hamzakaroumia

Silk Road 2.0: China’s Plan For Global Economic Dominance.

The Silk Road was one of the most important economic trade routes of antiquity. The road spanned from modern day Turkey to the Pacific side of China. Successfully connecting various markets along the route. Not only did the road create immense wealth but indirectly lead to cultural exchange. In effect, Europeans were exposed to new spices. That created new pallets for various people, leading to the development of foods such as spaghetti & lasagna. The information passed through the silk road was also valuable. Technological advancements such as paper making, printing, gunpowder, and the compass gained traction across the world. Effectively leading to other advancements in society. However, despite all the positive effects the Silk Road had it would eventually decline due to political turmoil in the heart of the trade route. That lead to less security for traders, translating into a risky investment. Making it fall out of favor as a venture.

Fast forward to the 21st century. From relative obscurity & poverty, China has developed into an economic powerhouse. Climbing up the GVC (global value chain) and effectively becoming one of the world’s leaders in logistics. This only seems like the start. General Secretary Xi Jinping has announced a plan that has the potential to propel China into economic dominance. The project is called ‘The Silk Road Economic Belt’.

Silk Road 2.0

The new Silk Road project aims to unify large markets through a connected infrastructure. Creating one diversified market which trades products, talent, information, and culture. Sound familiar? It should because this is exactly what the old Silk Road did. However, a key difference is the route of the road. Instead of going through the Middle East it will go through central Asia. Rightly so, since the Middle East is experiencing a period of extreme instability. From central Asia the road is supposed to expand into eastern Europe. That would be a clear gateway into western European markets.

Now looking at the project through an optimistic lens this seem like a great opportunity to; develop Central Asian countries, reignite the stagnating economy of Eastern Europe, and take China deeper into a market Economy. Central Asian countries would gain the opportunity to develop their infrastructure, as well as become deeply integrated into the global economy. The idea China has is that new communities will sprout up on the road because of the economic benefits.

The same applies to Eastern European nations but to a lesser degree. How Eastern Europe would mainly benefit is as the direct gateway to Western European markets. An attractive venture for people trying to make money via Western Europe.Hypothetically, that should increase investment in the region which would stimulate the local economy. Allowing for growth. Thus reversing the stagnation.

China would be able to capitalize on this road by allowing their products to flow through the route. Increasing their market dominance as a producer. Additionally, products from Western Europe would come through as well. Allowing for consumption by the Chinese population. Specifically the middle class. Bam! Market economy.

The project aims to generate profit but in the process it enfranchises the disenfranchised. That’s always advantageous. Being able to make money while producing something by helping those in need is beneficial for all parties.

Despite all it’s potential, it’d be naive to ignore the hurdles for this project.. Big projects need big money. The ambitious project is estimated to cost $5-8 trillion. In order for this to work a tremendous amount of cooperation & efficient execution. Only time will tell if this project gains traction.

While nations build walls, China plans to build roads. Times of economic growth (current growth is at 3.9% IMF) are the best times to plan for future. After all you want to fix the leaky roof while it’s sunny out.

Sources: IMF https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2018/01/11/world-economic-outlook-update-january-2018

http://www.ejinsight.com/20160412-getting-lost-one-belt-one-road/

https://www.brookings.edu/research/chinas-rise-as-a-regional-and-global-power-the-aiib-and-the-one-belt-one-road/

How The Supreme Court Justified Eugenics: The Curious Case Of ‘Buck V Bell’

It’s no secret that the U.S. Supreme Court has a tumultuous past with certain rulings. A few examples being the infamous Dred Scott case which erroneously reasoned that certain set of humans were deemed property, Hammer v Dager which justified child labor, or Plessy v Ferguson the case that set the precedent for Jim Crow. People who’ve taken an American History course will more or less be familiar with the aforementioned cases. However, there’s an ambiguous case titled ‘Buck v Bell’ that deals with the controversial topic of eugenics. If you aren’t familiar with eugenics it’s basically a method of social engineering used to create the “best” race of humans. The method being notoriously implemented by Nazi Germany. Interestingly enough, it wasn’t just Nazis trying to make these plans come to fruition. The U.S. legal system had to deal with the topic of eugenics. Here’s how they addressed it.

Historical Context

In order to get a full understanding of the case some historical context on eugenics is necessary. The theory of eugenics begins in the late 19th century, sometime after Charles Darwin publishes his magnum opus On the Origin of Species. During that time people rush to apply the theory of natural selection to human society. This movement gains traction throughout the western world. Peaking around the 1920’s. Universities in the USA begin to offer courses on eugenics. Increasing its popularity among academics. Despite the popularity of eugenics, academics begin to debate which humans were the superior ones. Some said the Anglos were & others argued that the Germans, Italians, Frenchs etc, were. Obviously in hindsight advancements in biology & genetics debunk all those aforementioned statements. But for the time this was the scientific truth. That lead the politicians of that era to make it their “moral” duty to prevent the degeneration of their race. This is similar to when the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a mental disorder in DSM III (published 1980), which falsely influenced societies perception on homosexuality. The same happened to eugenics in America. False research was given, debate ensued, and legislation was implemented which leads us to the curious case of ‘Buck v Bell’.

The Case

The case begins with Carrie Buck. A resident of The State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded at Lynchburg, Virginia which is headed by Albert Priddy. Carrie Buck finds herself at this institution after a series of unfortunate events in 1924. Buck, a victim of rape, became pregnant and her adopted family had her committed to the SCEFM due to the “immorality” of having a child out of wedlock ( turns out they falsified she was raped). While at the institution they discover she has the “mental age of a 9 year old”, Priddy is a staunch supporter of eugenical sterilization, and suggests sterilization of Ms Buck due to her “moral delinquency”. Reasoning that it was probably passed down from her mother who was also known to be promiscuous and “feeble minded”.

Priddy was warned by a court in 1918 of his personal liability in sterilization operations and stopped for some time. However, realizing an opportunity to legally validate his operations, he takes the Buck case to the board of SCEFM. At the hearing Priddy argued his case to the board and it’s approved. It is then taken to local circuit court where evidence provided by an “expert” detailed Buck’s “clear” lineage of moral delinquency. It also helped that Bucks consul (Irving Whitehead a founder of SCEFM) brought forth no arguments against Bell . The reason being was Whitehead sought the same end as Priddy; legal eugenical sterilization. The case would end up at the Supreme Court.

During the appeals process Mr. Priddy dies and the case is taken up by John H Bell. Who argues to the Court that due process was given to Buck and state police powers allowed them to protect and decide for persons such as Buck. Whitehead argued that institutions such as SCEFM could easily become havens where

” (The) worst forms of tyranny practiced…inaugurated in the name of science.” Furthermore, Bucks legal guardian argued that her right to procreate infringed on the due process clause of the constitution. Buck would lose the case 8-1. Supreme Court Justice Holmes writing for the court rejected Bucks arguments. The equal protection argument was shot down by Holmes because the policy applied to all within the institution. Furthermore, he adds that if the nation can call upon its “best citizens” in times of war, a lesser sacrifice can be made by those “lesser” that “sap the strength of society”.

The prevention of procreation is justified because “(t)hree generations of imbeciles are enough”. Strong words, iffy ruling.

Conclusion

After all was said and done Carrie Buck was sterilized in the name of eugenics. That ruling set the precedent for other states to enact similar laws. On the bright side after the Nazi’s were defeated and advancements in science, eugenics laws slowly began to fade. Despite this ‘Buck v Bell’ stands as the law of the land. The case has yet to be overturned.

Sources: The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions

Sapiens A Brief History of Human Kind by Yuval Noah Harari

John Deere & The Right To Fix.

Farming has been quintessential to America’s economy ever since 1776. Throughout history the American government has legitimized the aforementioned sentiment via different forms of legislation. For example, when the Great Depression hit Franklin Roosevelt decided that full economic recovery depended on enfranchising the agricultural sector. His New Deal through the Agricultural Adjustment Act created the AAA ( Agricultural Adjustment Administration) which is still active to this day. These measures not only helped local farmers, but also farming manufactures who would’ve surely gone under. An example being John Deere. However, thanks to some help John Deere & small farmers were able to recover, & develop a symbiotic relationship. Farmers could farm with the best equipment because John Deere (due to government assistance) decided not to repossess any tractors that weren’t paid off . An admirable gesture in trying times. However, despite John Deere’s role in making farmers lives easier via new farming technology & charitable business practices, a new trend seems to negate their storied history.

Farmers in the modern era are facing trying times. The reason for that is farmers can no longer independently fix their tractors that have malfunctioned. That’s because in order to fix modern tractors you need diagnostic software to figure out the problem. You might be asking yourself “Why don’t farmers just get the software”? Well, it turns out John Deere doesn’t allow the software to be purchased in the first place. That fact forces farmers to either pay a John Deere dealer to fix it (often times they are really far away & it’s expensive), or buy totally new equipment from John Deere, effectively wasting the farmers precious time & resources. Prior to this new trend you could purchase a diagnostic manual & fix tractors with little to no ease. Which is what most farmers did. Yet, if the farmer for some reason couldn’t, they’d take it to a tractor mechanic & he’d figure it out. This is now impossible due to John Deere’s reluctance to provide that software. A small percentage of farmers have even gone to great extents to purchase hacked software from Eastern European nations to curtail this dilemma. But farmers shouldn’t be forced to do shady black market deals to fix their property. Thankfully, some motivated people are fighting for the rights of farmers to access the diagnostics of their tractors. But there are still huge road blocks in their way.

The Library of Congress has granted an exemption for farmers from the DMCA Act (which protects corporations from online piracy) in order to shield them from legal repercussion if they were caught. However, immediately after that was implemented John Deere adjusted their terms of service to negate that ruling. A move you’d expect from El Chapo or Pablo Escobar. Despite that hurdle, motivated activists like Guy Mills & Lydia Brasch advocate for the freedom to purchase diagnostic tools. Lydia Brasch, a senator form Nebraska, has proposed the Fair Repair Act in order to help Farmers obtain the tools for repair. At that hearing in Lincoln, Nebraska lobbyists from Apple, Microsoft, & AT&T convened to violently oppose the Act. A rare thing in Nebraskan politics. Why would they show up? Simple, that legislation would set a precedent in the tech field because it would limit the tech firm monopoly over diagnostic info. Nebraska isn’t alone in trying to combat this problem. 12 states have recently proposed similar legislation.

In conclusion, information about fixing your property should be open to the public. That’s because this issue is similar to this scenario. Hypothetically lets say a specific hospital owned the rights to open heart surgery, & refused to give it out to other doctors. People would run riot. There’s no difference from that hypothetical scenario to the things John Deere is doing now.

Is John Deere a bad company? Of course not. But they should be a bit more active in trying to help these farmers instead of them being solely concerned with their own interests? Of course, and as Americans we should hold overly abusive corporations accountable for their actions . Remember, agricultural manufacturers & farmers should have a symbiotic relationship not a parasitic one.

The JFK Files: The Main Takeaways

Recently, The National Archives released thousands of classified government records on the John F. Kennedy assassination on October 23rd and November 3rd of 2017. Giving way for thousands of academics, journalists, & conspiracy theorists to sort through the ample amounts data. Though a great deal of the material is riddled with bureaucratic jargon, code names, and of course redacted info, the releases give an in depth and transparent look on these intelligence agencies at the time.

However, it’s worthy to note that thousands of other pages are being withheld for atleast 6 months. This coming after some slight pressure from the American intelligence community. Nonetheless, the recent releases have proved promising. The files cover a broad range of topics from detailing how intelligence was gathered from a stripper named “Kitty”, a 20 page “analysis” on Dr Martin Luther King, and even some creative ideas on how Cuban leader Fidel Castro should be assassinated. But the main focus of this article will be on the intelligence gathered by the FBI and CIA in the midst of the JFK assassination. Here are 4 things the public should know about the recent releases.

1. The Anonymous Call

An intelligence cable from a CIA station in London received intel gathered by MI-5 (Britain’s Security Service) about a strange call a local news reporter received. On November 22, 1963 a senior reporter from the Cambridge News received a call from an anonymous caller who said “(The Reporter) should call the American Embassy in London for some big news” the caller promptly hung up. About 25 minutes later president John F Kennedy was assassinated.

The senior reporter said he’d never received a call like that ever in his life and the MI-5 went so far as to say he was ” (A) sound and loyal person with no security record”. The MI-5 found it worthy to also note that this call was similar to other calls received by various other journalist involving the Dr Ward Case ( a case which dealt with a sexual scandal & espionage that could’ve crippled the British government in 1963)

2. Oswald’s Visa Talk: Phone Call Intercepts from the Soviet & Cuban embassies

In the weeks prior to the murder of JFK Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to secure visas from Cuba and the Soviet Union while in Mexico City. Both embassies seemed to try to help him get these long term visa’s despite his “terrible, hardly recognizable Russian” and poor Spanish. Silvia Duran (Cuban Consulate worker) was the first to be engaged in discussion with Oswald over a long term visa possibilities in Cuba. She tries to assist him in obtaining a Russian visa in order to make getting a Cuban Visa easier. She phones the Russian embassy and tries to see if they can come to some agreement over Oswald’s visa dilemma. Oswald claimed to be a part of a “pro-Cuban group”, but Silvia couldn’t get a visa for him initially because” he (knew) no one in Cuba” . Furthermore, obtaining a Russian Visa would take a long time, and evidently Oswald wasn’t worthy enough of a Russian recommendation. That didn’t stop his efforts. Oswald would then go through a series of phone calls with Russian officials about his visa status (one being Kostikov a KGB Agent specialized in assassination). However a man called Obyedkov abruptly hangs up on him in the middle of a conversation about a telegram.

Now why is this whole visa situation important? Well, clearly it shows us that Oswald was trying to relocate to either Cuba or Russia. But that raises more questions. Specifically, what were his motivations for obtaining these visas? Was he trying to obtain them as an escape plan for him to use after his assassination plot? Or was he trying to defect to these countries for other purposes?

Moreover, “Obyedkov” hanging up on Oswald should be a cause for further questioning. Was “Obyedkov” simply frustrated with Oswald, did he finally find out about Oswald’s self caused hospitalization back when he visited the USSR, or was he aware of something else?

3. November 24, 1963: Tell ’em It was Oswald.

This document is the least legible of the documents covered in this article and was written around 45 minutes after Oswald died. Oddly, it has no title, the author of this document isn’t named (But it can be assumed the words came from Hoover) , and it’s prefaced with “Mr J. Edgar Hoover said as follows”.

Th Document starts off in a rather blunt tone the first sentence says ” There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead.” It goes on to talk about Jack Ruby as Oswald’s murder, and briefly mentions his background. In addition, it seems as if Hoover was worried that Dallas Police officials were revealing too much information on Oswald and Ruby. Hoover feared it could potentially compromise the legal process.

In the third to last paragraph Hoover seems to be concerned about “…having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”. The paragraph goes on to talk about how the FBI could persuade the Attorney General that Oswald was the guy by using “pictures, laboratory work etc”. That would then lead the public to believe Oswald did it.

4. The Watson and Hoover Soviet MEMO

A couple sources working covertly in high Soviet and KGB positions offered some insight on how the Soviet government reacted to the Kennedy assassination.

The Soviets believed that the assassination wasn’t orchestrated by one man, but rather a highly organized “ultraright” group wishing to initiate a coup. In conjunction, they were fearful that some irresponsible general from the USA would launch a missile at the USSR. This coupled with other concerns instantly put the Soviet Union in a state of national alert.

The Soviets knew that Oswald was in the USSR for a period of time but they described him as “a neurotic maniac who was disloyal to his own country and everything else”. Additionally, they noted that he wasn’t involved in any organization in the Soviet Union and never received citizenship.

Also, the agents were able to infiltrate a high level KGB meeting, headed by Boris Ivanov (head of KGB) in New York City. Ivanov felt that the recent assassination was a problem for the KGB. And that this problem needed to be brought to every KGB agents attention until it was solved. The KGB also felt that the assassination couldn’t have been conducted by a sole perpetrator. The agency then put forth a plan to gather as much data possible about any possible group that could’ve executed the assassination plot.

Furthermore, Ivanov emphasized collecting as much intel about Lyndon B Johnson as possible. Quite frankly the Soviets knew nothing about him. They wanted an in depth search on “his background, his past working experience and records in congress..”.

2 years later the KGB met again in NYC after gathering intelligence about President Johnson. The source states that (per the instructions from Moscow) the KGB was in possession of data that would prove LBJ was responsible for the JFK assassination.

The document concludes with notes on several critical reports about the Warren Commission by Soviet media outlets.

Despite these main points, there is still plenty more to be uncovered by the recent data release. And the files that have revealed valuable information have in effect raised even more questions.

Feel free to indulge in the first hand declassified sources below.

The Anonymous Call: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32389606.pdf

VISA TALK: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10010-10249.pdf

TELL ‘EM IT WAS OSWALD: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32263509.pdf

WATSON and HOOVER MEMO: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32204484.pdf

Gerrymandering & Redistricting; A Supreme Court Affair

Gerrymandering, a technique that has helped fuel various political machines, is a topic of great debate within the Untied States. Gerrymandering on the surface is undemocratic. Allowing a political party that’s in power to redraw voting lines will naturally lead them to misuse their power. Partly because parties have used the technique to maintain political power by redrawing districts in their favor by diluting voting power. As was the case in 2011 in Wisconsin, where Republicans received a majority of house seats (60%) with only 49% of the state wide vote. How is this possible? Simple; Gerrymandering. It’s this overt case of the corrupt technique that has brought the debate to the Supreme Court. The Court plans to issue it’s ruling on Gill v. Whitford (The Wisconsin case) in June 2018. Whatever side the court rules on, one thing is for sure: it will set a monumental precedent in terms of governing in the USA. (I’ve included a video explaining gerrymandering further down below.)

However, gerrymandering has two sides. Interestingly enough it’s been used to empower disenfranchised voices that have been diluted (usually by gerrymandering). Though the Court didn’t directly state it, racial redistricting was deemed somewhat constitutional. Here’s how they justified it.

The case involved in the debate was called United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg v Carey. In short, Kings County administrators followed the District Attorneys of New York’s plan of redistricting (In conjunction with the Civil Rights Act). Part of the provision called for certain districts to reach a nonwhite majority of 65 percent. Coincidentally, a Hasidic Jewish community was located in one of these districts. The effect of the provision was that the community was split in half, and was reassigned to an adjoining district. The Jewish community would then bring a suit for injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that the 1974 plan violated their rights under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, arguing that the plan diluted their franchise. The case would soon make it’s self up the ladder to the eyes of the Supreme Court.

The Court tip toed on it reasoning of the case. For the sake of simplicity and to save you time on the legal jargon here are the main points of the Courts justification of New York’s redistricting plan:

The Court mentions that racial discriminatory redistricting is unconstitutional.
Since the redistricting follows the provisions in the Civil Rights Act it isn’t discriminatory but rather hopes to reverse discrimination.
So the use of racial criteria in drawing district lines may be required per Civil Rights Act (Specifically Voting Act)
Additionally, the use of racial criteria is not limited to remedies of explicit prior discrimination.
The use of numerical racial quotas in establishing certain black majority districts does not automatically violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
The Court also says the constitution doesn’t recognize the Jewish Communities right to reapportionment as a separate entity.

Clearly the court relied heavily on the Civil Rights Act legislation and rightly so, in terms of the specific justification for enfranchisement of persecuted communities. But also seems to undermine the Jewish community. American history shows that those people haven’t necessarily been treated fairly either. Furthermore, gerrymandering is totally ignored in the Courts argument. Perhaps trying to devout their attention to the pressing societal challenges plaguing the era at the time. Racial tensions were high and The Court justified the means to combat racial injustice. However, in that pursuit the Court may have indirectly set a precedent for justifying gerrymandering.

In all, gerrymandering is a complicated and nuanced subject; making it justified in multiple idiosyncratic realms. But the core of the issue is undemocratic. It gives room for manipulation by people seeking to fulfill their own sinister interests. If those sinister acts are possible then shouldn’t it be abolished? We’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say when confronted with the core issue in June.

LINK

Sources: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/430/144.html

Catalonia: Spain’s Savage Hypocrisy

Catalonia, a region in Northeastern Spain with a unique culture, language, and identity. A culture and history you can argue that is distinctly not “Spanish”.

Catalonia has seemed to have it’s identity trapped within the walls of Spain throughout it’s history. Before the kingdoms of Castille and Aragon combined their lands in the 15th century (this would later become modern day Spain), Catalonia was largely independent. It wasn’t until later centuries of Spanish conquest that Catalonia found itself on the losing side of a series of wars, which led to it’s absorption into Spain. But despite this, the Catalan culture and economy remained vibrant and vehemently independent.

EP603 — “The Boatman Of Barcelona” by Dionisio Baixeras y Verdaguer (Spanish, Barcelona 1862–1943 Barcelona)

Fast forward to the 1930’s in Catalonia. Nationalism is running high and the Spanish Civil War is in full effect in the region. The Catalans recognized the void and decided to fight for their independence.However, despite their efforts the separatist would lose. That resulted in a win for Francisco Franco, a dictator backed by Nazi Germany. He went on to suppress civil liberties by banning the Catalan language, books, and other cultural events. He imprisoned and killed many Catalan leaders and activists in the process. This suppression would last until 1975 when Franco died.

Now the argument for the separation of Spanish and Catalan culture in it’s essence could be chalked up as subjective. People perhaps might say that they are different yet synonymous, along the lines of a symbiotic relationship. But one thing that isn’t subjective (or symbiotic) is Catalonia’s huge economic contributions to Spain’s overall GDP (Catalonia’s nominal GDP in 2014 was €200 billion the highest in Spain). Which is excellent for Spain’s tax revenue, but undermines a majority of Catalans who feel as if they’re being ‘robbed’ by the central government in Madrid. Because often, the way the tax revenue is used neglects Catalonia’s regional interests. Giving way for feelings of neglect and exploitation. Symbiotic relationships require two parties to benefit, but by definition when only one party benefits it becomes a PARASITIC relationship. It’s these idiosyncratic differences (both cultural and economic) that have put the region at odds with the Spain’s central government throughout history, and even more so in our modern political sphere.

The modern Catalan sentiment is that the region does more for Spain in terms of the economy than what it gets in return from Spain. That frustration, mixed with the Catalan historical identity has been fuel for recent separatist movements. Recently the regional Catalan parliament passed a law on Sept. 6th 2017 to hold a referendum on independence, Spain’s national government said it was illegal and filed a complaint to the National Constitutional Court. Spain ruled that the referendum was unconstitutional. Nevertheless the Catalans went on with referendum process. Spain responded by shutting down the referendums website, sending the police to stop any polls that had been set up for the referendum, and they confiscated about 10 million ballot papers/ millions of advertising posters. Successfully suppressing the democratic process. Additionally, around 700 of Catalonia’s about 900 mayors are being held under investigation for their role for preparing the referendum. Many of them could possibly face bans on holding democratically elected public office. Despite this many of them will continue to represent their constituents in Catalonia.

At the moment it’s unclear what’s going to happen in Spain amidst this democratic and political crisis. Things seem to be a bit rocky in terms of institutional implementation. Regardless, the world is watching.

Sources: AP

https://www.britannica.com/place/Catalonia

My Junior Year Research Paper

and Wikipedia for dates

A Case For Free Speech: Abrams v United States

Background

On August 23rd 1918, four political anarchist were arrested in New York City for handing out ‘anti war leaflets’ in the streets. Among the people arrested for passing out the leaflets were Jacob Abrams, a Russian immigrant and anarchist, along with his other ‘comrades’; Molly Steitmer, Samuel Lipman, and Hyman Lachowsky. The leaflets were written/printed in two languages, one version was written in Yiddish and another in English. They were distributed throughout the city, and condemned Woodrow Wilson’s involvement in World War I (The Yiddish leaflet called for a general strike to protest against government intervention). The group of protesters were indicted under the Sedition Act of 16 May 1918 which made it a crime to “willfully utter, print, write,or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the United States government, additionally it was against the law to “willfully urge, incite or advocate any curtailment of production” of things “necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war… with intent by such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the prosecution of the war.”. The group of protesters were found guilty before federal district court judge Henry DeLamar Clayton, Jr., they were sentenced to serve between 15- 20 years in federal prison. The defendants appealed their conviction on the grounds of free speech and it went all the way up to the Supreme Court. Their case arguments began on the 21st of October 1919 and a final decision was made in November of that same year.

Majority opinion (with a vote of 7 to 2 Written by Justice John Hessien Clarke)

In the middle of the appeals process the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of antiwar socialist under the Espionage Act of 1917 (Schneck v United States) and under the Sedition Act of 1918 (Debs v United States). Both cases would be influential in the reasoning behind the Abram’s case. Additionally, both decisions were unanimous and were written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who reasoned in the Schneck case that “[t]he question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a circumstance and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring substantive evils that congress has a right to prevent”. A similar line of reasoning would be used in the Abrams case by the majority opinion written by Justice Clarke. The leaflets were indeed a ‘clear and present danger’, Clarke rationalized that because they had been handed out “at the supreme crisis of the war” and could be simplified as “an attempt to defeat the war plans of the Government”. Any form of speech that impeded (or could impeded) the American war effort was now deemed the law of the land.

Dissenting Opinion (Written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes )

Ironically, the dissenting opinion would come from the man who had written the opinions which set the precedent for the reasoning behind the argument for Abrams conviction. His dissent went against his previous definition of ” clear and present danger”. Justice Holmes had drastically modified his point of view by the time he’d have to see the Abrams case. Having been personally disturbed by the oppression resulting from the anti radical hysteria of the time, and being influenced by lawyers with libertarian interpretation of the law, Holmes began to lean towards a more libertarian point of view on the “clear and present” danger precedent.

Holmes now reasoned, “(congress) constitutionally may punish speech that produces or is intended to produce a clear and imminent danger that will bring about forthwith certain substantive evils that the United States constitutionally may seek to prevent” Furthermore, Holmes denied that ” the surreptitious publishing of a silly leaflet by an unknown man” created an imminent threat to the government. For Holmes the First Amendment protected the expression of all opinions ” unless they imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country”.

The Supreme Courts would continue to battle with the definition of “clear and imminent” danger when it came to free speech, and the Abrams case is an important case for this fight for free speech. What stands out the most in this case is the eloquent and well articulated dissent of Justice Holmes. He opens up the discussion for future generations of the connection between freedom of speech, the search for the truth, and the importance of worldly experimentation: holmes-and-supreme-court

” But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment”

Wise words from a decent man.

Sources: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14321466231676186426&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Imprisonment & Economics: The Art of Legislation

You are who you imprison. Well, that’s what Plato would’ve said if he would’ve written The Republic in the modern era. Actually maybe not, but he would’ve been able to see the connection between modern economics, legislation and imprisonment. Being the genius that he was he’d probably devise a theory about this correlation, it’d be lofty, and well articulated. But since he’s no longer with us you’ll have to settle for my condensed version.

The first aggressive and transparent instances of this correlation emerge around the age of Mercantilism. They would debut in the form of legislative mandates all across Europe, particularly the Anglo-sphere. Michele Foucault (Historian and author of Madness and Civlisation) argues and points out that during this period:

“The first houses of corrections were opened in England during a full economic recession. The act of 1610 recommended only certain mills and weaving & carding shops to all houses of correction in order to occupy the pensioners. But what had been a moral requirement became an economic tactic when commerce and industry recovered after 1651, the economic situation having been re-established by the Navigation act and the lowering of the discount rate. All able-bodied manpower was to be used to the best advantage, that is, as cheaply as possible. When John Carey established his workhouse project in Bristol he ranked the need for work first: “the poor of both sexes…. May be employed in beating hemp,dressing and spinning flax, or in carding wool and cotton”…Sometimes there were even arrangements which permitted private entrepreneurs to utilize the manpower of the asylums for their own profit” (Madness and Civilisation 52-53)

In a nutshell, Foucault emphasizes the interdependence between economics/legislation, and the effect they had on the development of correctional facilities in the age of Mercantilism. In this case an economic recession has hit England and in response the government passed legislation in order to regulate the economy. A fairly normal measure for governments trying to lessen the effects of an economic catastrophe. But it’s the methods that are deployed which raise cause for alarm.

In a desperate attempt to save the economy England outlawed abject poverty, homelessness, and “loose, idle and disordley behavior(the latter was never given a clear legal definition) . They sent all “offenders” to correctional facilities, where they were locked in a cell and forced to work . The proper terminology for this systemic means of punishment is called Poor Relief. It was a way for the government to absorb the “non productive” members of society into a system of regulated labor. That newly established labor pool was then used by the big businesses of the time to make a profit during the economic recession. These organizations would come into these ‘houses of correction’ and use the free prison labor enabling them to turn a profit during a recession. Basically they exploited the new source slave labor.

Additionally, Poor Relief should be looked at as a form of societal control in the face of economic hardship. By rounding up the impoverished of society, England was able to mask how catastrophic things were by forcing everyone to be economically productive. This enables a suppression of any societal/political agitation. After all people without jobs can’t protest the state of the economic climate if they’ve already been arrested for not having a job. That allowed England to ‘kill two birds with one stone’:( 1) because more of the population is able contribute to the economy (increasing economic efficiency) and (2 )the threat of civil unrest is suppressed. The first instances of modern mass incarceration have begun to take shape.

(in hindsight England was able to fully recover from their economic catastrophe)

Fast forward to the latter part of the 20th century. A time of extreme ideological tension across the globe. Perpetrated by an ongoing Cold War between two world superpowers, the USSR and the USA. During the Reagan administration the goal was clear; the Soviets had to be stopped. The administration would spend their time conducting extensive research to determine the Soviet’s systemic weaknesses. One of the weaknesses identified was an economic one. The administration figured out that by strangling the USSR with economic sanctions and making sure the US economy expanded at an exponential rate, the USA could win the Cold War. Rendering the Soviet economist Leonid Kantorovich’s Nobel prize winning work on optimal resource allocation useless. In hindsight, Reagan’s supply side economics (Reaganomics) would prove to be an effective strategy in the aim to stimulate and grow the American financial sector, albeit artificially. By stripping away and adding new red tape, laissez-faire economics dominated and took American capitalism to places it had never been before. Despite all that, some sectors of the American economy needed artificial legislative means to achieve that record growth.

In the 1980’s the number of arrests of drug offenses rose by 126% (National Council on Crime and Delinguency 1989). Mainly due to legislative acts such as the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. It was a mandate which radically revised the American criminal code system;It gave the government more power in civil forfeiture, reinstated the federal death penalty, and increased federal penalties for cultivation, possession, or sale of Marijuana. This was an indirect effect of Reagan’s supply driven economic stimulus. Because in order for the USA to beat out the Soviets, the US market needed to be operating at near full capacity. That meant everyone was needed to contribute to the system. No matter who you were. What followed these mandates was the rapid development of the ‘for profit privatized prison industrial complex’ . In these new prisons a new criminal was cultivated to populate them, the non-violent drug offender. As the prison industry grew so did the abundance of this newly cultivated criminal. This in effect meant more free labor for the American economic system as prisons became a new place for corporations to use “outsourced” prison labor. Leading to even more diverse growth in the corporate structure. For example, if Walmart uses prison labor to create an assembly line for a product (which it does) , then that product is cheaper for consumers, which incentivizes them to shop at Walmart.

But a lot of the economic growth in this era was feigned under complicated laws which inflated economic statistics. An example of this would be corporate share buy back schemes. This financial technique is used by corporations to inflate numbers by buying shares of the company back from individuals who’ve bought them. Share prices are inflated because less shares are out in the public’s hands. But this alone doesn’t necessitate growth. The reason why the profit margins grow is because investors are ignorant of the fact that the company is buying back it’s own shares. Generally, if people were aware of that corporate behavior confidence in that corporation would diminish. Ideally you’ll want the company to invest it’s money on the product/service it’s providing in order to turn a profit. When a company starts buying back shares that shows a lack of focus in terms of direct capital accumulation from the business. Instead buying back shares shows that a firm is more focused on marketing the fact they are still profitable. A desperate attempt to save their reputation. In principal nothing is wrong with this. But it’s wrong when the US legislation allows corporations to mask the fact they are buying back shares. This allows corporations to lie and potentially defraud investors. But ever since the 1980’s share buybacks have been allowed to remain nontransparent. Practices such as these can result in big economic bubbles. This is especially concerning when considering the fact that Goldman Sachs has recently bought back $780 billion worth of it’s own shares to avoid public scrutiny, giving us insight that this behavior is alive and well in the 21st century. Subtly, there’s an implication that the prison system may not have even played a significant part in the economic war waged by the USSR and USA. If it did generate growth then it must’ve been minimal. What seemingly played a significant role is the non transparency of certain economic strategies, one of them being corporate buy back schemes. But the creation of the non violent drug offender allowed the US private prison system a new source of labor, and therefore created growth within that industry. Nevertheless, Reaganomics resulted in a exponential growth for the American economy, one of the key factors that resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Just another concrete example of the relationship shared between legislation, economics, and imprisonment.

In all, when economic instability is on the horizon, one should expect a response from those controlling the resources within a given society. This response will often translate into laws and it’s effect can be easily mapped overtime.

(Sources)

Madness and Civilisation By Michelle Foucault

The 1989 NCCD Prison Population Forecast: The Impact of the War on Drugs By James Austin Aaron David McVey

Trumps Climate Withdrawal: What It Means and International/Domestic Responses

Staying true to his campaign rhetoric, Trump has effectively decided to kill the Paris Climate Accord. Essentially ending government support for future innovation in the American economy. The move seems to be an attempt to bring back the dying American coal industry, despite the lack of evidence that pulling out will do just that. That’s because it’s hard to ignore that the cost of clean energy is plummeting in comparison to coal, making it more affordable to consumers.

Additionally, according to most “reputable” economists climate change will begin to have a net negative impact on the global economy (the median estimates say by 2025 is when the full effects will be felt). The economic sectors that would be most affected unsurprisingly include Agriculture (94% ) Fishing (74%) Tourism (72%) Insurance (66%) and Health Services (54%). And the United States could’ve used a overhaul of it’s current economic climate policy by further incentivizing corporations and individuals to innovate by bolstering the American economy while at the same time curving pollution. Logically this is what will most likely help those disenfranchised by the economic collapse of the coal industry. A new industry equals new jobs for those effected by the coal decline. And a business oriented mind such as Trumps should easily recognize the economic benefits of going “green” namely: Incentivizing business by providing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which enables a head start in a new and emerging market, and the creation of more jobs through a “going green” infrastructural overhaul.

But instead Trump has decided to go a different route by pulling out of the Paris Accord. Was it to satisfy constituents by fulfilling his campaign promises? Or perhaps to distract from the scandals going on in the White House(?) Whatever the reason the fact remains that the Trump Administration has pulled out as the symbolic administrative leader of the global climate initiative. And in effect an unsuspecting “green alliance” has been forged to combat the looming global climate crisis.

The European Union and China have agreed to fill the vacuum left by the USA as the leaders of innovation amidst the climate crisis. A week after Trump announced his withdrawal from the Paris Accord, China and the EU met in Brussels to talk about the future of their climate policies. The two parties (for the first time ever) are now in agreement “to forge ahead” with measures to “lead the energy transition” towards a global low-carbon economy. Specifically by committing to cut back on fossil fuels, developing more green technology, and jointly working to raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer countries cut their emissions. This “green alliance” seems to be calculated response to the Trump administrations protectionist economic framework. After all the EU and China’s agreement seem to be in the favor of free trade, economic growth and innovation, while at the same time combating the climate change epidemic. A stark contrast to Trump’s crony and isolationist economic tactics. Furthermore, China has committed to a plan to develop 150 gigawatts of solar energy by the end of the decade, the EU is leading in wind power energy and recently France (via Macron) has additionally incentivized scientists and business leaders alike to come to France, in order to “work on concrete climate solutions”. As of now the EU is the leader for positive climate policy implementation and China is well on it’s way towards that path. And this new green alliance will only seek to economically and environmentally improve both regions.

However there is a silver lining. Despite the Trump Administration withdrawal from the Paris Agreement top American business leaders are still working towards the global climate initiative. CEO’s from Apple, ExxonMobil, Jp Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and most notable Elon Musk (who left the President advisory council after the decision)were ALL in dissent after Trumps withdrawal. Yes that’s right! natural gas companies and big financial firms AREN’T in favor of the decision and will continue to uphold the Paris Accord’s framework. Nick Atkins (CEO of American Electric Power, Coal company) had this to say “(T)his gets a lot of questions from investors, we get a lot of questions from customers, that … want renewable energy solutions, clean energy solutions. And we at AEP want to be as benign to the environment as we can”. However, these businesses could’ve used additional tax incentives by going with clean energy (allowing for further economic growth) and Trump had the power to help. He clearly chose not to.

The majority of the American population doesn’t agree with Trumps withdrawal either, according to a recent Washington Post- ABC news poll that says 59 percent oppose the move. Having said that several states have formed a bipartisan group committed to upholding the Paris Accord, called the United States Climate Alliance. Among the members are New York and California, huge economic influencers. If the USCA was a country it’d be 4th in terms of GDP. Providing hope for the future. After all the President’s decision doesn’t matter if the societal collective refuses to obey.

EDIT: While I wrote this the US Ambassador to China David Rank resigned because of Trumps Climate withdrawal

Sources: “Expert Consensus on the Economics of Climate Change” by the Institute for Policy Integrity, NYU School of Law.

Click to access 20160527_1_a1_-_c_2016_2989_f1_annex_en_v1_p1_850173_en.pdf

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21722914-china-and-europe-plan-lead-climate-efforts-whither-world-after-americas-retreat

http://governor.wa.gov/news-media/united-states-climate-alliance-adds-10-new-members-coalition-committed-upholding-paris