02

CONTENTS

MAY 2016
FAILURE OF U.S. DEMOCRACY
Analyzing the shortcomings of our countrys political
system and shedding light on state subordination.

04-05

AUDITING THE FED

The words most inuential bank controls nearly all
U.S. currency, and we have no idea how it works.

06-07

LGBTQ+ IN N.C.
Discriminatory laws in
North Carolina miss their
mark. Bathroom legislation causes controversy.

08

PARTISAN COURT

THIS MONTH ISSUE

A FEW WORDS FROM THE 7TH BOARD

09

Welcome 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 opposite
perspectives for an inclusive and prosperous society. In a
community that can often ignore what happens outside
of its gates, this magazine serves as an inspiration to discuss those issues that beset the world beyond. It is this
inspiration that propels one of the most important parts
of the Schools mission statement: responsible leadership,
personal fulllment, and enthusiastic participation in the
world.
We love to argue here at Lawrenceville, but really 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. Ex ore discipulorum veritas.

- The 7th Board

CONTENTS

The First Amendment

The controversy regarding

Merrick Garlands Supreme
Court appointment and
GOP obstructionism.

ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT POLITICS
The rise of Donald Trump and the success of
Bernie Sanders campaign mark a new trend in
American politics of rejecting traditional rhetoric.

12

BROKERED DEMOCRACY
Exploring the inherent hypocricy of a brokered
convention and how it undermines democracy.

13

SPECIAL FORCES IN SYRIA

Recent developements in the Syrian conict and
Obamas decision to implicate American troops.

21-22

RELIEVING PUERTO RICO

The tragic economic state of Puerto Rico and the
negligence of the federal government. Lack of
statehood perpetuates economic depression.

28-29

03

Editor-in-Chief
Yiannis Vandris 17

FEATURED ARTICLES //

Executive Editors
Raj Bagaria 17 & Alejandro
Turriago 17
Ombudsman
Emma Pinto 17

// THE CLINTON ESCAPADES

10-11

// POLITICAL PLAYLIST

14-15

Domestic Editor
Banks Blackwell 17
International Editor
Anna Vinitsky 17
Features Editor
Matthew Stein 17

// PRO-DONATION RESTRICTIONS

16

// ANTI-DONATION RESTRICTIONS 17

Chief Graphics &

Design Editor
Cindy Jin 17
Graphics & Design Editor
Kate Epifanio 18

// SATIRE: WEBB FEELS THE BERN 18-19

THE PANAMA PAPERS

// LIFE IN COMMUNIST CHINA

24-25

HILLSBOROUGH SAGA

Remembering and honoring the

memory of the 96 lives lost.

Remembering and honoring the

memory of the 96 lives lost.

23-24

26-27

POP PERSPECTIVE: ABORTION

Understanding and interpreting Lawrentians perspectives on the federal
government, abortion and state intervention

Associate Editor
Luke DeCresce 18 & Alex
Small 18
Copy Editor
Hadley Copeland 18 & Stefan Reutter 18
Faculty Advisor
Lawrence Filippone
Special thanks to Sean
Ramsden, Phyllis Lerner &
Clare Burchi

Contacts and informations

Like us on Facebook at:

facebook.com/rstamendmentlville

Email us at:
30-31

[email protected]

MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I

04

THE FAILURE
OF AMERICAN
DEMOCRACY
Christa Sowah 17

America prides itself on its democracy, claiming full credit for

the successful modern implementation and combination of Roman democracy and John Lockes ideology. As strongly as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin all fought for the spread of their own
ideas, America fought for democracy endlessly. We witness this
ght in every foreign intervention, as each strives to bring American ideals of liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness to
all nations. From the Monroe Doctrine to the Vietnam War and
beyond, America refuses to sit on its hands and watch the world
drift from what it dictates as the only way of governancethe
Western way. However, through an evaluation of Americas system of government, its many failures become apparent.Scarred
from British colonialism, the Revolutionary War ingrained in each
American an inherent fear of tyranny. Therefore, when establishing its government, America implemented all measures possible
to decentralize presidential power and distribute it to the people
instead. The latter is evident in Americas dedication to popular
sovereignty in the extensive election process to determine our
nations leader. The former appears in the ceaseless checks and
balances created to prohibit the coalescing of power.
The government divides into three branches: the legislative,
the executive, and the judicial. This is the rst deviation of power
as each branch can ultimately undo the actions of the others.
Many Americans misunderstand the extent of power the President truly wields; while he is granted the title Leader of the
Free World, nearly all of his actions are undermined by Congress.
Therefore, when the Senate or House is stacked against a President, it is virtually impossible to make any decisions, however,
the president receives the brunt of the criticism. This is just one
exhibition of democracys biggest aws.
The power to create and refute laws has been spread so thinly
across all the branches and their subdivisions that the President
actually has very limited power. The government shutdown in
2013 highlights these aws. The shutdown resulted from a stalemate between the Republican House and the Democratic Senate
ghting over Obamacare. But, unfortunately, America has created
a convoluted system where everything can be contested. Once
Obama managed to establish Obamacare, the Republicans in
Congress sought to defund the program. How is this democracy?
When Obama was elected, so too were his policies. By attempting
to sabotage Obamacare, the Republicans in Congress sought to
deprive Americans of the welfare they need, deserve, and most

DOMESTIC

The First Amendment

importantly, voted for. While tyranny has

historically failed, the uber-inclusive
democracy established by America has
proven to be an insufcient alternative.
States rights stand as another road
block preventing real change from taking place within America. Instituted to
enhance the power of every individual,
the American government distributes
the countrys power to individual states.
According to John Locke, a driving force
in the development of our democracy,
each citizen possesses a set amount of
political power. In other words, political
power is nite, and must be distributed
to avoid the President from obtaining
too much. However, instead of preventing tyranny, states rights only prevent
change. Since Americas birth, states
rights have been nding ways to circumvent the hard work of those in Washington. Take the results of the Brown
v. Board of Education, for example. The

05

law to desegregate schools was

determined, yet states rights allowed some states to divert more
funding and support the creation
of all-white private schools called
segregation academies. What is
the purpose of establishing federal laws if individual states can
ultimately bypass them through
loopholes?
This problem is not one isolated in Americas past. It persists
today in a variety of forms, the
more recent and prominent being
the North Carolina anti-transgender laws. It did not take longer
than a year for the South to undo
the hard progressive work of the
North. The Supreme Court ruling
in the summer of 2015 that ratied a law making gay marriage
legal. This was a monumental
step forward for the LGBTQ com-

munity as liberty and justice and

freedom for the pursuit of happiness became more real. However,
states rights have allowed North
Carolina to try and oppress this
group once again with their new
bathroom laws forbidding transgender people to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. The tireless work of one
branch goes to naught when yet
another division of power manages to undo it with ease.
It is extremely dangerous to the
security of freedom, liberty, and
justice if the laws implemented
by the federal government can be
counteracted by individual states.
This results from the numerous
divisions of power. American democracy is failing and it has been
since its conception. Worse than
American democracy is the Amer-

ican arrogance that urges the country

to spread democracy and look down on
those who deny it. Democracy is not
working for you, America, how do you
expect it to work for others?

WHILE TYRANNY

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

MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I

06

Auditing

The Fed

The worlds most inuential bank controls near all of US currency, and we have no idea how it works.

By Andrew
Brewer 16
The Federal Reserve (Fed) is the
central bank of
the United States.
Through scal and
monetary policy,
the FED directly
controls interest
rates, which determines how much
citizens spend.

DOMESTIC

The First Amendment

The United States Dollar is the worlds

chief reserve currency. In this position
of responsibility, the Federal Reserve
has become arguably one of the most
influential banks in the world. Recently,
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul proposed
a plan known as Audit the Fed to the
Senate that would require greater
transparency of the Federal Reserve.
The bill did not pass the Senate despite
having a 53-44 vote in favor, including
the support of presidential hopefuls
Senators Bernie Sanders and Marco
Rubio.
Since the Federal Reserves opening
in 1913, it has never been fully
audited, despite the value of currency
dropping 96% during that time frame.
It has never been fully transparent or

accountable to Congress or the American people

while having a monopoly over the flow of U.S.
dollars. under Senator Pauls proposed bill, the
Federal Reserves discount window operations,
funding facilities, open market operations,
and agreements with foreign central banks/
governments would all be inspected thoroughly
by Congress.
Many forget that the Federal Reserve played a
large role in the housing bubble that caused the
2008 recession by keeping interest rates too low
for too long. Economist Friedrich August Hayek
(1899-1992) argued in Prices and Production that
low interest rates increase investment, including
what he called mal-investments. A bubble
is created when over-investing happens in a
particular sphere such as housing and real estate
in the mid-2000s. In 2008, those malinvestments
were Collateralized Debt Obligations.

07
Auditing the Federal Reserve could
elucidate the reasoning behind their
consistent failure to keep the economy
under control. The Fed failed during
the Great Depression and was a huge
cause of this economic disaster. In a PBS
interview in 2001, Former Chairman
Ben Bernanke stated: What happened
is that [the Federal Reserve] followed
policies which led to a decline in the
quantity of money by a third. For every

be frightened at the notion of looking

at records. Why is the Federal Reserve
so scared then?
According to the United States
Constitution, is it not Congresss job
to handle monetary policy? In an
interview, Representative Paul Broun
stated that Congress has basically
abdicated its duty to control money
and the monetary supply and control
of our money supply as a nation over to

Union was brought down because

they couldnt determine one simple thing.the price of bread. And
all these planners, but nobody can
determine the price of bread only
the market can. You set the price
too low bread is all gone, set the
price too high it rots on the shelves.
The only thing that can gure out
the right price is the market. Let us
have the same principle for interest rates and let the market decide
rather than articially raising and
lowering rates with the Federal Reserve. Lets gure out what the Fed
is actually doing.

Personally, I believe
that the Federal
Reserve should
get investigated
and remain in
check rather frequently, especially when its created money rarely
trickles down.

Failure to Act

$100 in paper money, in deposits, in

cash, in currency, in existence in 1929,
by the time you got to 1933, there
was only about $65, $66 left. And that
extraordinary collapse in the banking
system, with about a third of the banks
failing from beginning to end At all
times, the Federal Reserve had the
power and the knowledge to have
stopped that So it was, in my opinion,
clearly a mistake of policy that led to
the Great Depression. Let Congress
take a look at all of the Feds records for
the rst time. For all we know, it might
prevent another economic collapse.
A commonly employed argument
against auditing the Fed claims that
it would make the institution political
and biased. This notion is absurd. How
does a thorough investigation make
the bank political in any way? The NSA
and IRS frequently assure us that if
there is nothing wrong, one should not

this semi-governmental agency thats

not really governmental... In reality,
we have had no auditing. We have
absolutely no idea what theyre doing
over there. This statement largely
dispels the argument that Congress
and the public know what the Federal
Reserve is actually doing. Sure, the Fed
posts its transactions, or at least $850
billion of the almost $4 trillion that it
holds in bonds.
Due to the fact that the US dollar is
a at currency, and therefore has nothing tangible assuring its value, hyperination is an unlikely but still very
feasible possibility. Personally, I believe
that the Federal Reserve should get investigated and remain in check rather
frequently, especially when its created
money rarely trickles down. The last
thing we want is another economic
collapse. As Rand Paul said in an interview with John Stossel, the Soviet

The Former Federal Reserve

Chairman, Alan Greenspan (pictured below), admitted that he saw
the 2008 housing bubble coming,
but the Federal Reserve was still
not to be prepared for it. The bank
often overlooks the bubbles that it
creates and, even if it does, proper
actions are hardly taken. This is a
problem because one of the Feds
chief responsibilities is to watch
and monitor the economy so that
issues such as bubbles do not occur.

MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I

08

The Real Victims in N.C.

Discriminatory laws in North Carolina miss their mark

By Zandra Campbell 17

North Carolina has recently passed

some controversial legislation concerning
the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. The
Bathroom Law states that all government owned facilities must provide single
sex bathrooms and prohibits people from
using any bathroom other than the one
which matches the sex on their birth certicates. Essentially, the North Carolinian
government has blocked transgender,
gender uid, and intersex citizens from
using the bathroom aligned with their
true genders. Supposedly, this act protects against sexual predators who would
rape and harass young women and children. This reasoning, however, does not
account for the real danger transgender
people have to confront when they do not
use their preferred bathroom.
A transgender woman in a mens bathroom is likely to face the same harassment and predation the act was designed
to prevent. One trans woman, Lara Nazario, described being told that [she was]
in the wrong bathroom and how she
faced harassment and even violence. Another trans woman recounted her experiences in a womens bathroom as an ordeal
more complicated than a cisgendered
person could ever even imagine. She
described having to whisper so that her
voice matched a womans timbre, dress

DOMESTIC

The First Amendement

especially femininely in order to remain

inconspicuous in a womans bathroom,
and even map out the bathrooms escape
routes. In doing mundane activities, such
as using the bathroom, transgender women fear the possibility of being kicked out,
having the police called, or even being
physically attacked. Transgender women should be able to use the womens
bathroom without fear of being harassed.
Places as common as bathrooms, which
cisgendered people use without a second
thought, should not be landscapes of terror for transgendered people.
Furthermore, the North Carolinian
government believes that by preventing
transgender women from using the bathroom of their preferred gender they are
protecting their daughters and children.
This belief is absolutely absurd and fails
to stand to reason, for government ofcials largely ignore that transgender men
exist as well. This act will not only force
transgender women to use the mens
bathroom and face harassment there,
but will also force transgender men to
use the womens room. It is unlikely that
transgender men will harass women. Yet
by the logic that conservatives in the
North Carolina government subscribe to,
transgender men, who are frequently indistinguishable from cisgendered men,

belong more in a womens bathroom

than transgender women. Essentially, the
government is saying that some ink on
a piece of paper is more important and
more deserving of respect than the rights
of the very real human being.
This law is also awed in that it also
fails to dictate which bathroom would
be used by intersex people, who are born
with both male and female genitalia. Not
only does the Bathroom Law discredit the
lives and experiences of transgendered
people, but it also fails to even acknowledge the existence of people who do not
t into the binary of sexes.
Republicans make a point: predators
would be able to use whatever bathroom
they chose to. However, when the North
Carolinian government puts transgender
people in a position where they can be
harassed, it tells transgender people that
their rights and their safety are less important than the rights and safety of other
people. This is not simply trying to protect
the daughters of North Carolinians; this is
transphobia, and it is unacceptable. When
passing laws, governments must think of
all their constituents, and North Carolinas ignoring the safety and rights of the
transgender community demonstrates its
prejudice against a huge portion of the
people it is supposed to protect.

The Partisan Court

09

The controversy regarding Merrick Garlands Supreme Court appointment

By Will Madonia 18

Obstructionism: the style of politics

that focuses on impeding the progress
of the opposing party. Until now, it was
obsolete. Many credit the emergence
of obstructionism to the 1987 defeat
of Judge Robert Borks nomination. Obstructionism isnt inherently a bad idea,
as it allows for different ideologies to
keep legislative power in check. For
instance, if a conservative president
were to excessively take advantage of
a majority-republican congress to enact
executive order, obstructionist politicians could hinder his one-dimensional
expansion.
Unfortunately, 21st century politics
has not experienced the idea form of
obstructionism. In 2006, Judge Samuel Alito, who graduated summa cum
laude from Princeton and was United
States Attorney for the District of New
Jersey from 1987-1990, only received
four positive votes from Democratic
senators. More than two dozen senators, including Barack Obama, Hillary
Clinton, and other prominent congressmen went as far as voting to completely deny Judge Alitos consideration. An
example of obstructionism at its worst,
our countrys selsh political motives
have obstructed great leaders from assuming positions. Both Democrats and
Republicans have been guilty of this
behavior, but 2006s liberal escapade
wasnt nearly as ridiculous as the GOPs
reaction to President Obamas Supreme
Court nominee this year, Judge Merrick
Garland.
Judge Merrick Garland graduated as
the valedictorian of Harvard College,
Class of 1970. He went on to volunteer
as a speechwriter for Congressman Abner J. Mikna, and later achieved partner status at Arnold & Porter, where
he worked until 1989. Wanting to become involved in public service, Judge
Garland left Arnold & Porter to become
Assistant U.S Attorney, eventually joining the Clinton administration in 1993,
where he worked in the Criminal Divi-

sion of the U.S Department of Justice.

Judge Garland would go on to review
cases involving Guantanamo Bay (al
Odah vs. United States) and voting rights
(Alexand vs. Daley). In short, Garland is
the most qualied Justice nominee seen
by the Senate in years. However, Republicans such as Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell seems to disagree.
In February, Justice Antonin Scalia died
while on a hunting trip, instigating an inter-party battle for a replacement. Days
later, McConnell stated, The American
people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice therefore, this vacancy should not
be lled until we have a new president.
Since then, the Grand Old Party has refused to consider Judge Garland, an action based in reasoning that is heavily
awed.
McConnell stated that he wants the
American people [to] have a voice in the
selection, completely ignoring the fact
that the people do. The American people
elected President Obama for two terms,
and thus Obamas nomination is a product of the leadership the American people have approved. Additionally, Ted Cruz
recently stated on Meet the Press that It
has been 80 years since a Supreme Court
vacancy was nominated and conrmed in

an election year. there is a long tradition that you dont do this in an election
year. However, this claim has little basis
in fact, as the last successful nomination
and conrmation occurred in 1987. The
GOP cites tradition as a reason to disregard Obamas power to nominate a Justice. However, this in turn undermines
the national tradition that Republicans
have historically held dear, the reverence
for the literal reading of the Constitution,
an interpretation of the constitution that
in no way undermine the Presidents
power during his seventh year.
As frustrating as this recent display of
obstructionism is, the GOPs reaction to
the nomination of Garland is emblematic
of a larger issue, the inability for our bipartisan Congress to put pride aside and
work together. Garland is considered by
some to be a moderate Democrat, and in
his pro-prosecution stance on criminal
law, even more conservative than Judge
Antonin Scalia. However, the GOP let
such an opportunity for leadership slip
through their ngers. Now, with cases
emerging concerning transgender rights,
gun control, and states rights, it is more
important than ever for our Supreme
Court to be able to be the powerhouse
of social justice and objective thinking it
has been in the past.

MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I

10

The Clinton Escapades

Addressing Dishonesty and Fraud of the Democratic Front-Runner
By Luke DeCresce 18

Former United States Senator Hillary Clinton is currently a frontrunner in the 2016 election, with millions of voters support. Recently, however, she has encountered a lot of criticism due to a video that came out in January of 2016 entitled,Hillary Clinton lying
for 13 minutes. Her immense dishonesty and constant pandering
to various audiences must be taken into account during voting.
In 2015, she spoke in the very liberal state of New Hampshire
and said, I take a backseat to no one when you look at my record
in standing up and ghting for progressive values. However, in
the same year, she stated at an event in the more conservative
state of Ohio, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center.
I plead guilty. This major discrepancy in her political views was
questioned intensely by Anderson Cooper at a Democratic Party
debate in October. In the face of his criticism, Clinton responded,
Actually, I have been very consistent over the course of my entire life. I have always fought for the same values and principles.
This is a at-out lie, and every American should be aware of this.
Lets start with her views on same-sex marriage. She delivered various speeches against same-sex marriage between
2002 and 2010, stating that she believes that marriage is a sacred bond between only a man and a woman. She is entitled
to that viewpoint, but, as gay-marriage became more accepted
by the mainstream, she ip-opped her opinion entirely and
released a video declaring her support for same-sex marriage
in 2013. Now, many Hillary supporters bring up the argument
that any persons opinions change all the time, and we shouldnt
hold it against Clinton that she decided to switch to the pro-

DOMESTIC

The First Amendment

gressive side of the issue. Typically, Id agree with

this. However, when asked on an NPR interview if
she believed in gay marriage all along and was
waiting to show her support for it at a time at
which America was ready for the progression, she
laughed, I have a great commitment to this issue.
Why would she lie about her own, clear words?
Its because instead of expressing her own true
opinion, she instead tries to appeal to whatever
opinion the majority of the US is currently holding.
Same-sex marriage isnt the only issue for
which Clinton has tried to cover her pandering.
In 2008 Hillary said, Shame on you, Barack Obama, in response to his disagreement with her
universal healthcare plan. In this angry, ranting
speech, she even went as far as to call Obamas
actions undemocratic. However, in a 2016 debate with Bernie Sanders, she stated: The Democratic Party has worked since Harry Truman to
get the Affordable Care Act signed. Now, she is
trying to hide her past disagreements with other major players in the Democratic Party. She
fought with Obama about healthcare in 2008,
which is not a problem, but now she is trying to
act in unity with him in an attempt to garner as
much Democratic Party support as possible and
appeal to Sanders young, progressive voter base.
The topic of Hillary Clintons emails is another blatant attempt to cover up the truth on her
part. During the House of Representatives Select
Committee on the attacks on the US embassy in
Benghazi, Clinton stated repeatedly, 90-95% of
my work-related emails were in the state system.
House Representative and attorney Trey Gowdy
responded by revealing that nobody else has ever
cited that gure before and asked for a source.
Clinton claimed that she learned her statistic from
the State Departments analysis of emails on the
state system. However, the Inspector General has
stated that less than one percent of those emails
were currently released. Gowdy caught Hillary atout lying in front of Congress and inating her own
statistics by 90% in an attempt to cover her own
tracks. At a UN Security Council meeting, Hillary
also said: The server contains personal communications from my husband and me. However, her
own husband, Bill Clinton, stated at a Clinton Global Initiative panel in Denver that the only time
[he] got on the Internet, [he[ did two emails, and

11

[he] ordered Christmas presents from

a reservation. Clinton is clearly trying to hide something in her emails
and while the emails themselves may
or may not be sensitive, regardless,
the fact remains that she is lying to
Congress and the people. What kind
of President would she be? Not one
the American people should want.
US Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter
101 Section 2071 decrees that anyone who willingly to conceal, damage, or destroy a document belonging to an ofcer or clerk of any branch
of the US government or attempts to
do so is subject to three years imprisonment or a ne and is banned from
ever running for any kind of public
ofce. Clinton herself has admitted
that she used her own private email
address and server while she was the
Secretary of State, which is outside
of the reach of state-operated email
servers that are meant to be used by
public ofcials. By electing to forgo

the decision to work as Secretary of

State without using her state email
address, she kept any documents
she sent off of state servers, meaning that those emails she sent are
no longer subject to the Freedom of
Information Act. By doing this, she
attempted to conceal documents
from the records of the US government. By the law of the US, Hillary
Clinton should not be allowed to legally run for ofce. Instead, she has
somehow managed to escape the law
of the very nation she wants to lead.
Perhaps the most entertaining segment of the 13-minute long video is
the exposure of Hillary Clintons lies
regarding her visit to Bosnia in the
1990s. She tried to inate her foreign
policy experience through this visit
by claiming her plane was landing
under sniper re and that there was
no greeting ceremony upon arrival.
Sinbad, an American stand-up comedian, who accompanied Clinton on

the trip, denied any immediate danger. When asked about this, she called
him a comedian. However, the video
evidence of the landing in Bosnia depicts Hillary and her daughter greeting soldiers, children, and reporters
all in the open space of the tarmac
and not threatened by any snipers.
Hillary is not nearly as solid of a
candidate as she makes herself out
to be. She has ip-opped on important issues (same-sex marriage,
universal healthcare, NAFTA) and
denies it. She has tried to hide her
emails through blatant, barely-hidden lies and deceit. She has also
tried to inate her own experiences
as an executive politician through
her blatant lies in retelling her visit
to Bosnia in the 1990s. The truth is
that we cannot know what to expect
from her if she enters the Oval Ofce,
and despite what she tries to tell us,
she has a terrible track record in regard to honesty and transparency.

MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I

12

STRAYING FROM
FROMTHE
THEESTABLISHMENT
ESTABLISHMENT
AN EXAMINATION OF DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN POLITICS IN THE 2016 ELECTION
// KEVIN XIAO 19
As both the Republican and Democratic primary processes
near an end, we can nally assess the aftermath of the bloodbath that is commonly known as politics. In light of the recent
news that both Senator Cruz and Ohio Governor Kasich have
both dropped out, leaving businessman Donald Trump as the
presumptive GOP nominee and the Hillary Clintons inability
to conclusively block the Democratic Socialist Sanders from
the Democratic nomination, the rising power of the anti-establishment candidates becomes stunningly clear. However,
the peoples shift to the outsider vote should send a very
strong message to todays career politicians: after 8 years of
your insincere promises and the disenfranchisement of the
middle class, its time for real change in America. This mindset is clearly reected by Mr. Trumps signature brutal honesty and Senator Sanders slogan Enough is Enough and A
Future to Believe In. The most contentious issues between
this elections establishment-backed and outsider candidates have been the issues of taxes, political contributions,
and foreign policy, which all of the candidates have spoken
extensively about. The voters shift to political outsiders like
Messrs. Trump and Sanders symbolizes a new era in American
politics, one both the Republican and Democratic establishments must embrace and adapt to be successful in the future.
Although the rise of these anti-establishment candidates
has been based largely in rhetoric and publicity stunts (i.e.
Feel the Bern or Trumps remarks on the Mexican border or
Muslim immigration), there are many sound platform proposals that conict with the interests of party candidates.
Most notable have been the issue of political contributions. Many high-ranking political ofcials have been accused of serving the interests of their donors rather than
those of their constituents, thus the creation of a system
makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Senator Sand-

DOMESTIC

The First Amendment

ers and billionaire Trump have publicly come out against

this system, with Trump self-nancing his campaign and
Sanders only taking small contributions to avoid being
labeled as corrupt by being inuenced by their donors.
Many political analysts and strategists have prophesied that summer of 2015, and 9 months have come and
gone. While the bold remarks of Donald Trump may have
turned away multitudes of potential voters, he has certainly aroused the attention of many disenfranchised voters who are angry over the lack of progress and change
in the current government. By claiming to speak for the
silent majority of voters and upset the political ruling class, Trumps ardent supporters have ocked to the
polls and fueled his rise to the top. Likewise with Bernie
Sanders, his support for free college tuition and the implementation of a wealth redistribution system, he has
resonated with a large part of the Democratic electorate. However, the rise of these outsider candidates has
not been entirely unpredictable. The increasing political polarization of the nation has led to candidates that
have vowed to ght the norm and defy party leadership
to success. These separate factions within both parties
have splintered the Democratic and Republican parties.
So you may ask yourself, what is the solution and how can
we reconcile this divide between these separate parties? A
politician must be willing to step up on both sides of the
aisle and establish the common ground for the two sides.
There will inevitably be differences and disagreements between the establishment and the outsiders, but to restore
the continuity of both parties, this must occur. Although this
election cycle may be too late for this compromise candidate, the two party system of the United States will not remain intact without this political savior in the near future.

13

BROKERING DEMOCRACY
THE FUNDAMENTAL HYPOCRISY BEHIND THE PUSH FOR A CONTESTED CONVENTION
// EMMA PINTO 17
Throughout
this
tumultuous
election process, rumors have been
swirling about the possibility of a
brokered convention in order to
decide on a Republican candidate
for presidency. A brokered convention occurs when none of the candidates running in the primaries
receive the necessary amount of
delegates to win the nomination
outright, so a candidate has to be
decided through the re-pledging of
delegates during the party convention. Although all other candidates
for the Republican nomination
have withdrawn,
the
possibility
of
preventing
Trumps ascension to the presidential election
are as lively as
ever. Many Republican
ofcials hope to
stop Trump from
receiving
the
party
nomination by preventing him from
receiving the necessary amount
of votes, albeit by a small margin,
then choosing any politician they
believe represents the Republican party better, such as Cruz or
Kasich. Regardless of how an individual feels about Trumps policies
personally, we need to see this as
what it is: an infringement on the
entire basis of our primary system,
a system rooted in Democracy and
the power of the people to choose
whom they wish to see representing them.
As of now, Donald Trump holds
1161 delegates, compared to Cruzs
567 and Kasichs 160. Rubio contin-

ues to hold the 169 delegates he

won during the primaries he was involved in instead of releasing them,
an attempt to help thwart Trumps
path to the necessary amount of
delegates, in order to maintain a
chance in a brokered convention.
402 delegates are still available,
and 1,237 are needed to win the
nomination outright. Therefore, if
Kasich and Cruz are able to retain
more than 326 delegates combined
out of the 402 delegates left, Trump
will not have won the primary out-

right, and will most likely end up

ghting for the nomination at the
contested convention alongside
the other politicians. The party system was created with this policy in
order to ensure that when several
candidates run in the primaries, if
the race is close enough, a victory
cannot be declared by simple majority, allowing delegates to ensure
they are choosing the candidate
that accurately reects the views
of their constituency. However, in
this election, it is apparent that this
push for a brokered convention is
not out of dire need to represent
the constituency. Instead, it is an

obvious attempt at political engineering, disregarding the opinions

and votes of the majority of the Republican party in order to avoid a
candidate Republican ofcials believe they will not be able to control.
I am not saying this is not an understandable move by the leaders
of the Republican party, as Donald
Trump as their candidate could lead
to an implosion of the Republican
party. But this is against everything
that both America and the Republicans stand for. To
quote Rand Paul,
former
Republican
presidential candidate in the primaries,
Republicans want a
government so small,
[they] can barely see
it. To interfere with
the decisions of the
people
contradicts
the platform of the
Republican party, so
to push for a brokered
convention
when no other candidate comes within
twenty ve percent of Trumps delegate count is hypocritical, and quite
frankly, un-American. The people of
the Republican party have spoken,
and they want Donald Trump. Even
if Trump does not receive the 1237
delegates outright, there should
be no question as to who the Republican candidate will be, unless
voting patterns change drastically
in the remaining primaries, which
is highly unlikely. Let us not utilize
a political loophole in order to forward our political agenda - instead,
respect the basis of American democracy, and understand the premise of one person, one vote.

MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I

in

18

ry

rS
uk
ac
de

dA
lex
an

in
ste
rn

By

Ma
ia

Be

Fi

tt
o

Br
in

17

an

Ou
t

th

Po
lit
i

eR
ev
ol
ut

io

na

ca
l

Yo
u

Pla
yli

st

14

Yo

uc

an

ge

tk

ille

dj
- B ust f
ru or
ce liv
Sp ing
rin
gs in y
tee ou
n rA

me

FEATURES

The First Amendment

ric

an

sk

in

15

er
w
ass
o y
s b
P
y
the nem lic Enems about hop
t
h
E

b
Fig ublic d by Puroove, itThis hipl in us
- P mmarize Hardg power.the rebe

of
ian
su
igh
se
N
As er Br buse rou
t
y
o
a
pla ting ans t
en l
l
i
e
h
S
e
/
g le m
g
ws rfunk istmas ds
e
sin
r
.
k N d Ga
Ch inten
all
c
d
e
o
ts
v
l
n
C

elo gmen
a
b
fa
se
7 O imon
g o ews
n
i
r
n
-S
nt
pai
ue viole
q
i
n
ith
ay
eu
d
Th ody w e.
n
l
l
Su
me nsett
y
u
d
o
t
it
loo
k h oody
B
.
c
o
Bl
is r
day
, th he 72 land. s
n
s
e
ha
ur
re
ft
Su 2
nat ors o ern I who
g
i
h
r
- U U2s s e hor Nort ell me
f
t in ut t
s th
eo
Be
On strate ciden ost, b
t
l
n
o
i
u
ny
ill day
l N eron
l
ma
n
i
Su eres
n W tt-H
o
Th .
i
t
n
u l Sco
l
wo
o
ev - Gi live
R
e
The vised n will b
e
Tel revolutio
n
n
e
Th
Ski stee

th

ea
n
c d mes
i
g
a
g
tra 41 ti hom
ric Sprin
e
e
h
t
w
t
ut s sho ll of g
o
Am ruce
b
a
a
a
,
on
gs ho w 999 he s look
n
i
1
-B
T
s
, w in
en
es. eep the
llo
e
g
rs
a
gst u Di fce char ke a d ion in
n
i
l
r
o
o
l
p
d
ta
ss
a
S
ma NYPD d of rs to ppre
A
f
e
o
e
t
o our
ial
uit
f
ten
by e acq es lis of rac
r
we ourag tems
s
enc he sy ates.
t
t
at ted S
i
n
U

MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I

POINT

THE CASE FOR DONATION

RESTRICTIONS

RIS
HI

BA
GA
RIA

19

16

FEATURES

The First Amendment

10 billion dollars. In an exclusive interview with C-SPAN, Meredith McGehee, Campaign Legal Center Policy Directory, stated that the money spent to nance the 2016 presidential election will sum up to 10 billion dollars. To be able
to run a campaign at a national scale, money is essential. Candidates receive money from areas such as public funding programs to private large contributions.
But during the current 2016 presidential race, candidates are promising campaign
nance reforms to persuade voters that their campaigns have been nanced constitutionally. Candidates are arguing that the current campaign nance policies are obsolete and reform is necessary in order to ensure less corruption in the government.
But I rmly disagree with campaign nance reform because it fails to solve issues properly and poses even greater problems. Funding a candidate is another way to express ones right to free speech. Regardless of occupation, socio-economic status, or inuence, everyone is entitled to support a particular candidate
by funding his or her campaign. If reforms are put in place, then the First Amendment would be violated, and ironically these bills would be unconstitutional.
Not only are proposed campaign nance reforms unconstitutional, they are also quixotic. The current Congress would not approve any bill, and the issue would add to tensions in the present political gridlock. Republicans in both houses of Congress are against
these reforms. With only Democrats supporting campaign nance change, the Democratic and Republican efforts to make bipartisan rectications will be futile. A specific example of this congressional impasse to make reforms was the DISCLOSE Act. The
bill was introduced in 2010 after the Supreme Courts Citizens United ruling allowed
unlimited spending on express advocacy by social welfare nonprots and trade associations. But the bill was defeated by Senate Republicans three times over the course
of two years. According to Paul Blumenthal, a reporter who specically covers campaign nance, The bill did not even receive a hearing in the House after Republicans,
aided by the undisclosed dark money the bill is meant to bring to the light of day.
Even if one ignores that campaign nance reforms would be unconstitutional and
impractical, any reform would only add to illegal donations. Wealthier donors will continue to evade the current rules and donate higher amounts to the candidates. Both
soft money and independent expenditures are aspects of campaign nance which are
inadequately monitored and thus reform would do nothing to prevent an afuent donor to utilize these existing alternatives. Campaign nance reform will only increase
the inuence wealthy citizens have on campaigns. If the reforms allowed spending limits to be uncapped, it would lead to increased corruption and allow wealthier constituents to have an unhealthy amount of control over the election process.
Evidently, campaign nance reforms will only result in negative impacts. The reality is that reforms will never take place because of the political stalemate in Congress. Not only are amends for campaign nance unrealistic, but they would also go
against the very principle that lends its name to this magazine. On top of reforms being impassable and unconstitutional, it would directly increase illegal donations. In
order for campaign nance to experience true reform, we must rst acknowledge that
the system is broken. Merely raising the spending limits does very little to democratize the election process and will only serve to widen the gap between the middle
and upper class. Legal limits have always been easy to evade and will continue to be.

17

RA

COUNTERPOINT
17
IA THE CASE AGAINST
AR
AG
DONATION RESTRICTIONS
JB

Elections today need stricter laws to mediate the influence of big business.
Otherwise, the United States will continue to remain in a limitless cycle of
economic and social suppression. The Democratic National Committee (DNC)
recently reversed a ban on campaign contributions by lobbyists, disrupting
the national balance between the potency of the wealthy industrial titans
and the electoral power of the general public. In response, Democratic U.S.
presidential candidate Bernie Sanders launched a petition Sunday pushing
back on this recent decision to try and give back the voting power to the people instead of these companies. This quarrel has, once again, caused Americans to reflect on the rules and regulations that monitor money in politics.
Electoral financing has always been an issue for the United States. Since the
election of William McKinley (R) over William Jennings Bryan (D) in 1896, election financing remains a growing virus that directly harms the core of the American political and ideological philosophy: democracy. The system is fundamentally corrupt; if a politicians election depends on the amount money he or she
receives, then this candidate will obviously cater to the requests of large institutions to get the jump over other candidates. Therefore, the needs of the people
will get buried underneath this struggle to appeal to the rich. Bernie Sanders
constantly alludes to this problem in the 2016 presidential election because of
its ability to skew the elections toward those who can be bought by the wealthy.
The numbers say it all. Just within the Democratic Party, the gap between
the two candidates says volumes about the mindsets of the candidates.
Hillary Clinton, while claiming to represent a large portion of undervalued
workers and social activists, cannot match her words with her contradictory actions. According to the Federal Election Commission, contributions to
the Clinton campaign amass to a grand total of $112 million, surpassing
those of all other candidates. Of this figure, $28 million come from donations under $200, while over $65 million come from donations exceeding
$2,000. On the contrary, Bernie Sanderss campaign has more modest supporters. Of his total $72 million campaign, over $62 million come from donations under $200, while less than $2 million come from those over $2,000.
Despite Sanders receiving large donations from lobbying firms on Wall
Street, his official records show that he promptly refunded these donations.
In order for the American people to have trustworthy and transparent elections, the reforms that Obama set in motion regarding the strict oversight of
all election income nearly 8 years ago must follow through to completion. Only
when these reforms are actuated can the presidential elections become grounds
for meritocracy and a reflection of the voices of the people. Despite his harsh
criticism of Obama for his excessive flexibility when it comes to the rights of the
common people, Sanders applauded Obamas leadership in this law by calling
it a noble step to prevent the flow of big money. Bernie Sanders often uses
the line, Our average contribution is $27, in many of his debates to show that
his support comes from the common people, not the illustrious banks on Wall
Street. Money can buy many things; however, it should never be able to buy elections, laws, or the dignity of our nations most valuable possession: democracy.

MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I

18

WEBB IS FEELING THE BERN

// ALEX SMALL 19

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

commander, and kind of a politician. Now hes a Bernie
Bro. Last week, the former Assistant Secretary of Reserve
Affairs publically endorsed presidential hopeful Bernard
Sanders of Bronx, NY. The endorsement is just the most
recent in a string of hardcore liberals expressing their
support for the Senator from Vermont. But why?
Although Jim Webb has only spoken out formally once,
speculation for the reason behind his support has been
oating around for a long time. Ever since Jim Webb ran
for president, watched one debate from the stage, and
dropped out, main news sources such as the New Yorker, the Akron Daily, and Fox News have questioned Jim
Webbs new favorite front-runner. Initially Jim Webb violently supported Lincoln Chafee, until he was informed
a month later that Mr. Chafee had never even been in
the running. The confusion, as reported by MSNBC, came
from a stray rodent emerging from Hillary Clintons pant-

FEATURES

The First Amendment

suit that made its way to the blank podium reserved for
Joe Biden. Jim Webb, while intently staring into nothing
during the debate, caught a view of the whiskers, and
mistook the rat for the Rhode Island politician. After
Jim Webb was told multiple times, the Secretary of the
Navy self reported his realization, taking full credit. I
am glad to have independently concluded that Mr. Chafee is no longer running; I am therefore restarting my
campaign, said Webb from his Submarine in Norfolk.
After being informed that Jim Webb lacked both the
funding and ideas to be a serious contender, Mr. Webb
stated, but cant my forehead compensate? After a few
weeks of deep thought, Mr. Webb opted to publically
announce his favorite Democratic Nominee. After hearing of the options, Webb deduced, although the only
options are a socialist and a woman, I will continue to
stay faithful to my party, and have therefore elected
to endorse Bernie Sanders. President Webb signing off.

19
After being asked about Sanders platform, Webb
noted seems sturdy enough. I know the mans old,
but as long as he keeps his balance he should be
ne. Then after being explained what a platform
is, Webb took an hour to look at the papers. After
careful consideration, Webb announced, Im not sure
what domestic policy means, but I think Mrs. Clinton
will most likely do a better job with that. Otherwise,
Sanders seems to have some A1 ideas. I am comforted by this knowledge.
Webb then was questioned on his role in either candidates cabinet. Responding with a furrowed brow,
he let some drool slip before commenting. Yet, CNN
was able to pull the following out: I mean, if I get to
look at ships Im cool. Sounding certain enough in his
oral genius, Webb dropped the mic and walked out of
the press room.
Wolf Blitzer caught sight of the movie writer while
walking past a Dennys on L Street, and was able to
snatch a few statements. Between mouthfuls of the
All-American Grand Slam breakfast deal, Jim Webb
pleasantly responded to Blitzers questions. Pressing
the importance of credentials, Blitzer directly asked
Webb, what is your stance on social issues? Laughing, Webb retorted, you can ask anyone, but my social skills are ne. Thank you for your time though, Mr.
Cooper.

MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I

20

Not Too Hot, Not Too Cold

US Special Forces in Syria

By Alex Mauro 18
On Monday, April 25th, President Obama announced
his plan to dispatch 250 special forces soldiers to Syria
to assist rebels in combating the Islamic State. While
many have recoiled at the thought of another long term
conict similar to the American interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Vietnam, Obama made the right decision.
By sending in the right amount of highly trained special forces troops into Syria to act as intelligence units
and military advisors, Obama avoided a war against ISIS
while still providing aid to the cause to stop them.
Syria has been severely debilitated since the beginning of its devastatingly destructive civil war that began
in 2011. However, tensions have only grown worse since
allegations arose that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
used chemical weapons on civilians in 2013. At that
time, America began to contemplate military intervention, particularly with ground troops. Since then, more
blood has been shed in Syria, and worse, only further
destruction is in sight, thanks to the looming threat of
ISIS.

INTERNATIONAL
The First Amendment

ISIS is one of the most serious threats the United

States has faced in decades, and must be eradicated. In
2014, al-Qaeda, the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks,
disavowed the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, claiming
that both organizations were too radical. Since then,
ISIS has inspired or carried out 26 attacks on Western
soil, which have left 2,000 dead in Syria alone and have
displaced an estimated 9,000,000 Syrians over the
course of the civil war. Western attacks include the recent attacks on Brussels, Paris, and Ankara, as well as
domestic attacks such as the San Bernardino shooting.
1,200 people have lost their lives to ISIS in these senseless attacks and this does not include the tornado of
destruction ISIS has lead in Syria and Iraq, persecuting
Christians and killing senselessly. If ISIS continues these
attacks without Western intervention in any way but ineffectual bombing, then ISIS will only grow in power.
In the future, they may even bring the ght to America
through terrorist attacks. A concise strike against ISIS
now will save thousands of lives in the future with min-

21
imal cost. ISIS has created a gash in the safety of the
West, and US Special Forces are the Band-Aid to stop
the bleeding.
The worry about American engagement is that
the dispatching of ground troops will lead to a pro-

training the native military was to pass the baton to

them and withdraw US forces (which was a colossal failure), US special forces in Syria are gathering
intelligence and acting as a supporting role to the
local military, thereby making them more efcient.

longed war. After all, the Vietnam War began with

the US sending 3,000 military advisors to South Vietnam, which eventually escalated to 500,000 combat troops at the height of Vietnam War. This policy
lead to not only one of the rst US military defeats,
but also one of the most unpopular wars in American
history. Then again in 2003, the United States invaded Iraq, and won the initial conventional war against
the Iraqi Military under the rule of Saddam Hussein
with 148,000 troops. American however was soon
dragged into a prolonged, fruitless conict against
another guerilla coalition force. Both of these military failures through the predominant use of ground
troops prove that United States conventional warfare does not work against guerrilla forces such as
ISIS. As war changes, so too should the strategy of
the United States Armed Forces. American tactics
must reect both the political agenda of the United
States, as well as the most efcient way to defeat
the enemy. Obama has proved that America can do
just that by sending in the extra 250 special forces
troops to Syria to support the rebels combating ISIS.
Around fty US special forces personnel have been
deployed in Syria so far, and according to President
Obama, their expertise has been critical as the Islamic States front lines are shrinking back. The special
forces are training Syrian troops, providing tactical
expertise, and acting as forward observers, helping
to pinpoint the numerous US airstrikes against ISIS.
The special forces, including Green Berets and Delta Force members, are equipped with high-precision
laser markers and telescopes to help point out key
targets. Providing this military expertise is far more
benecial to the ght against ISIS than sending in
hundreds of thousands of US soldiers, as it reduces
US casualties and allows the Syrians to ght their
own war while still eliminating the threat of the Islamic State. Unlike Afghanistan, where the goal of

Along with this, small teams have been living

amongst in Syrian villages and providing intelligence, which can help to weed out ISIS members
and identify key training locations. This proves to
be more effective than sending in platoons of tanks
and divisions of combat troops, which would be effective against a discernable enemy. However, when
the enemy does not wear a uniform, it is impossible
to know who to shoot at, and therefore taking down
targets is nearly impossible without civilian casualties. With smaller special forces teams, there is no
need to send in large groups of troops at all. They act
as recon for the US-trained Syrian rebels, and therefore reduce our actual involvement in the war while
still eliminating the threat of the Islamic State.
ISIS is a sore situated directly in the Middle East,
which festered out of a devastating civil war. With a
large social media presence, ISIS is one of the most
dangerous threats the world has faced and if left unchecked, it could cause a plethora of problems in the
foreseeable future. The United States needs to face
this challenge in a better way than it has previously
in Vietnam or Iraq, where the main ghting force was
ground troops. President Obamas decision to bolster
the special forces presence in Syria is a perfect way
to begin to push back ISIS.

MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I

22

Exposing Dirty Money and Corruption

By Sam Cabot 17

When news of a massive leak of

private documents from the Panama-based law rm Mossack Fonseca
hit the internet, the world cringed; it
proved their worst fears around the
increasing problem of income inequality. For years it was a well-known
that the rich were able to evade taxes
and distribution of wealth by hiding
their earnings at off-shore tax havens. However, what wasnt common
knowledge was how they did it. With
the release of what will go down in
history as the Panama papers, the
world can stop speculating. In the
following days, politician after politician was outed as being part of the
massive scandal that seemed to affect almost every country internationally. Citizens from the U.K to Iceland
called for answers in response to the
appearance of their prime ministers
after Sddeutsche Zeitung, a Dutch
newspaper released 2.6 terabytes of

INTERNATIONAL
The First Amendement

data. Within these documents was

a variety of e-mails, PDF les, photo les, and excerpts of an internal
Mossack Fonseca database showed
how hard individuals tried to keep
their identities secret when dealing
in this, sometimes, illicit international business. Although this is technically not illegal and is seen by many
as a logical step to pursue business
transactions, the fact is that the variety of different people, from maa
bosses to celebrities, use this type of
service and should be criticized and
condoned extensively for their participation in a world of hidden money.
The people who say that the leak
is just some sort of misunderstanding
and are trying to downplay the signicance of such documents should
think seriously about what political
corruption looks like in the 21st century. Long gone are the days when
politicians would be paid off in hard

cash. Instead, the paper trail is thinner

due to these private off shore companies where politicians can store
their money in dubious investments
and rms. Recently, Russian President
Vladimir Putin came under re internationally when the Panama Papers
implicated people close to him during the release of the documents. In
the U.S, the notorious 2010 Citizens
United Supreme Court case made it
so that businesses can funnel unlimited funds into political campaigns
and subsequently made political
corruption a reality. Frankly, people
around the world are become more
and more discontented by this type
of legal unscrupulousness which has
become a reality in todays politics.
In the spring of 2011, a series of
political revolts commenced across
the Middle East. Now known as the
Arab Spring, young people across the
region rose up against the inequali-

23

COUNTRIES INVOLVED

IN THE

PANAMA PAPERS SCANDAL

ty and corruption that has existed in

the ruling families of their countries.
These wealthy families for years had
been hiding and stealing money from
their people. In fact, one of the main
political groups that was implicated
with the release of the papers was
the family of previous Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak who was overthrown during the 2011 revolts. The
documents were mostly related to
Pan World Investments, a BVI based
group owned by Mubaraks son. Interestingly enough, the U.S had ned
Mossack Fonseca back in 2013 for
failing to do due diligence on Mubarak who was deemed a high-risk person. Regardless, the Egyptian people
have been facing this type of corruption for years. The Egyptian Initiative
for Personal Rights estimated that
Egypts treasury loses up to LE5 billion per year in tax revenue due to
companies using tax havens to shield
their assets. For a country with a GDP
of only $272 billion, that much money
loss has hurt the country signicantly. Egypt is not an outlier, however.

Other controversial heads of state or

their associates have been exposed
as well by the Panama Papers such
as Libyas Muammar Qadha, Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad, Pakistani
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, former
Iraqi Vice President Ayad Allawi, and
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. In many third world economies,
the lack of income equality and lack
of opportunity for the lower classes
and young people are common warning signs of a potential revolution.
Unless world leaders unite to stand
up to this corruption, we may see
another insurrection like the Arab
Spring quite soon.
The Panama Papers hold great implications for the future of the worlds
stability. Not only is the leak a prime
example of the dark underworld of
international business, but moreover, another sign of the growing inequality in the world over the last 50
years. One can see this in the rise of
people like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in the U.S Elections, who
are known as fresh faces in politics.

People, the polls seem to show, are

disgruntled with standard, traditional
politics and are using the elections
to see change. Internationally, the
dissatisfaction is found in the rise of
Marxist and Fascist groups in many
countries and the instability of many
previously-stable governments due to
an increase in the number of protests
and riots. Secondly, the release of the
Panama Papers will not be an isolated
incident. In the Internet Age, this type
of information leak will become more
and more commonplace and it will be
necessary going forward for businesses to be transparent in their dealings
or else feel the ire of common people.
Inequality however is not a growing
issue and is not purely economic, as
seen in the Arab Spring where there
were immense social repercussions.
All in all, the Panama Papers and the
repercussions of their publishing are
not to be taken lightly and instead
should be a learning moment for
businesses and governments alike
to be more honest, transparent, and
moral in their dealings.

MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I

24

The Frustrations of Communism

Daniel Wang 17

Despite my Canadian citizenship, Ive always considered

Beijing, China to be where I grew up, where Ive been inuenced the most, and therefore my home. Sadly enough, however, the thought of going home during those three months
of summer often inspires conicting emotions. While it is a
place where I can relax in my own bed, spend valuable time
with a family that I see so little of these days, and venture
past the vicinity of my downtown apartment without securing prior permission, the price I pay sometimes makes
me question if it is worth it. To an outside observer, Chinas
most distinguishable trademarks often stereotypes itself as
a country where a majority of global consumer goods are
manufactured, where knockoff brand-name electronics can
be bought at less than a third of the price, where its academically accomplished students ood American colleges
with applications each year, and where the Great Wall- Chinas most distinguishable tourist attraction- is situated. While
these attractions and novelties to a Westerner certainly serve
as incentives for a visit, Chinas national image stands for so

INTERNATIONAL
The First Amendment

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

which are detrimental to national unity and advancement.
Unbeknownst to the majority of short-term visitors to the
country, the average Chinese residents struggle is directed, sadly, against their own government, which, to this day,
exists as an authoritarian political machine that deprives
the population of basic human rights and civil liberties.
Ever since its establishment in the 1920s, the Communist
Party of China (the ruling and only recognized party within
the Chinese political system) has envisioned a controlling
environment with subservient citizens and sought to eliminate political opposition. The very name itself, Peoples
Republic of China, remains one of the biggest hypocrisies
within the administration. The elements of individual autonomy, freedom of speech, and democracy denotatively associated with the term Republic has not and, under
constant efforts at suppression and prosecution undertaken by the government, cannot be integrated into the lives
of individual residents. Instead of detailing every problem

25
rooted in the Chinese government and suggest ways to x
it (which many has done), my motive in writing this piece
is to narrate my own struggles against an authoritarian
system and, through illustrating the discrepancy between
my life at Lawrenceville and back home, contextualize the
problem and provide a rst person perspective on the issue.
Perhaps the biggest issue I have is keeping up with the
world during the summer. By going back to China, I exit the
Lawrenceville bubble, but end up in another one that isolates me from life as I know it. The reality of the banned
websites means that the only possible way to keep in touch
with everyone from Lawrenceville is through Skype, which
is a joke all by itself. Not only are the famous social media
websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube
blocked by the Great Firewall of China, the list of banned
websites has since expanded to include indispensable ones
that I rely on to function. Lawrencevilles email system uses
the Gmail medium, which means that I wont be able to receive any updates from the school about the college process, my schedule next year, and any other information. I
was recently informed that even the Common Application,
a website that pertains to high school students around the
world, had been partially blocked in China, along with the
majority of ofcial websites of Universities. For the government to partially block a website is to make its connection to
mainland routers so weak and slow that they are essentially
inaccessible. Like a lot of other Chinese-American boarding
students, I own a Virtual Private Network (VPN), which in
theory should allow me to access websites from a location
outside of mainland China, thereby circumventing the Great
Firewall. In practicality, however, Chinas Internet speed is
signicantly slower than what is presented in America, and
it is reduced for a reason. A VPN system requires a reliable
and strong connection to establish the network; as a result,
VPN only seldom works in China. Despite the most advanced
ber optics network installed in my home, the connection is
still not even close to being comparable to that of Americas. With no viable solutions around the Wi-Fi problem, it
means that I would have to do all of my college research
before and after the break, and copy and paste every application into word documents to transport back into China.
The Firewall also means I would remain oblivious to the
current events outside China for three months. The government has done everything they can to sever international
bonds and keep out foreign inuence. Major news websites
including CNN, Fox News, and the New York Times have all
been blacklisted to prevent domestic residents from gaining
an international perspective. As a substitute, the Chinese government-controlled press publishes pro-State propaganda in
what I cannot call Newspapers, and for half an hour everyday
starting at 7pm, every channel on the Chinese cable listing
broadcasts a series of national news. These pieces of news all
report on the general prosperity and progress that China as a
country is making. Through these optimistic and, on most days,
extremely selective and biased reports, it is supposed to galvanize national opinion and eliminate any doubt the general

public may hold toward the capabilities of the government.

Lastly, another act by the government that I nd to be
particularly aggravating is the lack of freedom of expression within the society. The aforementioned hypocrisy of
Chinas Republic means that its people do not have the option to voice their discontent through democratic elections
and being involved in the political system. The government
controlled and heavily centralized Chinese media would
not allow for opposition deemed detrimental to the state.
Deprived of democratic tools to combat a government that
has earned the disapproval of many, the peoples only option left is to voice their grievances in private-owned blogs.
One of the more infamous blogs is named WeChat, where
ordinary civilian users have the ability to come into contact
with articles written in stark opposition to the government
and can mass-distribute these pieces with a single click. It
should come as no surprise that the Chinese government
has recruited thousands into an administration under the
civilian surveillance who does nothing else but surf the
web everyday. The identify pieces of rhetoric that must be
destroyed, and they simply have the ability to take down
an article at its source, therefore wiping it from existence.
The bright side of a seemingly job-well-done by the Chinese government-- to control and suppress the issue-- is that
more and more of Chinas population is able to voice their
alternative views of the government through increased access to Internet. These pioneering rebels, who still exist as
a minority amongst a predominantly poorly-educated and
misinformed public, are generally the more politically aware,
economically afuent, college educated, and open-minded
individuals with ties and background in Western cultures.
Recent conspiracy theorists have proposed that the reason China has gradually increased its internet and information censorship to block off access to foreign University
websites is to keep the Best and the Brightest within the
country, uncompromised by Western values. For China, such
a globally signicant country with nearly one-fth of the
worlds population to present itself as an extremely retrogressive and obstinate country- a country that would rather sacrice ameliorated levels of general education that
involved a broader and more comprehensive global perspective than admit to shortcomings and twenty-rst century problems within its own governmental policies is the
reason why the thought of going back to China, a country that I still consider my home, gives me apprehension.

MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I

26

The Untold Villain of the...

// BY WILLIAM HWANG 19
On a Saturday evening of April 15, 1989, more than 50,000 people
gathered at the Hillsborough Stadium in Shefeld, England, for the
opening of FA Cup Semi-Final football match between Liverpool and
Nottingham Forest. In order to relieve a bottleneck of exuberant Liverpool fans trying to enter the venue before kickoff, police opened an
exit gate and people rushed to get inside. More than 3,000 fans were
funneled into a standing-room-only area with a safe capacity of just
1,600. The resulting crush and chaos in the stands prompted organizers to stop the game after six minutes. Police on the pitch initially
concluded the crush was an attempt by rowdy fans to surge onto the
eld, but as ofcers approached the stands, it became apparent people were suffocating and trying to escape by climbing the fence. The
tragedy left 96 Liverpool fans dead and another 766 injured, and was
recognized as The worst sports disaster in the British History according to the BBC. This event later became known as the Hillsborough
disaster, which would leave many families in sorrow and despair as
they fought for justice over the course of 27 years.
When Jurors returned verdict of unlawful killing of 96 Liverpool fans
this last month, it took less than 27 minutes. So simple, so powerful, so
emphatic and obliviously just. So why on earth did it take 27 years
to arrive? I am not the only one who needs to ask this question. Every
journalist, every politician indeed the whole country needs to also
press for an answer. Thats because until there is a broadly shared consensus on how the breathtaking injustice of Hillsborough happened,
we will not be able to make this the moment of change needed.
The simple truth about 15 April, 1989 and its aftermath has been
sitting quietly in ofcial les for years. If the state had wanted the
families to have it earlier, it only had to say the word. But still the
country refused. Parts of the story are still missing, held by those in
power wishing to keep the les privy. This fact is deeply worrying,
spurring us to question the law enforcement and government of Britain.
The judiciary appears, actually, to believe that inquests are more
people-friendly than high courts. Mainly, it seems, because they are
mercifully free of wigs. But the process remains formally divorced
from normal life. Hearing the most grounded, loving of families need
for the truth about their loved ones deaths was unnerving from the
start. Only in courts, there to serve the public yet somehow so inaccessible, is a boss requirpt the jury, against the protests of the bereaved
families lawyers, one area of the establishment which has monumentally failed them for years was omitted: the legal system itself.
The hard-bitten police force outed its duty to protect the safety of
54,000 people invited to Shefeld that day when the authorities let
people into an unsafe and squalid football game. Ofcers began to
cover up their inadequacies and slander the people they were paid to
protect, even as horror was descending. And now that the end of proceedings has freed the bereaved families and their lawyers to speak

INTERNATIONAL
The First Amendment

out, they are doing so with outrage.

But the force succeeded for so long with
that campaign because the legal system did
not deliver justice to the families. Even this
time, properly publicly funded and accommodated, ultimately vindicated by the unlawful
killing verdict and exoneration of Liverpool
supporters, the families suffered a process
that was often deeply unsatisfactory.
From his raised seat in the makeshift courtroom in a previously empty Warrington ofce
block, Goldring noted at the end, in his characteristically formal manner, how agonisingly
difcult it had been for the families. He acknowledged, with some grace but profound
understatement: I know, on occasion, you

27

...Hillsborough Saga

have not agreed with my decisions.

The truth is that during many traumatic legal battles which could
not be reported until afterwards because the jury was absent the
families and their lawyers bitterly challenged Goldrings rulings.
The sole fact that the families must wait for a shambolic quarter-century of bumbling and costly inquiries, inquests, lobbying and
lawyers reveals the ineffectivity of the legal system of Britain. The
system still leaves a lingering sense of justice unfullled. In fact, no
one has been properly blamed and punished. Nonetheless, there are
positives about Hillsborough to which we can cling. At least this country was able nally to open up and look itself in the mirror. And in an
increasingly atomised world, it provides a reminder of what true solidarity can achieve. This tells us that change is possible. So just as a
new generation of campaigners had to come to the fore, now the new
generation in Parliament must make Hillsborough a moment when
Britain changed for the better.

Now the new

generation
in Parliament
must make
Hillsborough a
moment when
Britain changed
for the better.
MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I

28

RELIEVING

PUERTO RICO
Gianluca Minardi 17

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

$370 million in bonds. This default is a direct result
of the Islands frightening economic crisis. Right now,
Puerto Rico has a debt of about $70 Billion- more than
any American State. The economic crisis on the Island
has reached catastrophic extremes. Over 44% of the
Islands population of 3.5 million is currently living in
poverty, and more and more public services are being
shut down by the day. Over 150 schools have already
been closed. To worsen matters, large numbers of
Puerto Ricans are migrating to the continental United States, further weakening the islands tax prot.
Legally, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the
United States. While the island is allowed to display
its own national ag and have a local independent
government, it is ultimately subservient to the American Congress. Puerto Ricans are considered Ameri-

INTERNATIONAL
The First Amendment

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

This gray area regarding Puerto Ricos autonomy is
what makes economic recovery seem almost impossible. During the 70s the American government did
pass certain tax breaks which brought a myriad of
industries to the island. However, in 2006, Congress
voted to end many of these tax exemptions, pushing
industries away and harming the Puerto Rican economy. To recover, the Puerto Rican government started
selling bonds. However, due to the islands unique legal status, the Puerto Rican government loosely regulated these sales which allowed Wall Street banks
to pocket over $900 million simply from managing
Puerto Ricos bond trade - Further weakening the islands economy. Had there been more clarity in laws
regarding Puerto Ricos autonomy, such economic
hardships could have been avoided.

29

In extraordinary cases, American municipalities can

apply for Chapter 9 bankruptcy as an immediate relief.
Since cities or states cant simply liquidate all their
assets, this type of bankruptcy allows municipalities
to renegotiate their debt to creditors under government protection to ensure that crucial public services
will not stop working. Most recently the city of Detroit
went through this process. However, due to an amendment passed in 1981, the American congress does not
allow Puerto Rico to apply for Chapter 9 bankruptcy.
From this, it seems like Puerto Ricos only alternative is
to save money by closing more schools and hospitals.
Its the United States duty to do something about
Puerto Rico. A big part of Puerto Ricos crisis comes
from their own governments mismanagement, and
America should therefore not simply bail out Puerto
Ricos debt. However, America has always inuenced
Puerto Ricos economy. Indeed, certain tax exemptions did provide jobs for Puerto Ricans, but, from
creating a free trade that dates back to the Span-

ish-American war, the United States unintentionally became Puerto Ricos only strong trading partner.
With NAFTA and CAFTA-DR, Puerto Rico now only
suffers from this scenario. It is also America that
forbids Puerto Rico from declaring bankruptcy - and
for no apparent reason. I am not advocating for independence- as most Puerto Ricans share these sentiments- however, congress must come up with some
type of relief or at least allow Puerto Rico to apply for
Chapter 9 bankruptcy to help it get back on its feet.

[The] gray area

regarding Puerto
Ricos autonomy is
what makes economic
recovery seem almost
impossible.
MAY 16
ISSUE VII.I

30

P O P P E R S P E CT I V E

UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETING LAWRENTIANS PERSPECTIVES ON

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ABORTION

I believe that abortion is an individual choice that only the carrier of the baby can make. I do
not view a fetus as human, thus I do not view abortion as anti-life. Furthermore, I believe private
enterprises can replace Planned Parenthood once it loses government funding.
- Libertarian for defunding Planned Parenthood

I am anti-abortion and pro-dilemma. I myself could never get an abortion- however, holding that
stance does not give me any authority in deciding whether or not other women should be able to
control their bodies. Having an abortion is not a choice, it is a dilemma; you dont choose to be a
low-income woman incapable of caring for an unwanted pregnancy. You dont choose to be faced
with the decision of choosing your life or your unborn childs. You dont choose to be raped.
- Democrat for the continued funding of Planned Parenthood

I believe a woman should be able to get an abortion if she so chooses. However, I do not believe
that the government should have any role in this decision, and by funding Planned Parenthood,
the administration are [sic] increasing access to abortion and practically encouraging abortions. In
essence, I believe that the government should not play any role in abortions.
- Republican for defunding Planned Parenthood

FEATURES

The First Amendment

31

Lawrentians Stance on Abortion

Planned Parenthood Perspective

Pro-choice
Pro-life

Yes

Pro-life with certain

expectations

No
Other

Undecided
Other

Its tough, because it is a womans body, which she has a right to do with what she pleases. At the same
time, that fetus will go on to become a member of human society if not stopped. Motherhood will always
be difcult, but does that justify murder? Its a question on rights, personhood, and touches the base of
certain religious beliefs. Obviously, rightfully, divisive.
- Independent and Pro-Choice

Women do not have the right to another persons body. I am al for a womans
right to her body, but the rules of the
game change when there are two lives.
at stake.

Some people are only pro life

while a fetus is still in the womb.
Once its out, so much for education, standard of living and right to
a safe environment.

- Republican and Pro-Life

- Independent and Pro-Choice

It amuses me that the same people who hold dear to their personal liberties such as gun rights so
strongly believe in the restriction of a females personal right to end her childbirth. In my opinion, women
should be granted the right to rst and second trimester abortions because at that point, the baby cannot
survive outside the womb. It is completely dependent on the mother, therefore the mother should be
able to control her own fate without considering the right to life that the baby doesnt have. Aside for a
moral perspective, abortion is benecial to society because it frees women who cannot support a baby
from that burden and, according to the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis popularized in Freakonomics, reduces
crime.
- Democrat and Pro-Choice

Democrat
Republican
Independent
Other

MAY 16

ISSUE VII.I

The First Amendment

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