not complete until

our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law." This

statement might very well have sparked an invigoration of the gay rights

movement, and it is not unreasonable to think that the amount of states with gay

marriage on the ballot will skyrocket this year. However, it was the President's

emphasis on the American collective which most contributed to the unity of the

speech, repeating the phrase, "we, the people." The president's emphasis on Civil

Rights was truly just a dimension of the bigger picture of American unity, for there

cannot be unity if there is no equality. Therefore, I believe the defining moment of

the address was when he declared, "My fellow Americans, we are made for this

moment and we will seize it, so long as we seize it together."