NOVEMBER 2012 VOLUME 9 • ISSUE 1

AS WELL AS:

2012 ElectionsRomney’s potential impact on our economy 12-15

MOVEMENTSchanging the world

Is College Really Necessary?, 4UC Student Tutition Hikes, 7Greek Debt and the Eurozone, 10

THE CHARIOT

NOV 20122

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFCharles Liu

SENIOR EDITORDrew Bent

COPY EDITORSSarah Dukes-Schlossberg

Sabrina LuiEric Noh

PUBLICITYHelen Carefoot

TREASURERJoseph Nicolls

CONTRIBUTING WRITERSLaura Grimm

Sidd KaramchetiDavid Patou

PHOTOGRAPHYAnh-Tram Bui

Sara Ma

GRAPHICSRay Chen

George Hwang

The Chariot would like to thank the following sponsors and

patrons:

FOUNDATION/GROUP SPONSORSAdobe Systems • Daughters

of the American Revolution • Palo Alto Lions Club

PATRONS ($100+)Lauren Michals and Vinod

Bharadwaj • Patricia Bruegger • Steven Guggenheim • Yajun

Liu and Shirley Zeng

The Chariot would also like to thank Advisor Marc Igler for

his support.

ABOUT US

The Chariot is intended to create and promote political discussion at Gunn and make people aware of issues that matter. We ask that you respect all opinions which are reflected in our publi-cation, and write letters to the editors if you wish to voice your opinion. The views expressed do

not reflect that of The Chariot, but rather those of the individual writers.The Chariot was originally founded in 2001 as The Partisan Review by Gunn alumni Ilan Wur-

man (‘06), Channing Hancock (‘06), and Sarah McDermott (‘05).

Visit our website, www.gunnchariot.com if you wish to view any issues from previous years or for more information about us. Any questions, comments, suggestions, or requests to join can be

sent to gunnchariot@gmail.com.

If you’d like to make a donation or subscribe, please send checks to:Marc Igler

Re: The Gunn Chariot780 Arastradero RoadPalo Alto, CA 94306

Checks can be made out to Gunn High School with “The Chariot” on the memo.

DEAR READERS,

It seems that every week a new ideal captures the hearts of the people around us and moves them to action. With the prevalence of social media and the lightning pace of today’s society, it comes as no surprise that any idea can catch fire and gather a host

of devoted followers. Never has this been more evident than now, as movements such as Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring seemingly rise out of nowhere.

At the root of these movements is the fact that we live in a constantly changing world. In the blink of an eye, the leaders of today are replaced by the forward thinkers of to-morrow. The environments that we know so well are lost to the whims of the world. The changes that we see in our world, however, are reflected even more intricately in our-selves—our thoughts, our ideas, our beliefs. The transformations we experience around us evoke change as we try to mold the world to fit our needs and desires. As the election season draws to a close, this is especially true; President Obama’s re-election renews our efforts for bipartisan cooperation, and we demand equally much of our President for the coming four years.

In this issue, The Chariot explores several issues that have captured public attention and inspired debate. It is our goal to promote awareness about these issues and provide a variety of perspectives so that you as a reader can be informed about the relevant issues of today. In reality, however, the topics covered in this issue represent only a fraction of the significant questions in society today, and it is a task left to the reader to truly understand the breadth of topics that hold public interest.

Ultimately, however, no article can force its beliefs onto you; it is up to you to form your own ideas about the issues pertinent to society today. Only you can make the choices that allow you to be a force for change in the world. So enjoy this first issue of the year on the path to a greater understanding of the world!

Sincerely,

Charles LiuEDITOR-IN-CHIEF

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

NOV 2012 3

IN THE NEWS SOUND BITES

“I believe in America, I believe in the peo-ple of America and I ran for office because I’m concerned about America.”

Mitt Romney, 2012 Republi-can Presidential Nominee in

his concession speech after his 206-332 defeat in the 2012

elections

“We are an American family and we rise or fall together as one nation and one peo-ple.”

Barack Obama, President of the United States in his

acceptance speech after win-ning a second term as presi-

dent

“The devastation on the Jersey Shore is some of the worst we’ve ever seen. The cost of the storm is incalculable at this point.”

Chris Christie, New Jer-sey Gov. in reference to the destruction caused by Hur-

ricane Sandy

2012 ElectionsOn November 6, 2012, incumbent Barack Obama was announced as the winner

of the 2012 presidential election over Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Rom-ney. Obama won the electoral vote 332-206, while also winning the popular vote 61,062,730-58,073,013. Obama won key victories in swing states including Ohio, Virginia and Iowa among others. Obama won by large margins among voters aged 18-29 and voters living in urban areas, while Romney took home victories among senior citizens and voters living in rural areas. Obama also won over most minority voters, while Romney won support from the majority of whites.

In the wake of the election, Mitt Romney called for more bipartisanship in his concession speech, urging more unity in Congress and among the common people. In Obama’s acceptance speech, he acknowledged the challenges that he and Con-gress had faced and would face in the coming years. In addition, Nate Silver, author of the New York Times polling aggregate site FiveThirtyEight, successfully pre-dicted every state’s outcome.

Hurricane SandyIn late October 2012, Category 2 Hurricane Sandy swept across the Caribbean Islands

and Eastern Seaboard, wreaking heavy damage on homes and businesses. In the history of Atlantic hurricanes, Hurricane Sandy has only been surpassed by Hurricane Katrina in the extent of its destruction. Sandy has caused an estimated $50 billion in property and business damages across more than twenty states, representing one of the costli-est natural disasters in U.S. history. Hurricane Sandy also forced the temporary closure of the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ, halting many business efforts. Many scientists have attributed the magnitude of Hurricane Sandy to global warming, prompt-ing discussion in Congress about the potential impacts of climate change. Hurricane Sandy also impacted the elections; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie praised President Obama for his response to the hurricane, while Mitt Romney was criticized for his 2011 proposition to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which would have greatly slowed response times to the storm. Many groups are organizing relief efforts, including the Red Cross, Disney Television Group, NBC, the UN and the World Food Programme, but full recovery is still far from complete.

California State BallotsCalifornia voters approved Proposition 30, increasing state income taxes for peo-

ple earning at least $250,000 annually as well as increasing sales taxes. The proposi-tion’s passage also helps prevent $6 billion in cuts for K-12 schools and state uni-versities.

Voters also voted no on Proposition 34, upholding the death penalty. The propo-sition was rejected by a margin of 52.8%-47.2%.

California rejected Proposition 37. This proposition would have required food companies to label all genetically modified foods, but its rejection allows companies to leave genetically modified foods unlabeled.

California voters overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 38, leaving their tax rates intact. In doing so, however, voters also denied funding for local K-12 schools and early childhood programs.

THE CHARIOT

NOV 20124

PRO: Higher education still best choice for

mostSarah Dukes-Schlossberg

Copy Editor

If Gunn students were to forgo a high-er education, how many of us would be prepared for a career to last a life-

time? Some certainly, but few. Since News-week, the Atlantic Monthly, and other publications began debating the merits of a college degree it has since become fash-ionable to say that the value of a college degree is not what it used to be. Of course it is not; in fact, colleges are on average much better. Regardless of truth in the numbers, the focus should remain on the individual students. The focus behind the debate seems to be that college is not right for everyone. However, this argument misses the larger point. More importantly, many determined, ambitious students do not have the financial means to achieve a college education. This number is far larg-er and more important.

It is easy for a student who has the means to enter college to decide not to attend, but quite challenging for a stu-dent who lacks the means to do so. The key is to focus more on making college less about “exploring yourself,” and more about training for a career in your chosen field. Far too many students are told to pursue more uncertain majors such as Art History, Philosophy, or Asian Studies. It is unacceptable to allow students to pursue a major that gives them little chance of find-ing a job to meet their level of education. Education should focus on job prepara-tion first, assisted by strong career coun-

seling services.For any student who wants a college

degree, but is deterred by the cost, there are many options. California students have the option of quality, low-cost education through the California Community Col-lege (CCC) sys-tem. Community colleges allow stu-dents the freedom to study part-time while also build-ing their resumé at internships or jobs, or to transfer to a University of California (UC) school after two years. An-other option is to enter the Armed Forces and then attend college under the G.I. Bill.

We have been told that tuition prices are “soaring,” but in fact they are rising only slightly faster than inflation. Consider the case of an upper-middle income student at a typical public college, such as the Uni-versity of California (UC) system. Accord-

ing to the College Board, in 1995, tuition would have set the student back $12, 618 in inflation-adjusted dollars per year, in-cluding room and board. By 2007, the cost would have been $15,489 in equivalent in-flation-adjusted dollars per year, including

room and board. The cost is cer-tainly increasing, but it is not dou-bling. A 23% in-crease in 12 years is significant, but it is less for lower-income students, those most cited

as being hardest hit by the increase.A higher education is still the best

means to achieve better pay and a better job in life. But it’s not just about going. You have to be engaged in your classes, smart about your choice of major and classes, and forward-thinking about your time management. You can be what you want to be, but you have to work for it.

A higher education is still the best means to

achieve better pay and a better job in life. But

it’s not just about going.

The College Debate

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

NOV 2012 5

CON: College is not for every-

oneDrew Bent

Senior Editor

For many students at Gunn, it is taken for granted that they will pursue some form of higher edu-

cation once they graduate. Even those who can’t afford it will likely apply for scholarships and take out loans in the hope of securing their future. College enrollment is at an all-time high; the U.S. Census revealed that 70% of 2009 high school graduates are currently enrolled in a college.

With rising tuition prices, though, a number of college-bound students should question if this is the right de-cision for themselves. These difficult economic times have resulted in an in-teresting paradox: a college education might actually harm a student more than it helps her.

That is not to say that everyone should skip the higher education path. The United States is a leader in universi-ties and much of its success can be at-tributed to such institutions. For those seeking positions in hospitals, law firms, academia or a multitude of other spe-cialized industries, attending a university is usually a great investment. Universi-ties will always exist for the rigor they provide, and the option will likely remain relevant for many—if not the majority—of high school graduates.

Nevertheless, college is not for everyone. For a significant num-ber of students, higher education holds little rel-evance and will end up temporarily stag-nating their careers. In such circumstanc-

es, a college education will simply get in the way of advancing the student’s career.

Many argue that the monstrous tu-ition prices charged by universities today can be justified by the long-term invest-ment of a college degree. Indeed, the U.S. Census Bureau found that the medi-an gap in annual earnings between high school and college graduates is $19,550. Yet, this does not take into account the time college graduates have lost to the workforce. Not only will this year’s col-lege graduates be catapulted into a weak job market with a huge amount of debt, but they will also be four years behind their counterparts who did not attend college in terms of career development. They will have missed out on four years worth of salaries and promotions, as well as the return on any money invested during that time.

For some, attending a university will not be a problem as they will have se-cured higher positions than their coun-terparts and learned a great deal more than them upon graduating from col-

lege. For others, though, college will have left them with very few skill sets rel-evant to their work. Often, the most beneficial experiences that

arise from higher education are the in-ternships, co-ops, and work experience

in the field. As these activities are not a standard part of U.S. colleges’ curricu-lum, a fair number of students miss out on them.

There are two reasons why today’s college education may not be relevant in preparing students for the workforce. For one, the curriculum in many ma-jors is not designed around a particular career path. As opposed to the age-old idea of an apprenticeship in which a student works alongside a professional, higher education can sometimes deviate from the tangible skill sets that will be needed in the workforce.

Additionally, higher education can be ineffective preparation for certain stu-dents who do not put enough time into their studies. While the numbers can be fuzzy, studies have shown that students from this decade are spending only two thirds as many hours studying for col-lege as they were in 1961. Although there is no definitive answer, there is an ongoing debate on how much learning is really taking place in college. With all the sports and social activities that serve to distract the students from their studies, learning can easily become second-hand to everything else.

Such a discussion on the value of college begs the question: what alterna-tives are there? For some, entering the workforce directly after high school might be the most appropriate option. Others might prefer a compromise be-tween education and work. By attending a 2-year community college and working simultaneously, a student can earn two invaluable experiences while paying their way through college. Finally, some stu-dents might feel that a 4-year college is still the right option for them, but will choose to supplement their education with summer internships that give them real-world experience and pay towards their tuition.

Students will have to decide for them-selves when it comes to the higher ed-ucation decision. In doing so, students need to keep an open mind. Remember: what works for some does not work for everyone.

A college education might actually harm a student more than it

helps her.

THE CHARIOT

NOV 20126

Chicago strikes shed

light on bigger issues

Drew BentSenior Editor

S tudents have been flocking back to schools these past few months as they return from their summer

vacation. Yet, a slightly different story has been playing out in Chicago’s pub-lic school district, the third largest in the nation. Shortly after school began, the Chicago schools were put on hold as the teachers went on strike. The strike left 350,000 children out of school for seven days and—more importantly—has raised important issues on the future of education and teacher unions.

The strike was the first in a quarter century for the Chicago Teachers Union. During the week of the strike, parents had struggled to find daycare for their children and other ways to keep them out of trouble in a neighborhood that has historically had high crime rates.

The strike came after teachers had ob-jected to a longer school day (an increase from six to seven hours), school closings and a new evaluation model based on student performance. A revised contract has since been proposed between the

Chicago Teachers Union and the Chi-cago Public Schools; it is likely to be ap-proved by the 26,000 union members.

The proposed contract is full of com-promises, leaving it unclear who won in the negotiations. Although the contract would set a precedent in Chicago by in-cluding students’ test scores in teacher evaluations, the union pushed back by making the new procedure begin as a tri-al, one that would allow teacher appeals.

Other changes include a longer school day and a 17 percent pay raise for the teachers over the next four years.

These reforms raise larger issues con-cerning the overall education system in the United States. When it comes to education, many issues have yet to been resolved. These include everything from the role of charter schools to the meth-ods by which teachers are evaluated. Currently, there is no consensus on what role student test scores should play in such evaluations.

Furthermore, the teacher unions’ le-verage has taken a dip in recent years. In 2010, four states severely restricted the bargaining rights of teachers. The Chicago teachers have shown that even such a radical move as a week-long strike will not cause the school district to make drastic reforms.

The Chicago strikes have only scraped the surface of the issues that will need to be debated in coming years. Fortunately, after years of stagnation in the educa-tional system, reforms are finally forth-coming.

By the Numbers30,000teachers represented by the strike

350,000students temporarily without teachers

30percent teachers’ sala-ry increase demanded

17percent teachers’ sal-ary increase offered

1 billiondollars in projected debt for Chicago Pub-lic Schools by 2014

120schools to be closed

by 2013

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

NOV 2012 7

The ugly truth about

UCsSabrina LuiCopy Editor

Five years ago, student admission by the University of California allocat-ed 10 percent of the freshman class

to out-of-state applicants. This year, the UC Class of 2016 consists of more than 23 percent out-of-state students, a con-cerning proliferation not lost on in-state applicants, who feel that they have been wronged by the system.

The out-of-state admission increase of over 100% masks the real problem burden-ing University officers: a crippling short-age of funding. In this past year, the state legislature covered a mere 10.5 percent of the UC system’s $22.5 billion budget, a jar-ring 60 percent less than its contributions twenty years ago. As a result, the admin-istration recently augmented admission to non-Californian students in hopes of diminishing its budget anxieties through higher tuition paid by non-residents.

Of course, the presence of non-resi-

dents in UC classrooms, along with overall tuition hikes, has induced fervid remon-stration among students across the state. Through the escalating student-instigated resentment at Berkeley, the UC Davis stu-dent protest of Nov. 2011 and the ensuing pepper spray lawsuit, UC student bodies have made themselves clear: college is be-coming inaccessible. The UC administra-tion thus feels the heat not only from its fast-depleting funds but also from a quali-fied in-state opposition with a desire to make use of its available educational op-portunities and become productive mem-bers of an expanding community.

For us at Gunn, this issue hits close to home. As we approach our university years with the mindset of students often funneled further into California’s educa-tion system, evaluation of our options revolves around one question: “What are the chances I’ll be accepted?” With the increase of non-Californian admission comes the potential decrease of admission to Californian students. Can we no lon-ger depend quite so fully upon receiving an education from the system in which we (or, more precisely, our parents) have in-vested our tax dollars?

By considering the demands of an ex-panding student population, declining state funding, and families with insuffi-cient financial means to satiate this defi-

cit, UC President Mark Yudof, as well as California’s legislature, must make it their highest priority to contribute to Califor-nia’s education and, consequently, econ-omy. Yudof needs to focus his resources on in-state students, rather than students who will most likely continue their post-college careers outside California. Instead of exploiting non-residents for their tu-ition payments, administrators should look to a more durable solution: increasing the number of educated adults in California and therefore the number of individuals willing and able to fund state programs like the UC. In the meantime, the only option we can consider is raising taxes and tuition rates in California.

Granted, with the state squeezing more out of taxpayers, families may find higher education increasingly unaffordable. Uni-versity students forced to take out loans may proceed well into their careers still bearing the burden of such a debt. The fact remains, however, that without pro-viding high-level education to young adults in this state, the legislature perpetuates the incapacity of our generation to fill pro-ductive positions (and pay off that origi-nal student debt). Action must be taken so that the generations to come will once again see the UCs as viable and sustain-able, for education, as Yudof stated in a recent Chamber discussion, represents the “seed corn” for innovation and economic growth of the state.

Whether this investment means a push for forcing tuition rates temporarily up-wards or cutting out a bigger slice in the revenue pie for the educational system, the UC administration and California law-makers need to keep in mind the group of people for which their institution was originally established: citizens of Califor-nia. The UC system must take the initia-tive to begin healing the wounds in our institutions from the inside out, instead of simply bandaging the surface by reaping revenue from students in other states.

It’s one ugly, hard-selling truth, but in-vesting in high-level education is likely the only way out of this economic morass. We as Californians just need to do our share in making it happen.

THE CHARIOT

NOV 20128

Time for US to leave

Eric NohCopy Editor

The September 11th attacks on the eastern seaboard of the United States took thousands of innocent

American lives. In response, the United States, along with several NATO and in-ternational allies, initiated a war against Al Qaeda, the group responsible for the 9/11 attacks, other major terrorist organi-zations and regimes accused of providing these groups with support. Since then the United States Army has been involved in major operations in six countries around the world to combat terrorism: Afghani-stan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen. U.S. efforts in its global war against terror have been largely focused on Afghanistan and Iraq. In the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States had committed 150,000 soldiers. The number of soldiers deployed for peacekeeping operations reached a peak of 165,000. At present, approximate-ly 90,000 soldiers are deployed to Afghani-stan.

With the inauguration of the Obama Administra-tion in 2008, the United States and its coalition al-lies have since

begun to scale down their efforts in the global “War on Terror.” A bilateral agreement was reached in 2008 by the United States and Iraq that mandated all US military personnel to withdraw from Iraqi territory by Dec. 31, 2011; U.S troop withdrawal was fully complet-ed on Dec. 18, 2011. According to Fox News on July 23, 2012, the United States military plans to pull out 23,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year. The U.S. hopes to pull out all troops from the coun-try by the close of 2014.

Did the Unit-ed States military reach its objec-tives in Afghani-stan and Iraq? Was it a prudent decision for the U.S. to withdraw all military personnel from Iraq and to begin withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan? Yes, mission ac-complished; it is the right time for the United States to cease all military opera-tions in Iraq and in Afghanistan; terror-ist leadership in those countries has been decimated, and the Iraqi and Afghan mili-taries can handle domestic conflicts with-out outside intervention.

Since October 7, 2001, the United States has successfully captured or elimi-nated nearly all key leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, indisputably two of the most dangerous and largest terrorist orga-nizations in the world. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have seen their leadership greatly thinned over the years through various methods such as commando strikes and drone strikes. According to the Long

War Journal in 2012, 73 senior Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have

been killed by U.S. airstrikes in Pakistan alone from 2004-

2012. Most notably, the leader and ideologue of

Al Qaeda, Osama Bin

Laden, was killed on May 2, 2011 by U.S. Navy SEALS. It is well established that leadership is key to any organization, and Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been greatly crippled due to losses within their leaderships.

Before the United States backs out of the “War on Terror,” it is imperative that the countries it has intervened in have suf-ficient military forces capable of counter-terrorist operations and which they can rely on for protection. Without such mili-

taries, countries are much more vulnerable to dissi-dence. If the Unit-ed States left Iraq and Afghanistan with inadequate militaries, it would be certain terrorist insurgencies would

be on the offensive. However, by the time the United States has ceased military op-erations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Iraqi and Afghan military forces will be more than ready to combat threats.

It can be argued that the Iraqi Army already has that capability. According to Globalsecurity.org, it had a nominal strength of almost 200,000 soldiers, with a further 300,000 in reserves. The improve-ment of economic conditions in Iraq has allowed its government to invest in state-of-the art military equipment. In Decem-ber 2008, the United States approved a $6 billion arms deal with Iraq that included 140 M1A1 Abrams Tanks and 400 Stryker combat vehicles. Also, the Iraq govern-ment signed an additional $5 billion arms deal with the U.S. In addition, the Iraqi Army has proven to be combat effec-tive. This is exemplified in the Operation Charge of the Knights in 2008, when it drove out hostile Mahdi Army militiamen out of the city of Basra without United States or coalition support. Through its sheer size, advanced equipment and com-bat experience, the Iraqi Army no longer

It is the right time for the United States to

cease all military op-erations in Iraq and in

Afghanistan.

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

NOV 2012 9

needs the help of the United States to pro-tect its country.

The Afghan National Army (ANA) will soon have the operational capability to combat the Taliban, a terrorist organi-zation and most dangerous enemy of Af-ghanistan. As of June 2012, it has about 200,000 active troops; in comparison, the Taliban has an estimated strength of 36,000 men and has seen its numbers dwindling year by year; in 2011 alone, 4,275 Taliban militants were killed. It is clear that the Afghan National Army has a sizeable numerical advantage over the Taliban. The Afghan National Army also has superi-or training over the Taliban. The United States military assists in the basic and advanced train-ing of enlisted recruits while U.S. Special Forces train ANA commandos. Lastly, the Afghan National Army has funding that the Taliban cannot possibly match.

Since 2007, equipment worth billions of dollars has been gifted by the United States to the ANA. Due to these gener-ous donations, Afghanistan has seen its nascent military force being equipped with advanced weaponry such as M16 rifles while the Taliban continues to rely on obsolete weaponry such as RPG’s and AK-47’s.

As it has achieved many of its primary objectives in its global war against terror-ism, the United States has clearly made the right choice in bringing its troops home. Even if terrorist groups in Af-

ghanistan and Iraq continue to oper-ate after American departure, the mili-tary forces in those countries will be able to combat and eliminate them. With fiscal difficul-ties a harsh reality

back home, there is no sweeter time for the United States to end a war that has cost thousands of American lives and $3.7 trillion.

FROM BOTH

SIDES

CON“I’m deeply concerned that President Obama is putting political expedien-cy ahead of sound military and security judgment.”

Rick Perry, Texas Gov. and former presidential candidate

“We are still maintain-ing a massive presence there, now with the State Department and its heav-ily armed private security contractors.”Dennis Kucinich, U.S. Repre-

sentative (D-Ohio)

PRO“In light of Iraq’s refusal to eliminate the possibility that U.S. troops would face prosecution in Iraqi courts, President Obama has made the right decision.”

Carl Levin, U.S. Senator (D-Mich.)

“I think you’ve seen the president demonstrate that we can protect our interests without basing a lot of troops overseas.”

Denis McDonough, Deputy National Security Adviser

There is no sweeter time for the United States to end a war that has cost thousands of American

lives and $3.7 trillion.

THE CHARIOT

NOV 201210

Dragging down the Eurozone

Sidd KaramchetiContributing Writer

It has been three years since the be-ginning of the European Debt Crisis, or Eurozone Crisis, and up until this

point, the situation in Europe has gone from bad to worse. The Crisis is still tak-ing its toll on the European economies, forcing the Eurozone into a seemingly endless spiral of debt, with no indica-tions of recovery or revitalization any-time soon. At the moment, though, the Eurozone is relatively stable, and is work-ing to better itssituation, but the constant threat of a mass default is still hanging over Europe’s head.

The European Debt Crisis has its foun-dation in the shared currency of Europe, the euro. Because of this union under the euro, the economies of every country in the Eurozone are intricately linked, and as such, form a web in which every isolated incident carries over to the entire region, thus having unforeseen and often irrevo-cable effects. It is this phenomenon that began the Debt Crisis three years ago, when the Greek government under Prime Minister George Papandreou announced that it was suffering from a massive debt, a deficit that had been hidden from the outside world for years. This deficit seri-ously impacted the euro, weakening it, and dropping its value to less than that of the

US Dollar. In order to qualify for certain interna-

tional loans from the IMF (International Monetary Fund) or banks throughout the world, each country is rated by agencies like Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s based on their capability to pay returns on debt, a rating almost like a credit score. Before the Eurozone Crisis, European countries like France and Germany had fairly high ratings, as their economies were fairly powerful, and fully capable of paying off debt, even if based on the euro. However, when Greece came out with this massive announcement the credit ratings for all the Eurozone countries fell harshly, as institu-tions like the IMF and the ECB (European Credit Bank) lost faith in the European countries’ ability to pay their debts because of the weakened euro. Because of this, the Eurozone was caught in a state of perpet-ual flux, unable to borrow money to bail out Greece and end their deficit, all while sinking lower and lower, as Greece’s debt continued to affect world markets. Finally, in early 2010, the IMF and the European Union, under Germany’s lead, were able to offer Greece a €500 billion bailout; a gesture that Europe felt would restore the world’s markets and fix Greece’s deficit problems, a solution that seemed to work for a while.

Yet, even with the €500 billion bailout, it became clear by late 2011 that Greece was going to need more money to set the Eurozone straight. By August, Greece was suffering from an even larger deficit than it had in 2009, one stemming from its in-ability to retain structure in its govern-

ment, as well as in its spending. Unlike the 2009 deficit, this one has major implica-tions on other European governments in that the Italian economy and the Spanish economy were almost pulled under along with Greece, forcing all three countries to default and declare bankruptcy, something that would have essentially ripped apart all of Europe and most of the world’s econ-omy as well. Therefore, in order to avoid a mass default, Germany, the EU and the IMF once again approved a bailout for Greece, this time of €130 billion. Howev-er, attempting to make sure that this mon-ey would actually work to bailout Greece, the triumvirate forced Greece to accept a debt deal, in which they restructured their entire spending budget and economy, which Greece accepted earlier this year, on March 9, 2012.

Since the acceptance of the debt deal, Greece has made massive strides in the restructuring of its economy, as well as of its spending, and has cleared a large amount of its debt. However, the after-effects of its deficits still linger. Not only have the S&P ratings of the European countries harshly fallen, but Spain and Portugal have been forced to take major loans to cover their suffering economies, loans that they will barely be able to pay back. In the end the Eurozone Crisis is still affecting the European countries today. The threat of relapse constantly hangs over the heads of the European nations, dictating their every decision, and the only thing keeping Europe from returning to a perpetual spiral of debt is Greece’s recovery.

Trouble in Greece: The Problems of a Nation

Jan. 1, 2001Greece joins the Eurozone as its 12th member, adopt-ing the euro for currency.

Oct. 4, 2009George Papandreou and the Panhellenic Socialist

Movement win election.

Oct. 18, 2009Papandreou reveals the full extent of the Greek

budget deficit.

Mar. 4, 2010Greece adopts an austerity plan, increasing taxes and

freezing pensions.

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

NOV 2012 11

Trouble in Greece: The Problems of a Nation Crisis in illegal immigration

Laura GrimmContributing Writer

The problems in Greece have been mounting for some time and just seem to be increasing in intensity.

Among these problems are the debt, poor economy and now immigration problems. Most have heard of Greece’s debt and its threat to the currency in the Eurozone and how it seems to be a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.

Greece’s debt reached a height in 2009 when it had the highest budget deficit and government debt to GDP ratios in the Eu-rozone. The Greek government had delib-erately misreported the economic position of the country so that it could stay in the monetary union guidelines of the Europe-an Union. Even now after a bailout from the IMF and the European Union the debt continues to rise because of the recession in the country.

The revelation of the debt in Greece led to social unrest and rioting that lasted for months. The rioting and unrest has de-creased, but there is still worry concerning the Greek nation and its people. With the high unemployment rate, ever increasing debt and recession, the scale is beginning to slip too much to the side of more unrest instead of peace.

Greece went into a recession in 2008, and between then and now the unemploy-

ment rate has gone sky high and left more

than half of the youth jobless. The Greek economy is based on tourism, shipping, in-dustry and agriculture. The low economy in Greece has raised tourism prices and scared off potential travelers. All aspects of industry and agriculture were hit hard by the financial crisis and decreased in output percentages. Some of the percent-ages are beginning to rise and helping the economy in Greece.

Since 2008, the tourism to Greece has been increasing as well and with it a number of awards. Tourism accounts for about one fifth of the economy in Greece so any increase in this area can help boost the country up and pull it out of the eco-nomic crisis. In many travel magazines, a few Greek cities have come onto the top of the must visit places. These awards can help keep up the increase in visitors to Greece and lower the country’s problems even more.

Illegal immigration by way of Greece has largely increased over the past few months. This increase is due to the tur-moil and fear going on in the Middle East and South Asia; people are trying to flee into Europe where they hope to find sta-ble jobs. During the year of the uprisings in North Africa, illegal immigration rates rose drastically in both Greece and Eu-rope. Greece is an easy way to access the rest of Europe because of its current lack of security and proximity to the Middle East and Europe.

The debt and economic problems going on in Greece mean that there isn’t much money for Greece to control the borders

and keep out illegal immigrants. The Eu-rope Commission has given Greece mon-ey in the past two years, but not much has been done to hamper the flow of immi-grants. There are some patrols going on and a few detention centers set up to fin-gerprint and take information down for any people caught. After being brought in the illegal immigrants will be help in the center for up to a few weeks, and then they will be let out and told to leave Greece within a month.

Instead of deporting all of the illegal immigrants they find, officials tell them to leave within a month so that they don’t use as many resources. The officials only have to deport the illegal immigrants they find that haven’t left. The majority of the immigrants caught don’t actually leave and aren’t caught again; most take a ferry to Italy and to the rest of Europe.

As illegal immigration rises so do the number of people against it. The Golden Dawn party has set its goal as cleaning up the borders and getting rid of illegal im-migrants. It has even won enough sup-porters to hold seats in Parliament. No hu-man rights violations have been made yet, but this new party has piqued the alert of many watch groups.

Immigration, the debt and economy are current problems that are leading to unease in Greece. People are beginning to take things into their own hands, such as the anti-immigration group, Golden Dawn, and winning an amazing number of supporters. Even though the tourism rates have been rising, there is still a long way to go.

Mar. 4, 2010Greece adopts an austerity plan, increasing taxes and

freezing pensions.

May 8, 2010Eurozone leaders approve a $100 billion bailout plan

for Greece.

Nov. 11, 2011Lucas Papademos becomes Prime Minister following Papandreou’s resignation.

THE CHARIOT

NOV 201212

2012 Election:

Barack ObamaDemocratic Party

Economy Healthcare

Jill SteinGreen Party

Gary JohnsonLibertarian Party

Mitt RomneyRepublican Party

• Wants to raise the debt ceiling, paid for by reduced spending and increased taxes on the wealthy.

• Wants to supports the financial and auto bailout, but believes there should have been more re-strictions.

• Supports the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obam-acare).

• Supports the expansion of Medi-care

• Against legalizing marijuana.

• Against raising the debt ceiling and the 2008 financial bailouts.

• Advocates lower taxes, less regu-lation, replacing jobless benefits with unemployment savings ac-count, wants to repeal some fi-nancial regulation.

• Would repeal Obamacare; reform Medicare

• Would make health care into a voucher system.

• Against legalizing marijuana.

• Supports an increased minimum wage; increased debt ceiling; the 2008 financial bailout; and wants to nationalize all big banks.

• Supports the legalization of mari-juana.

• Does not support Obamacare, but wants to transform the system into a Canadian or European-style single payer system that can negotiate pricing for medication and treatments.

• Does not support a federal mini-mum wage; an increased debt ceil-ing; nor the 2008 financial bailout.

• Supports the legalization of mari-juana.

• Does not support Obamacare, but advocates the free-market system currently in use.

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

NOV 2012 13

Side-by-side comparison

Environment Science Education

• Wants to expand offshore drilling and the National Parks Service.

• Believes in man-made global warming and has spent signifi-cantly on green technology.

• Supports the funding of stem cell research, but not the funding of space exploration.

• Believes in the theory of evolu-tion.

• “Race to the Top” program awarded winning states with bil-lions to pursue programs Obama supports.

• Wants to dismantle the National Parks System.

• Believes that global warming is a natural phenomenon beyond hu-man control.

• Supports the funding of space exploration, but not stem cell re-search.

• Believes in the theory of evolu-tion, but that it is a part of Cre-ationism.

• Supports federal acocuntability standards such as No Child Left Behind law

• Wants to decrease federal power over education.

• Wants to eliminate offshore drill-ing; expand the National Parks Service

• Believes in man-made global warming.

• Supports the funding of stem cell research

• Believes in evolution• Ambivalent on the funding of

space exploration.

• Supports increased education spending.

• Wants to eliminate federal over-sight of offshore drilling; the Na-tional Parks Service; and energy policy.

• Believes in the theory of evolu-tion.

• Wants to leave funding for stem cell research and space explora-tion to the private sector.

• Wants to make education more performance based and increase competition between schools.

Written by Sarah Dukes-Schlossberg

THE CHARIOT

NOV 201214

Obama’s fiscal disaster

David PatouContributing Writer

While heralded as a hero by liber-als and demonized by conserva-tives, President Barack Obama’s

first four years in office have been highly controversial. However, disregarding social issues and domestic policy issues (in which many of us would agree he has been largely successful), Obama’s economic track re-cord is among the worst in the history of modern America. Beginning his term with ambitious promises of job increases, debt reduction, and economic well-being, the President has utterly failed to follow up on his uplifting rhetoric. Obama’s fiscal policy is fundamentally inferior to Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney’s be-cause it has proved a failure over the last four years and focuses blindly on equality rather than rewarding merit and excellence.

First and foremost, the years since 2008 have been comprised of economic hard-ship and recession. Unemployment has remained above eight percent for 42 con-secutive months, the longest stretch since the Great Depression. The most recent jobs report shows that, while 96,000 jobs have been added, industries have not kept up with the combined demand of newcom-ers entering the workforce and job losses. As a result, unemployment has risen to 8.4 percent. This is in stark contrast to Obama’s promise back in 2009 of 5.3 percent unem-ployment by the end of his first term.

Obama’s empty promises and fiscal failures do not end at jobs. The effects of Obama’s presidency on the much-maligned national debt have been nothing short of catastrophic. Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by 2012. Nearing the comple-tion of his first term, the debt has increased

by roughly five trillion dollars—more than that of any other president in the history of the United States.

Even by the standards that Obama set for himself earlier in his presidency, he is an economic failure. The commonly-used tactic among liberals attempting to shield their president from the cold numbers that prove him a failure is to blame Republican politicians and former president George W. Bush. The first argument—that Republican senators and representatives have blocked Obama’s initiatives—does not stand up to scrutiny because of the overwhelmingly Democrat majority in both houses for two full years. Obama had the chance to pass any legislation he desired in those two years and cannot scapegoat the Republican mi-nority. As for the second argument—to blame it on former president Bush—com-mon sense dictates that every president inherits the economic situation of his pre-decessor. After four years of presidency, one must take responsibility for his or her record. Using the logic that Bush is still to blame, even after an entire term of Obama, every president would be deserving of two full terms in office, since their record would be attributable to the previous president.

Obama’s fiscal policies have failed for a reason. Considering his famed position of “spreading the wealth around,” it’s clear that Obamanomics is not about what’s good for the economy; rather, it’s about fairness. Obama is not interested in making the economic situation better or improv-ing the US’s overall stance in the world, but instead about stifling business in the name of “equality.” Obama figures that when the people at the bottom have more money, then they’ll spend more money, thus stimulating the economy and creating more jobs. Unfortunately, that is not how the U.S. economy works, or how it has ever worked before. Businesses in America are created and sustained through investment. Middle and upper class citizens are very likely to in-vest their money simply because they have

enough fluid capital to be able to take that risk. When those citizens do invest, jobs for lower classes will be created, allowing for social mobility if those lower class citizens excel. That’s what capitalism is based off of—rewards from a free market based off of merit, not giving hand-to-mouth ben-efits to the lowest income bracket possible.

On the other side of the political spec-trum stands Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate. One of the main aspects of Rom-ney’s economic plan that Obama disagrees with is the lowering of the corporate tax rate. Romney argues that, if companies are required to pay less money in taxes, they’ll have more money that they can use to hire workers, expand plants and build their com-panies. Obama, on the contrary, demonizes large corporations as having leadership that pockets money for personal gain. Business-es, however, can reinvest it into either their business or other businesses in the hope of making even more profit, and by the same token, more jobs. This type of investment is the fuel that keeps our economy running and the reason huge companies go out of business or have to lay off huge numbers of workers is often due to a lack in invest-ment.

When former president Ronald Reagan ran for president against James Carter, who was running for his second term, the eco-nomic situation was eerily similar to today’s. “Can anyone look at the record of this [the Carter] administration and say, ‘Well done?’” Reagan asked. Those who advocate that Obama’s record is a job “well done” are few and far between—even his own promises degrade his performance. At best, liberals defend their candidate by unfairly pinning blame on past presidents and a Republican minority in congress. At this point, Obama has run out of viable excuses for his failed fiscal policies since 2008. Every voter has the choice to be part of the solution to un-employment and national debt, or part of the problem. A vote for Obama is a vote for the perpetuation of the problem.

Who has the WORSE Economic Policy?

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

NOV 2012 15

Who has the WORSE Economic Policy?Romney’s

doomed eco-nomic plan

Joe NicollsContributing Writer

The voter, when choosing whom is best suited for the coveted job of the presidency, too often fo-

cuses on the wrong aspects of the candi-date. The liberal and conservative news networks are playing with each other in a perpetual game of “Which candidate has the worst gaffe?” Let this not be misconstrued as saying that candidates shouldn’t be judged by their responses to interviews; they should. But, the reason why Mitt Romney would be a terrible choice for president is not his wealth, his condescending remarks or whatever gaffe the news cycle will spin next week. Rather, Mitt Romney is a terrible choice for president because his economic pol-icy will plunge this country even further into an economic crisis.

Regardless of how successful he may be in business, his ignorance when it

comes to governmental economic policy is staggering. No one summarizes the foolishness of Romney’s position bet-ter than the Pulitzer-winning and Wash-ington bureau chief of the New York Times, David Leonhardt. “What he says is that he’ll cut tax rates, he won’t add to the deficit and he won’t, in any way, add to the tax burden of the middle class, And when independent economists have looked at it, they’ve said, ‘He cannot do all those things mathematically.’”

Romney’s and the rest of the GOP’s attention to the deficit is baffling. No one paid attention to the deficit when Bush was in office, even as he passed stimu-lus acts. Even as this argument becomes more relevant to voters as the election approaches, it is important to realize where the money is being spent. As Zach Anderson of Policymic.org says, “There are not pros and cons to this argument. Crushing debt is never a good thing. The debate centers on who can cut the deficit more effectively and whether or not we prioritize social programs or fiscal con-servatism.”

For a party that prides itself on be-ing more in touch with “American Val-ues” and promises the building up of the middle class, it seems to forget that the deficit and taxes it promises to cut mean

that social programs will need to go with it. And the statistics that are associated with such cuts are staggering. If Rom-ney’s economic plan were passed, ac-cording to a report from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, mil-lions of people would be cut off from basic social programs that Western na-tions have taken for granted. 31 million people would be cut off from Medicaid. 46 million people would be given food below nutritional adequacy by nutrition programs, and eight to 10 million people could be cut off from nutrition pro-grams all together.

These are all direct consequences from the deluded economic plan of a man who promises to bring America back to its former economic glory while opposing a president who saved this na-tion from another Great Depression. Romney claims to run America like a business. Don’t let him run it into the ground.

Romney claims to run America like a busi-

ness. Don’t let him run it into the ground.

THE CHARIOT

NOV 201216

The politics of social

mediaDrew Bent

Senior Editor

From Twitter feeds to Tumblr blogs, this presidential election is filled with social media. Both the candi-

dates and the voters are harnessing online resources to spread their platforms and views. For better or for worse, social me-dia has the potential to shape the future of this nation.

If the candidates weren’t worried enough going into the debates, they should be now. The proliferation of so-cial media has guaranteed that no gaffe in the debates will go unnoticed. Evidence of this phenomenon came in the first presidential election in which President Obama’s performance was widely regard-ed as sub-par. While there were no major gaffes, many thought Obama appeared tired and uninvolved on stage. Users of Twitter and Facebook quickly blew the situation out of proportion. In total, 10.5

million tweets were made during the de-bate.

In the vice presidential debate a week later, Biden’s unusual—if not disrespect-ful—facial expressions and retorts made for great social media material. For in-stance, 56,000 tweets contained the word ‘malarkey’ in them, poking fun at a com-ment Biden made.

While the ‘malarkey’ tweets are unlike-ly to sway the election, other social media posts may. Instant fact checks on Twit-ter, for example, have been springing up this election season. With 11% of people watching the debate on two screens (a television and a computer or phone), the fact checks can instantly support—or de-bunk—the candidates’ claims in speeches or debates.

Social media enthusiasts are also quick to point out the issues from which can-didates attempt to divert attention. Af-ter the vice presidential debate, bloggers pointed out the vagueness in Romney’s and Ryan’s plan to lower taxes 20% and echoed Biden’s words that the plan is “not mathematically possible.” When it came to a Q&A by Obama on the website Red-dit, many criticized him for dodging ques-tions regarding the drug war. Evidently, social media has the ability to accentuate the weaknesses of the candidates and their campaigns.

Social media’s prevalence in soci-

ety has also transformed the direction of political campaigns. Both Obama and Romney are reaching out to voters through videos and photos posted to Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr. A study by SocialVibe revealed that 94% of vot-ing-age social media users receive most of their political messages online. More than ever, the candidate who can best master the art of social media is the one who will win over teenagers and young adults.

With these effects in mind, it is likely that social media will play a part in many voters’ decisions on Election Day. Fur-thermore, we can expect to see an in-creased amount of attention devoted to social media campaigns in upcoming elections, both at the federal and state levels. With social media here to stay, candidates and voters had better learn to embrace it.

#Election2012