By

Benjamin Barasch

One of the few constant truths in Washington is that any major policy change, appointment, or ruling is surrounded by intense scrutiny and controversy from the media. It is necessary for the American people to be involved in the political process and know what is happening in our national government, but the media takes advantage of the desire to be informed by creating sensational stories. Recently, President Obama has announced the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to replace Supreme Court Judge David Souter. Since this is Obama’s first Supreme Court appointment, the Conservative media naturally gave reasons to be skeptical of her appointment. I think its fair (and even helpful) for respectable journalists such as Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic to question her abilities to take over such a crucial position, but when the likes of influential right wing radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, Representative Tom Tancredo, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich add their two cents about the subject, the Republican party is left looking like a bitter ten year old after losing a game of kickball.

The most controversial part of Sotomayor’s past is that she made a speech in 2001 in which she said “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” In politics, any remark about race, no matter what the context, is a colossal faux pas, this remark ranks very low on the provocative scale. Plus Obama, after reading the whole speech himself, thought the comment was not meant to offend but rather to show Sotomayor’s pride towards being a Latina. Still, Limbaugh branded Sotomayor a “reverse racist” on his show and even went as far to compare her to former KKK leader David Duke. The problem isn’t even that Limabugh makes claims like this, its not even that he once referred to our president in a bit as “Barack the Magic Negro,” the real problem is that too many influential people in the republican party are too afraid to oppose Limbaugh because of his influence. Sadly, there are also too many people in the Republican party who agree with Limbaugh. Former Rep. Tom Tancredo supported Limbaugh’s claim by telling CNN that a civil rights group Sotomayor is a member of known as National Council of La Raza is “Latino KKK without the hoods and nooses.” Even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich insinuated that Sotomayor was a racist (on his twitter account, no less). Sure there are some such as Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) who are willing to dismiss such claims, but when influential Republicans make claims as ridiculous as Limbaugh’s, Tancredo’s, and Gingrich’s, the party needs to show a unified front against the comments. It is not in the best interest of the Republican party to allow their most influential members to make imbecilic comments.

With the total failure of GW Bush’s presidency, Barack Obama’s overwhelming victory in the election, and even Arlen Spector’s switch of party; the Republican party is losing its footing as an equal to the Democratic party. The leaders of the GOP need to wake up and not allow for the likes of Limbaugh and Gingrich to represent the views of their party. Also, the population of Hispanics in the United States is expected to be around 16% by 2010; how can a major party succeed while alienating such a large demographic? Although I can’t say that I am a Republican (or a Democrat for that matter), I believe it is important to have at least two powerful political parties in this country to balance each other out, but if the Republican party continues down this spiral, it will cease to exist.

Gabriel Rom

North Korea’s recent nuclear tests as well as their repudiation of their long standing armistice with South Korea signals a radical change in the way North Korea’s leadership would like the country to be perceived by the rest of the world. Blatant, aggressive, volatile…North Korea can no longer be put on the backburner. Nations across the world have condemned the tests with varying degrees of intensity, but North Korea has got what it wanted: Attention.

Do these actions make strategic sense? The short answer is no. “The suddenness of the  nuclear test shows North Korea following military, not diplomatic logic,” Hideshi Takesada, a Korea expert at Japan’s National Institute for Defense Studies, told Bloomberg News.

The Koreans have completely put diplomacy out of their minds, and are acting with military goals in mind, not diplomatic ones. Whether this change in attitude is an act to try and make diplomacy easier for the NoKos, or if it truly is the beginning of a military conflict in the area, is something no westerner and probably no one else besides Kim Jong-il and his closest advisers can know.

What we can deduce is this though: “During the past 40 years North Korean leaders have been blustery but fundamentally risk averse. They have done nothing that would risk the total destruction of their state…until now.”

The way Pyongyang has been acting in the past week demonstrates that they are willing to accept much larger and destructive risks than they were before. The question for Barack Obama and the rest of the world is this: Are the North Koreans posturing?

Consider this analogy (this will take a cursory understanding of Texas Hold Em’ poker): We’re at a poker table, and it’s North Korea’s turn to act. They raise big (the nuclear tests). Sitting across from NK is America and effectively all of the  Western powers.  Now it’s our turn to act. We have three options. Fold (Take no diplomatic, economic, or military action, basically keeping the situation static. Call (Some combination of economic and diplomatic response. Basically acknowledging that North Korea is a serious threat and that our response, whatever it is, must keep them in check. The risk level would be higher if we choose to call as we must remember exactly what we’re calling: A nuclear detonation from a rogue regime with a potentially mentally unstable leader. Finally, we can Reraise. This course of action would most likely include massive economic restrictions and likely be accompanied with a military campaign in the region. This response would obviously entail the most risk, but potentially the most reward.

Note: This analogy is simply meant to give context to an extremely complex situation. The Fold, Call, Re raise terminology is not hard and fast. For example one word, “call”, entails an indeterminable amount of strategies, contingency plans, and diplomatic philosophies of which any combination could be used. The only thing that unifies these responses under the word “call”, is that they maintain a certain level of restraint and risk aversion, as this is what philosophically defines a call in the poker world as well.  The world of geopolitics does not have to follow all the rules of the poker table. Additionally, remember that there are many other actors in this conflict (South Korea, Japan, China, etc)

These are Barack Obama’s options. Our next article will delve deeper into these options, discussing which action or combination of actions are the most rational and effective.

Why have we waited over five months to start up again with TPY? Why, after such comprehensive and popular election coverage did we decide to hang up the towel (for the time being)? Well,to be brief: We got into college, we celebrated… we kept celebrating…  and we continued to celebrate even when our bodies told us we really shouldn’t be celebrating anymore. What you may or may not take ‘celebrating’ to be is something we, as highly responsible and intelligent teenagers, cannot comment on. Shame on you.

We’ll now that our three month hangover (figurative) is finally receding, and more importantly that the world is just as confusing, screwed up, and interesting as when we left it, we’ve decided to get back into the swing of things with both feet.

There are a few changes and improvements we’d like to inform you of.

Firstly: We didn’t completely waste the past quarter of a year. In our downtime we’ve given TPY a foothold on a few social networking sites. This shouldn’t be too surprising as basically any website or blog that wants to be viable in terms of viability needs to have a presence that extends past just one URL. Without further ado:

Facebook fan page:
Twitter page:

Secondly: TPY has a new writer: Tyler Holmes, a rising freshman at the University of Kansas. Look for Tyler to be writing about energy, education, and foreign policy.

Thirdly: Within the next week or so a ‘writer biography’ page will be set up giving our readers a more personal view of the TPY writing staff.

Finally, we’d like to reiterate TPY’s level of seriousness and journalistic commitment to the issues facing our world today. We put the time and effort into this site because the topics we cover, out of necessity, must be argued, supported, and criticized at the highest level of discussion and dialogue possible. Expect articles in the very immediate future on Barack Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, The current GOP identity crisis, North Korea’s increasing nuclear volatilty, Pakistan’s growing instability, and the current state of the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Stay tuned, and get ready. We’re back and we’re here to stay.

- Gabriel Rom

Ben Barasch

With about a half of the school year remaining, to high school seniors there is not a more diverse set of emotions towards a single issue than college acceptance. A portion of the senior class (such as my Purple Youth colleagues Max, Jon, and Gabe) is already in college; for them the rest of their high school career is about as challenging as criticizing George W. Bush. The remaining seniors are faced with a long road ahead filled with last minute applications, college visitations, and counselor meetings. As someone who witnessed another (my sister) agonize until spring break, let’s just say that I am happy that I am a junior (words that have are rarely spoken). Unfortunately the current economic climate is going to make the college experience, from applicants, to students, to educators, to admission board members, more challenging than it was before.
Basically colleges are run very much like large corporations. Because they usually generate more expenses than they can pay for from tuition, universities and colleges rely on earnings from their endowments and gifts to cover their costs. As we all know, investments in general have not really been in the green of late, and those of universities and colleges are no exception. Endowments are way down due to a combination of the failing economy and fewer people are willing to donate money. Harvard, a school that most would expect to be immune to such a crisis, has  lost 22% of its endowments which equals about an $8 billion loss.  Endowments are not the only financial hit that these education institutions face. As mentioned above, now that people generally have less money, donations are decreasing.
In theory, the amount of money that a parent has should have nothing to do with increasing or decreasing the chance of a student to get into the school of their choice. Many of our best schools have adopted “need-blind” admissions policies.  Now, this egalitarian practice may be at risk. It may turn out that parents who can afford tuition give their children better chance to be admitted to the schools of their choice. That would be unfortunate.
Another problem caused by the recession, is how the universities are going to deal with having less operating money. Less money for colleges and universities is bad news for everyone. Less money means that schools that were looking to expand need to put projects on hold and in some cases schools will shrink or even worse close their doors. Certain improvements that were proposed and were feasible two years ago are no longer economically viable and have been put on the back burner.
An added concern for applicants caused by the recession is price elasticity of   demand for schools now that money is tight. Price elasticity of demand is a measurement of how much interest waivers/increases as prices rise/fall respectively. For example if a top flight student from Illinois gets into a Princeton or a Yale, will he or she now be more inclined to attend their state universities where they can still receive a good education for a lot less? The answer is yes and no depending on the financial situation and circumstance of that particular family. Because of the reputations of the top schools, many parents will spring to send their children to the top private universities. This may spell trouble however for the less distinguished private universities where the tuition is still higher than state schools. It is a no brainer for a student to attend their state school as opposed to a private college/university where they are getting a similar education for a lot less.
Fortunately, amidst all of the financial issues facing schools, most schools have not yet cut into their financial aid programs to free up money. If Wall Street continues to deteriorate, financial aid may be the next thing in jeopardy in this economic crisis.

Gabriel Rom

“We are now going to find out whether those lessons from 2006 - on military preparation, on the need for effective military-political coordination, on operating in an immensely complex regional and global context, and on setting realistic goals for the use of military force - were indeed well learned.”

In retaliation to unyielding rocket attacks into Southern Israel, numbering recently to almost 200 a day, Israel launched a series of Airstrikes on Hamas positions, killing over 200 people. Hamas military installations, police stations, and residences of officials were all targeted. What we are seeing is possibly the most intense military action taken by Israel since the June 2006 invasion of Lebanon.

Some sort of Israeli military action was to be expected, but the intensity and haste in which these strikes were carried out made today’s events a sign of radical reshifting in Israeli military policy. Today’s attacks were a refutation of what many Israelis see as pointless diplomacy as well as ambivalent military incursions lasting for short periods of time, with usually minimal or negative results. As one analyst put it: “Israel’s policy of restraint is over”.

The rationale behind these strikes is a simple one: Pressure. The game is all about pressure. Israel, since the election of Hamas, has been trying to force Hamas to cease all their military operations, suicide recruitment, and on a basic level at least start to entertain the option that Israel will not be wiped of the face of the earth. All such things are relatively tough to achieve diplomatically when the group Israel trying to convince through talks and sanctions will not even recognize their existence, or right to exist. Diplomacy doesn’t work when political entities put religious ideals over the well being of their fellow citizens.

Today’s strikes are the beginning of an Israeli plan to dismantle the infrastructure of Hamas. What we are witnessing is monumental, it is the beginning of a plan to completely eliminate Hamas from the political and diplomatic landscape. Many Israelis see Hamas as the chief impediment to peace talks, and after Western support of Fatah, Hamas’s rival faction, resulted in nothing but heightened Gaza tension and even more Hamas sway, Israel has decided to do what it does best, take matters into their own hands.

Many parallels can be made to Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon, which was considered by many a stalemate or even a defeat for Israel. The geopolitical context in which Israel has attacked Hamas is immensely complex: Will Egypt who has taken the always risky route of mediation between Hamas and Israel, be forced to abandon talks due to these attacks? Will Iran supply Hamas with weapons, and intelligence to retaliate against Israel? In a conflict with so many actors, any small event sends of a wave of political, economic, and military shocks and aftershocks - and it is quite clear that today’s events were by no means “small”.

Israel has put herself back into the fire, the fire of international scrutiny, the fire of Arab retaliation, the fire of possible failure. Yet I strongly believe that this is a necessary fire. With the looming specter of a nuclear Iran, and no cessation of aggression for over 60 years from her neighbors, the nation of Israel has said enough is enough.

Emma Johnson

Guest Contributor

Jessica Rasinski is 21 years old and a hostess at one of the most popular restaurants in Manhattan, the Waverly Inn and Garden. She went to a prestigious all-girls school on the Upper East Side and, never went to college. People then and even now, continue to ask her, “How did a girl with so much potential end up a hostess?” When they ask, as they commonly do, Jessica calmly replies, “a series of fortunate events.” This response, as intended, “Usually creates even more curiosity and alleviates any potential tension.” She proudly explained. “Important people walk through that door every night so consumed with the other so-called VIP’s and what they think that they usually don’t even look up to say hello or acknowledge my existence. When one of these “important people” happens to be the father or mother of one of my close friends from high school it usually takes them more than a minute to make the connection.”

As she continues a smile widens across her face, “Mr. Bronfman? I’ll say and he will look up at me as though he were looking at a sign and not a person until I make clear, “Its me, Jessica, I went to school with your daughter Hannah”, and then the light bulb goes off.” She says as she makes the hand motion of turning on a light with her hand. “Its like he suddenly realizes I’m one of them and instantly wants to help me across the divide. Like he was looking at a countryman in a foreign prison camp. Its so weird.” She explained what she meant by “across the divide” she seemed ready for the question, or at least my ignorance. “Like eager to sugar-coat the situation – my situation. And make it seem like it fits into their standardized track to success. They will say, ‘Oh – wow! I didn’t know you were working here… how cool!’ or ‘So are you an actress?’, fishing for a way to put the pieces together now that I have aligned myself with their children and therefore them – its suddenly in their interest to posh-up my position and place in life… especially in front of their friends.”  Jessica seems confidant, especially in regard to her understanding of values based on wealth and their often inverse relationship with moral fiber.

In a world that is rapidly changing, with the fist black president about to take office and, the financial back lash of generations of Americans dependent on easy money about to take its toll; the life of Jessica Rasinski seem not only reasonable but almost desirable. “I like what I do and I’m really good at it. I love the people I work with and we don’t all have our heads up our asses. We are reminded constantly that we are all serving somebody, that humility is the only way to live this life gracefully, and with the most friends. I look at what’s happening with Wall Street and our relative inability to undo the misguided choices made by guys like Alan Greenspan and I feel terrible but at the same time kinda validated. I know it sounds bad, but I think this country needs a reality check.” And boy doesn’t that seem to be the consensus.

“My job is to help people feel comfortable. I greet them as they come in and, show them that its ok. I show them where their table is and, how to sit at it. If there is no table available for them, I show them where to stand and how to feel good about the wait. In many ways, I feel like President Obama and I would have a lot in common if, we ever sat down and went through it.” Jessica said in a joking yet, challenging tone. “I mean, I work at a restaurant that is always overbooked, that doesn’t have a phone line, that only takes reservations two days in advance and almost always – even if you do go all the way to Waverly Place to make one - will only have tables available for you at six o’clock or ten thirty pm because the space is so limited and the demand is so high.” Sound familiar?

Both Jessica’s mother and father went to college and, although she is not following in their path she feels confident in her decision. “I am deeply grateful to be able to work at a place like Waverly. At times the job is demanding and stressful but it has been entirely worth it. Since working here my eyes have been opened to how many possibilities there are in life.”

In my last article, “Why Prop 8 and anti-gay sentiment have to go”, I discussed a number of reasons why gays were entitled to marriage rights under the constitution. I hastily erupted as to why the 14th amendment and equal protection automatically guaranteed those rights. Here I will attempt to take a more specific and legal position.

The Supreme Court of the United States has more than once acknowledged  that homosexuals are entitled to certain rights under the constitution–most notably in the Romer V Evans and Lawrence V Texas decisions.

In Romer V Evans, the Supreme court ruled in a 6-3 decision that Amendment 2 that passed by initiative in Colorado was unconstitutional. Amendment 2 banned anti-discrimination laws for gays in Colorado.  In  rejecting this preposterous notion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “The amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. [through this amendment,] homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.” Justice Kennedy argued that because the anti-discrimination laws did not give preferential treatment, but only ensured that the liberties all citizens enjoy were not denied to gays.

In Lawrence V Texas, the supreme court overturned a sodomy law in a 6-3 decision finding that the statute unfairly targeted not only the rights of gays, but also their privacy. While the majority of the supreme court still did not recognize what the plaintiff argued  was a “fundamental right,” they did acknowledge that Lawrence’s rights, and for that matter gay rights had been violated under the Texas sodomy laws.

Although the court did maintain that both of these decisions did not give homosexuals the right to marry, the simple question is: why not? If the supreme court declared with these decisions that homosexual rights and anti-discriminatory protections were civically violated in Lawrence V Texas and Romer V Evans, and that such civil rights are protected by the equal protection clause, how can it not be rational that a civil legal marriage is not also constitutional. The response of the conservative court is that gay marriage is a social issue and not a place for courts to take a stance. Needless to say it is difficult to understand how equal rights are a social issue but then I guess the same arguments were made by proponents of slavery.  How can anything that provides legal and civic benefits be social and not civil? If marriage is indeed a civil issue and a civil right, how does the 14th amendment not encompass and protect that right. How can you insist that some rights of gays are protected, but not all? It’s baffling. I am not abusing the 14th amendment or even making claims for laws that haven’t already been made; I am merely stating that it is inconceivable for the supreme court to declare that gays are equally protected as a minority under specific laws but then deny them the same equal rights under all laws.

Conservative critics will probably argue with me about how the constitution says nothing about homosexuality and that’s true. But it also says nothing about a government’s right  to purchase land as Jefferson did in 1803. It also says nothing about John Marshall’s proclaimed judicial review. Moreover it says nothing about  the rights of privacy. Yet, I don’t see conservatives complaining about those implied powers.

The previous supreme court decisions that have guaranteed certain rights under the constitution and lay the very foundation for the argument of gay marriage. How can anyone possibly make the argument  that only some laws provide the guarantee of equal protection  and not all of them? How can the supreme court strike down sodomy and a ban on anti-discrimination laws possibly not symbolize a judicial understanding that gays are entitled to equal protection as a minority group. By Justice Kennedy recognizing gays as a minority, he also recognizes their natural rights as citizens. I am not manipulating anything for the sake of a cause; I am only reading the 14th amendment and taking those words to mean the simple things they purport to say.

To subscribe to TPY

1) Enter your email in the top right-hand corner of this page.

2) Click subscribe

3) Enter verification information (just a link)

4) You’re set!

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich Arrested for Corruption

This afternoon, the governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich was arrested for allegedly taking bribes and cutting illegal deals for the replacement of President-elect Barack Obama’s senate seat. Having long been considered corrupt, Blagojevich’s arrest shows how truly dirty American politics can be. The governor’s Chief of Staff was also arrested. US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald described the case as, “the most staggering crime spree in office I have ever seen.” The Governor was quoted as describing his situation of power to appoint Obama’s successor as, “Fuckin’ golden”. Obama had been pushing for his close friend and adviser Valerie Jarret to take the seat, but Blagojevich was upset that the only thing he would get in return was appreciation. He replied, “Fuck her.” Blagojevich’s predecessor George Ryan was also arrested on counts of federal corruption charges. Obama has reportedly claimed he was not at all aware of the Governor’s proceedings. Blagojevich’s successor will be his Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn.

The battle to succeed Obama in the senate has been hard fought and has many Illinois politicians scrambling for the position. Front runners include Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, and Representative Danny Davis.  Max Godnick

The Next Great Civil RIghts Movement?

Max Godnick

In the wake of Prop 8, many have begun to speculate over whether or not we are currently witnessing the next great Civil Rights movement. Women and African Americans had their eras of civil rights reform, so it seems likely that homosexuals would be the next minority group to aggressively push for all natural rights. The current political and social atmospheres seem like a perfect environment for a new movement to arise in. With gays and lesbians becoming an almost regular presence in movies and television shows, a new liberal mood for the country, and the passage of Proposition Eight in California (as well as a number of similar cases around the country) the country seems to be warming up to the ideas of wide spread social revolution. Movies like Milk are gaining widespread notoriety, and many film critics think that the current social atmosphere might bring Oscar gold to Sean Penn and the rest of the cast of Milk in February.

During the civil rights movements of the 1920’s and 1960’s, blacks and women were able to get significant amounts of legislation passed through congress primarily because they had a significant connection in congress that rallied for their causes. For black’s it was President Lyndon Johnson and his crusade for the Civil Rights Act and for women it was President Wilson’s public support of the eighteenth amendment. However, gays have not yet received the public support of a president, a sufficient amount of members of congress, or an overwhelming amount of the public. Even in the new “change obsessed” environment of the present day, Obama probably could have not been elected if he had publicly declared his support of gay marriage. In order for gays to begin a civil rights movement of the same size and scope of the ones seen in the sixties or twenties, they must be able to gain the support of powerful public officials who will make it their sole duty to have justice shown. Unfortunately, with the current state of the economy and America’s involvement in two wars, it seems as if it might be a couple of years before social issues become the dominant debate in Washington and on the Hill. Still, America is clearly restless, and the passage of Prop 8 has ignited an important debate that must be resolved in order for America to truly claim that “All men are created equal”.