"Crazy Rich Asians" features an all-Asian cast, first in 25 years

Courtesy of Variety

Adapted from Kevin Kwan's novel, "Crazy Rich Asians" has an all-Asian cast, which hasn't happened for a big motion picture since "The Joy Luck Club" in 1993. The movie stars Constance Wu ("Fresh Off the Boat") and is about a love story between an American professor and her boyfriend, who comes from an opulent family in Singapore. Although the cast has nearly all Asians, it hones in on the cultural aspects of east Asians (specifically Chinese and Singaporean) and does not include southeast Asians.

Some have been dubbing "Crazy Rich Asians" the "Black Panther" for Asians because of their diverse casts.

The trailer was recently released and will be in theaters on Aug. 17.

Opinion: I do not think "Crazy Rich Asians" will be the "Black Panther" for the Asian community. "Black Panther" had many historic and cultural nuances in the framing of a superhero movie. However, "Crazy Rich Asians" is lighthearted and may not appeal to as wide of an audience. At the same time, I believe it is important for major film studios to take risks on featuring predominantly non-white casts. Growing up, I did not see many Asian actors in American movies, and when I did, they often played token or stereotypical roles. I hope "Crazy Rich Asians" will do well in the box office, so film studios continue to produce movies with diverse casts and see that there is a market for such movies.

Questions:
What do you think the impact of "Crazy Rich Asians" will be?
Do you think it's important for movies to have diverse casts? Why?
What other cultures should be highlighted in a major motion picture?

Sources:

The Guardian

LA Times
Teen Vogue

Here's a link to the movie's trailer: https://youtu.be/WDhwEqxKCss

Martin Scorsese slams Rotten Tomatoes and 'the devaluation of cinema' at TCM fest

link

Last Thursday evening, Scorsese gave an acceptance speech for the Robert Osborne award at the TCM fest in Hollywood. Scorsese, a renowned director of the modern era, is described by DiCaprio as knowledgeable, committed, and drawing inspiration.

During the acceptance speech, Scorsese has stated that review aggregators such as Rotten Tomatoes lead films to be "instantly judged and dismissed" before audiences can see them and judge them for themselves. He describes the "devaluation of cinema," where movie images are being lumped together with everything else, and how there's no sense of inherent value being tied with movies. Nowadays, the content is being emphasized over the actual art form of the movie, and audiences are not even able to make decisions themselves about the movie.

While Scorsese takes a noble stance on the current state of movies, it's a stance that I don't agree with. First, I would argue that it's actually Hollywood and the consumer base that is causing the apparent "devaluation" of cinema. I mean, sure it's true that often times it's the same action/superhero movies or horror movies filled with stupid jumpscares that are still managing to fill the theatres all the time, but it's a combination of the majority of the consumer base happening to like them as a form of basic entertainment (as opposed to an art form) and Hollywood trying to cash in. I mean, the same thing was present 60 years ago with the rehashing of Westerns over and over again. But Scorsese blaming Rotten Tomatoes doesn't make much sense to me, because movie reviews have been around even before the internet, and it's simply impractical for someone to pay some crazy sums of money to see every movie in theatres and create their own opinions about it. Sure, there are some aspects of these sites that can be improved, but I find no issue with the idea itself.

Do you guys think Scorsese is right when he describes the devaluation of cinema? Do you think Rotten Tomatoes is one of the problems of modern cinema, and if so how should we change it? And what changes do you think we will see with cinema and the movie industry in the future?

"The census is a threat to the communities of color"

Washington Post Article

Summary:

Many people have reacted to Trump’s proposal to include a citizenship question in 2020 Census. The
appearance of this question is likely to reduce immigrant participation in the census. A lack of
immigrant participation may cause a racial inequality that is plainly unconstitutional, as the inequality
limits minority representation. The Census Bureau claims that they are working on a digital approach to
the Census; another factor that may limit minority participation due to a possible lack of access to the internet.

Analysis:

I think this somewhat relates to the idea of gerrymandering. This issue with the census is not as obvious
as gerrymandering, but I think it can have a similar effect if policymakers are deliberate enough. It is
also stated that individuals will be asked about their relationship status in terms of same-sex marriage/relationship
or not (see the NPR article linked below). I do not think asking citizenship or relationship status is relevant
to the purpose of the census. A quick Google search directed me to its purpose: “...accurately apportioning
congressional districts, the federal government uses census data... to determine: the allocation of federal
funding for education programs in states and communities” (This Nation).
By placing the question of citizenship on the census paired with a push towards digitization and relationship
status, I think there is an underlying motive to limit and suppress minorities’ votes, as there will be less representation
and, thus, less federal funds flowing into the heavily minority-populated areas.

Questions:
1) Do you agree or disagree with Donald Trump’s addition of the citizenship question onto the census? Why or why not?
2) What do you think are Trump’s motives in the addition of the question?
3) Do you think demographic information such as citizenship status and even sexuality is relevant to the census?
Why or why not?

Sources:

Washington Post Article

Census's Stated Plan

NPR distinguishes differences

USA Today's take

Porn star Stormy Daniels sues President Trump for defamation

link

As a part of her trial, Stormy Daniels has presented evidence of a composite sketch of a man who approached her in 2011 and threatened her to stay quiet about the Trump affair. Earlier in April, Trump made a tweet criticizing the composite sketch, stating it was essentially fake news: "A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)."

A filing against Trump has been made stating that the tweet was false and defamatory, and that he knew his "false and disparaging statements" would be heard around the world and has exposed her threats of death and other physical violence. She is seeking a jury trial and other undisclosed damages. This is the latest lawsuit from Daniels, who is already suing to be released from a non-disclosure agreement she agreed to in 2016.

Personally, I think that Stormy Daniels doesn't exactly have much grounds for argument as the plaintiff for a defamation case, as she has to prove both falsehood and malice within Trump's tweets, which would be difficult. Since she is considered a public figure, it would be even harder for her to win the case (as opposed to a private figure). However, while I do think it's not necessarily a sound decision from a purely legal standpoint, I do think that this is a smart political move from Daniels' team in order to stay on the radar and in the minds of the American public, and stay on the news headlines. Though I don't know how much this will exactly amount to, I do think she's able to push her agenda little by little and garner more support by using litigation.

Do you think Daniels will win the lawsuit for defamation that she is going to file? And what do you think will be the final result of this battle between Daniels and Trump? Will there be any long-lasting changes in response to what's going on right now, or will we continue to head in the same path?

U.S. won’t restore grizzly bear protections near Yellowstone National Park

link

Officials of the US national parks refuse to restore federal protections for Yellowstone-area grizzly bears, despite a court ruling that opposed the government's rationale for turning grizzly management over to the states. Officials disagreed with the ruling, because they state that population has already recovered. Bears outside this area (in the other 48 states) will still remain protected.

Conservation groups and Native American tribes have challenged the court ruling, stating that killing grizzly bears diminishes the population of other bears. Conservation groups claim that the bears are occupying less than 5 percent of their historical range. But this may be due to a concentration of the bears in one area and their inability to spread themselves, which is a problem in itself. 

I think that there's too much commotion being caused over the area called into question, because the facts (which the article didn't do a very good job of articulating) are that there are currently too many bears. Of course the land should be preserved, but there needs to be a balance maintained between hunting and protecting species to a certain extent, or else the entire ecosystem will be destroyed. 

Are the officials justified in their actions? Do you think primary authority over protecting specifically these species (like grizzlies) should be handed over to the states? Finally, how do you think the population of a species can be managed, and do you think hunting is an effective solution to the problem?

The War Between the Federal Government and Blue States

Article link

                                          Source: Andrea Bruce, New York Times

The battle between liberal states and the Trump administration's conservative enforcement of immigration policy is continuing in Federal Court. One main question considers whether state and local authorities should be involved with federal immigration efforts and if so, how? Another issue is whether a citizenship question should be added to the 2020 census, which California's attorney general objects to vehemently as it would only serve to distort the census and potentially divert political influence and resources from the state. Although executive powers have grown in recent decades, federal judges are exploring the question of whether executive overreach threatens constitutional principles such as separation of powers and checks against tyranny.

1. In 2019, how might the newly elected governor of California approach the antagonistic relationship that exists with the Federal Government at the moment?
2. Is it reasonable for the government to ask about citizenship on the 2020 census? Why or why not?
3. How should the Federal Court system be involved in this conflict?

Source: The New York Times

Barbara Bush, wife of George H.W. Bush and mother George W. Bush, dies at 92

Wikimedia Commons

Barbara Bush passed away last Tuesday at 92 due to her "failing health." Bush was the wife of George H.W. Bush and the mother of George W. Bush, who were both presidents. Additionally, she was the mother of Jeb Bush, a former governor of Florida.

Barbara Bush started The Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy to improve the lives of disadvantaged families by teaching kids and parents how to read. Additionally, she promoted AIDS awareness, even when it was heavily stigmatized in the late '80s and early '90s.

Although Bush did not face much criticism in the public eye, she was outspoken in interviews and did not conform to society's expectations of her appearance. She was known as "everybody's grandmother" with her premature white hair and famous faux pearl necklace.

While her husband and two sons were campaigning for the presidency, she was supportive and made speeches for them. After Mrs. Bush's funeral, Bush Sr. was hospitalized. Newspapers are running headlines that he may be suffering from a broken heart, as the pair was married for 73 years. However, Bush Sr. was officially admitted to the ICU for a blood infection.

Questions you may answer:

• How do you think first ladies should use their influence while their husbands are in office? 
• What are some of the most notable programs that other first ladies have started?
• (Do you think suffering from a broken heart is real?)

Sources
Washington Post
NY Times

Make Paid Family Leave a Priority

The gender gap in the workforce is a huge problem, but we all know that. Specifically, women after they get pregnant and have a child have a hard time returning back to work at the same place or stature they left. Only 5 states have passed paid leave legislation whereas Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Iceland and more give women anywhere from 60%-full pay for anywhere up to a year. I'm not saying we need to go from 0-60 and suddenly make all states ensure women (and even the spouse) receive full pay for months and months, but at least pay 80% of their salary for up to 3 months. The article states women are having to return back to work 2 weeks after their baby is born. Childbirth is extremely physically demanding, and no women could properly regain their strength within 2 weeks.

What do you think would be the best policy for paid leave after pregnancy for both the mother and spouse? Should this be implemented by state or federal government?


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/22/opinion/paid-family-leave.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront

What happens when a patient says, 'Doc, help me die'

Constantly people have debated whether physician-assisted suicide is humane or not. Doctor's have given their opinion on whether or not they have assisted in the death of their sick patients, or whether they would do it if they had the chance. In the article, E. Wes. Ely, a doctor explains his experience with a patient of his who was suffering from lung fibrosis and pneumonia. The patient was clearly about to die and Ely writes the thought process he went through when asked by his patient, to "help [him] die." Last year, in AP English, one of the debate topics during our debate unit was the idea of physician-assisted suicide. One side claimed this should become legal following a few guidelines like the patient must be terminally ill and about to die within the next few months.

Although my debate was not on this topic, I strongly believe in physician-assisted suicide. My dad being a cancer doctor himself, I have constantly seen him come home, extremely distraught and agitated because he knows his patient is suffering. I believe it is unfair to make a person continue to live and suffer through the pain when they aren't even happy, and when they don't wish to live anymore. Of course, there are religious reasons which makes this issue so controversial; how in most religions committing suicide is a "sin." But when a person is in so much pain they no longer wish to live, why would you want them to suffer through that any longer just for your own personal reasons?

Do you believe physician-assisted suicide should be legal or illegal? What regulations or conditions should be implemented if it is made legal (ie patient must be terminally ill).

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/opinions/caregiving-what-its-like-to-be-me-wes-ely-opinion/index.html

Conservatives Shouldn't Want Jarrar Fired

Recently, an English professor at Fresno State posted a rather opinionated and careless comment on twitter, in response to Barbara Bush's death. Randa Jarrar stated that the former first lady was an "amazing" racist and she can't wait for the rest of the Bush family to die. As a person in academia, one who's job is to teach and expand the knowledge of students, a lot believe that Jarrar made a horrible and stupid mistake expressing this opinion online, and that she should be fired.

Furthermore, the writer of the article argues that conservatives especially should not oppose Jarrar's statement because on the Fresno State Campus, they are considered minorities because of their political views, and the first amendment could be argued to protect minorities. So, if conservatives wish for Jarrar to be fired, they are only hurting themselves and their future ability to speak their mind.

I think what Jarrar said was incredibly disrespectful and uncalled for; however, the first amendment does exist to protect ones right of free speech, and this comment on twitter is included under that amendment, so she should not be fired for speaking her mind.

Do you think Jarrar should be fired? Is Jarrar's comment protected under the first amendment? Should conservatives support or oppose Jarrar?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/04/19/conservatives-shouldnt-want-randa-jarrar-fired/?utm_term=.5df056c0d2fc

Treaty to Formally End Korean War Is Being Discussed, South Confirms

Chung Eui-yong, second from left, the South Korean president’s national security adviser, visiting Washington 

Officials from America as well as South and North Korea have been negotiating to formally end the Korean War after over six decades. Kim Jong-un has told South Korean officials that North Korea would be willing to relinquish their nuclear arms in exchange for security guarantees, which would include a peace treaty and the "normalization of ties" with the US, meaning that the US has to recognize North Korea diplomatically.

This peace treaty would have to involve China, who had fought on the North's side in the Korean War. China is supportive of the Korean War's end but has not endorsed the idea of a treaty. Analysts speculate that China's enthusiasm for a peace treaty has been dampened by rising tensions with the US over trade, especially after Washington decided to prevent American companies from providing parts to ZTE.

I think that if the treaty comes to pass, the relationship between the US, South Korea and the DPRK would definitely improve, but I doubt that the US would ever consider North Korea an ally, nor do I think that they would truly consider us their ally. China has, in the past, suggested a peace treaty to the Korean War, but with the trade conflict we have with them as of now, I do not think that they would want to cooperate with the US until tensions die down.

Treaty to Formally End Korean War Is Being Discussed, South Confirms
Chinese Tech Company Blocked From Buying American Components

Do you think that Kim Jong-un is sincere about giving up his nuclear arsenal?
If the treaty is successful, do you think that our relationship with North Korea will improve, to what extent?
Do you think that China would be willing to cooperate with the US to formally end the Korean War?

Who Is Miguel Díaz-Canel, Cuba’s New President?

Recently, the country of Cuba sees Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, Raúl Castro's handpicked successor, take the presidency. After Cuba and the Obama administration agreed to restore diplomatic relations freed up decades of stagnation and allowed interaction between the two countries to flow free. Díaz-Canel has been a bit of a mystery for onlookers in and out of Cuba. While being born after the revolution, Díaz-Canel slowly and steadily rose through the ranks of the bureaucracy through his strong belief in and loyalty to communism and the revolution. For most, he holds a stubborn duality in his views. On one hand, this fierce advocation of the socialist cause unaccepting of critics and willing to shut down their ideas; he has allegedly "led a campaign to stifle students who read and discussed literature that was not approved by the Communist Party", and was leaked in a video to verbally attack the U.S. claiming that Cuba "had no responsibility to meet its demands under the reconciliation brokered by President Barack Obama", before moving on to criticize a website he considered "subversive". However, he has also demonstrated a more liberal, approachable and friendly, modern side. He has been described as a "good listener", and has proved himself to be a strong ally of one of the country's only gay clubs. Díaz-Canel is reported to mix well with the intellectuals, artists, and youth, among whom he is well-liked and praised. He also biked to and from work instead of taking a government vehicle, although he was always trailed by personal security in vehicles. Moreover, he has pushed for internet access in Cuba to connect the country to the rest of the world. The National Assembly voted him into presidency unanimously on Thursday, welcoming him with a standing ovation.

In spite of Díaz-Canel's rigidity in his communist support, I believe Díaz-Canel to be an appropriate candidate for presidency, based on this article's descriptions of him. He's very open-minded and listens to people's concerns, which I consider to be essential qualities of a leader. He may be uncompromising when it comes to the traditionalist socialism ideas of his predecessors, but everyone has a belief they support fully and refuse to compromise on. If he is open to change and receptive to those he interacts with, I believe he will be a decent leader. What are your thoughts on Mr. Díaz-Canel and his firm standing for his predecessors' communist ideals? Do you believe Díaz-Canel has the qualities of a leader? Does he have the abilities to take on the many responsibilities of presidency of Cuba at this time, including reigniting the economy and accommodating the population's impatience with the country's change of pace?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/world/americas/miguel-diaz-canel-bermudez-cuba.html

Report Says Sean Hannity Linked To Other Trump-Connected Attorneys, Besides Cohen

A report from The Atlantic has connected Fox News host Sean Hannity to at least two other lawyers connected to Donald Trump, several days after he was revealed to be a client of Michael Cohen, Trump's personal attorney, in a raid on Cohen's office and hotel room. On an Oklahoma radio station, conservative activist Debbie Schlussel accused Hannity on the air of being "creepy" and inviting her to his hotel room. Following these remarks, Hannity claimed that the accusations were fabricated, and attorneys Jay Seulow and Victoria Toensing sent a cease-and-desist letter on Hannity's behalf to the station charging Schlussel's accusations as defamatory. Sekulow is employed by Trump, and Toensing had been prepared to join Trump's legal team as well before unidentified conflicts suddenly prevented the addition. Toensing has refused to reveal whether she still represented Hannity, saying she was unwilling to disclose her clients' identities. Toensing and Sekulow have also frequently been guests on Hannity's program.

In response to Alan Dershowitz, retired Harvard law professor and frequent guest on the show who called him out for not disclosing his relationship with Cohen, Hannity said the relationship was "minimal" and "minor". The next day he declared to have "occasional, brief conversations.... about legal questions I had or I was looking for input and perspective", but that he'd never been represented legally by Cohen. While I believe Hannity should have divulged that he had a personal connection to Cohen before defending him on air, but that the privacy of all involved parties (i.e. Hannity, Toensing, Cohen, and Sekulow) should be respected unless there is reason to suspect foul play. Do you believe Hannity's claims not to have been legally involved with Cohen? What are the implications of Hannity's indirect links to Trump? How much right to privacy should Hannity hold in this situation?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/18/603471930/besides-cohen-other-trump-connected-attorneys-linked-to-sean-hannity

How To Clean Up The Student Loan Mess

A huge issue that has been prevalent since the beginning of time is student loans. A majority of people who attended college have an enormous amount of debt due to their student loans. In a new study by a doctoral student in economics at Princeton, Daniel Herbst, Herbst discovered that the person who answers the phone at the loan company can determine the loan the person receives. It was determined that those enrolled in the income-based program, led to them obtaining a mortgage which would increase their chance of becoming a homeowner, while others received worse plans and were at higher risk for bad credit, reducing their ability to obtain a job or house. This reminds me of the film we watched in class, "Your Life, Your Money," where the college student Amanda McCormick ended up with $30,000 of debt. Her solution was to organize her payments based on needs versus wants. However, how could we have prevented Amanda from even acquiring this debt in the first place?

Two solutions have been proposed: Making the loan process easier to navigate and automatically placing people in an income-based program if they fall behind with their payments. Or, using the ideas of England and Australia and using a system of payroll withholding where one's loan payments would automatically change based on one's earnings. Which solution do you think would be the best to preventing bias in the loan company's, ensuring equality of student loans and decreasing their debt?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/06/business/how-to-clean-up-the-student-loan-mess.html

Israel warns Iran on military buildup in Syria, won't send jets to U.S. drill

Israel has decided not to send F-15 jets to their joint military exercise with the U.S. in Alaska due to fear of Iranian attack. Many Israeli officials have recently promised to respond to international threats, warning Iran that Israel will not hesitate to fight back if prompted. This is relevant to their fear of the increased influence of Hezbollah, which they have been targeting in more than 100 attacks within Syria. This includes, reportedly, the bombing of an air base that killed seven Iranian military personnel. Iran has threatened to retaliate to this attack. Israeli military officials claim (albeit without evidence) to have discovered that an Iranian drone that crossed the border in February was "armed with explosives" and "tasked to attack Israel". The former head of research at the Israeli Defense Force's military intelligence division, Yossi Kuperwasser, has expressed his lament at the lack of international help in keeping Iran in its place.

Experts believe in spite of high tensions that neither Israel nor Iran are seeking open conflict. Personally, I believe that if we can help, the U.S. should send support to ease the tension, though I fear the possibility of making things worse if we appear to be picking a side. At the moment at least, I hope that if it's true that neither party actually seeks to escalate the conflict that a Cold War situation where both sides avoid taking too drastic of measures to avoid full-on war. Do you think the U.S. should send support to Israel? Will the situation between Israel and Iran escalate? Trump has opposed the 2015 agreement (ending May 12, 2018) for easing international sanctions on Tehran if it abandons its nuclear weapons program; do you believe he will re-certify the pact? What are the consequences if he doesn't re-certify it?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-warns-iran-military-buildup-syria-won-t-send-jets-n866921

Secret Pompeo Mission to North Korea Shows Trump’s Trust in Spies Over Diplomats

Over Easter weekend, Donald Trump sent his CIA director and nominee for secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, on a secret meeting with Kim Jong Un. Trump intends Pompeo to replace Rex W. Tillerson, who Trump disliked and had little trust in, thus firing Tillerson after accepting Kim's meeting invitation. The two had openly disagreed about opening a diplomatic channel to negotiate with North Korea, although Trump is now open to negotiation with Pompeo in charge. James R. Clapper negotiated the release of two other Americans in 2014, but three Korean-Americans are still currently being detained in North Korea. Some are surprised Pompeo did not return with any visible concessions, specifically regarding the release of the three Americans. No date has been confirmed for the upcoming meeting between Kim and Trump as they have yet to determine a location. Trump has been in direct contact with Kim, and Pompeo has maintained contact with North Korean representatives and South Korean intelligence. On Pompeo's mission to North Korea, Trump has stated that it "went smoothly and a good relationship was formed", and that "denuclearization will be a great thing for World, but also for North Korea!"

Because the details of the communication between Trump and Kim are so obscure, I am unsure what to think of this, though I don't trust Trump and Pompeo to negotiate properly themselves without supervision. Hopefully his alleged "good relationship" with Kim is maintained when he meets with Kim himself. Some have expressed concerns over the CIA taking charge of orchestrating such a meeting; do you believe we have reasons for concern over so much control from the CIA? Why do you think Trump is keeping these meetings as secretive as possible? How successful will Trump be in negotiating with Kim?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/world/asia/trump-pompeo-north-korea.html

Putin warns of "global chaos" after U.S. led strike on Syria

Summary:
On Saturday, the Pentagon announced that it "overwhelmed and evaded Syrian air defenses overnight to strike every target at the heart of Syria’s chemical weapons program, in a multi-pronged attack from the air and sea alongside British and French allies." This was in response to an alleged sarin and chlorine gas attack on a Syrian rebel stronghold.

The Pentagon mentioned that Syria's air defense system was overwhelmed, and Russia's air defense system did not activate.

Russia, an ally to Assad, notably tried to introduce a U.N. resolution to condemn the joint airstrike, which was voted down by a majority of countries in the U.N.

Putin, the President of Russia, also made a call to Iran condemning the airstrike. The Kremlin released a statement saying, "Vladimir Putin, in particular, emphasized that if such actions continue in violation of the UN Charter, this will inevitably lead to chaos in international relations"

Analysis:
Russia and Syria notably signed a U.S. framework to destroy Syria's chemical weapons in 2014. While the chemical attack is still alleged, Assad has a clear motive to attack rebel bases and western countries say they have proof that the attack was committed by Assad...

The United States probably could invade Syria and install our own government like it did in Iraq if Syria wasn't backed by a nuclear power (oversimplification, obviously there are rebel groups to deal with). How far can we go without bringing on "global chaos" like Putin warns about?


Questions:
1.) How should the U.S. respond to violations of human rights?
2.) What should the role of the U.S. be in the middle east?
3.) How can the U.S. further its interests without causing a larger conflict?

Sources/Further Reading:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/04/16/world/16syria1/16syria1-master768-v2.jpg

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-pentagon/u-s-strikes-cripple-syrias-chemical-weapons-ability-pentagon-idUSKBN1HL0WE

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/putin-warns-global-crisis-after-u-s-led-strike-syria-n866151

Why America’s Black Mothers and Babies are in A Life or Death Crisis

Article: Why America’s Black Mothers and Babies are in A Life or Death Crisis

Summary:

This article was published in the New York Times Magazine and tells the story of Simon Landrum, an African American woman who suffered a stillbirth in 2016. Landrum’s story corroborated with many others demonstrate the crisis in black maternal and infant mortality in the United States.

Landrum noticed early signs of discomfort different than her previous pregnancies: sensitivity to light, headaches, and swollen feet and hands. Her doctor told her to take tylenol for the headaches and brushed off her concerns. At another appointment, Landrum reported that the headaches had intensified, and a handwritten note wedged in the files of her medical records notes a high blood pressure reading of 143/86. Nearly all of her symptoms pointed to pre-eclampsia (dangerously high blood pressure during pregnancy), however her official medical records to not mention high blood pressure or swelling. When Landrum complained more forcefully, her doctor offered to deliver the baby by C section before he went on vacation, a full 6 weeks earlier than the due date.

Four days later, Landrum lost her child and nearly bled to death in the process, needing nearly half a dozen of blood platelets to survive. Her story is one of many documented in this article. Studies have shown that black infants are more than twice as likely to die as white infants, and black women are four times more likely to die from pregnancy related causes. The racial disparity in infant and maternal mortality has been cited as a result of societal and systematic racism that creates toxic physiological stress. The dismissal of legitimate concerns and symptoms, hesitation to prescribe medicine, and neglection of care all contribute to the racial bias in health care that explains the black-white divide.

Questions:

1. What steps can be taken to improve black infant and maternal mortality rate?
2. Do the statistics surprise you? Why or why not?
3. Why do you think the US still has this crisis even though we are a developed and wealthy nation?

600 Questions: Mark Zuckerberg Testifies Infront of Congress

Summary:
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, was called to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees and later the House Energy and Commerce committees following the 2016 election and Cambridge Analytica scandals.

He was asked a variety of questions, from whether Facebook uses your phone's microphone for ads to how they will handle data breaches in the future.

Zuckerberg reportedly prepared for his hearing like it was a presidential debate with a team of experts that even included a former special assistant to George W. Bush. The hearing was described by many media outlets as a "grilling session", however, Zuckerberg handled the hearing incredibly well. He did say he felt personally responsible for the current events.

A quick summary of the hearings:

•  Zuckerberg had to dispel common myths about Facebook "listening in" on conversations and also explain how its business model works to senators who didn't quite understand. Many Senators also criticized Facebook's business model.
• Addressing concerns about foreign countries buying election ads, Zuckerberg said that Facebook is going to “require a valid government identity and then verify the location”, however when pressed if he was able to identify shell companies with this method he said he couldn't. He also said that Facebook is successfully blocking fraudulent ads in other countries with AI and that technology will be applied to US elections in the future. 
• When asked why Facebook didn't report the data leak to the FTC, Zuckerberg said that Facebook requested that Cambridge Analytica delete the data it received in violation of Facebook's ToS and that they believed it was a "closed case" (obviously, that didn't happen). Zuckerberg also said Facebook has restricted third party apps' access to user data and that they are currently investigating all current apps.
• Many congressmen called for varying degrees of regulation on user data. Zuckerberg said he wasn't opposed to regulation as long as it's the "right regulation". He was okay with a call for companies to be required to notify consumers about data breaches within 72 hours.

Analysis/Opinion:
For starters, the 'scandals' surrounding Facebook are blown way out of proportion. The Facebook ads that the Russians purchased during the 2016 election weren't really meant to change anybody's vote, instead, they were designed to divide the country, giving people on both sides of the spectrum simple-minded slogans and rhetoric to reinforce the views they already have. Cambridge Analytica didn't 'hack' Facebook, they bought the data from a third party Facebook applet in violation of Facebook's policies. I don't like how social media shelters people from opposing views, nor do I like how Facebook handled the leak, it's just that it's not as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.

Many congressmen pressed Zuckerberg, going as far as saying "your user agreement sucks". Undoubtedly they do not like Facebook's business model of giving you free content in exchange for your data and eyeballs. There is a discussion to be had - is it ethical to collect and store preference data for targeted ads? How clear do companies need to be in their privacy policies? If users consent to this business model, is Facebook really violating people's privacy? Personally, I believe it to be ethical and beneficial if Facebook, Google, etc continue to be the middlemen. Companies that collect data and simply sell it are a different story.

Regulation can improve market outcomes, but it can also hurt them. Other nations like the EU have data safety laws and the "right to be forgotten". However, the U.S.'s lenient approach very well could have allowed the tech giants to grow and prosper here in the first place, bringing jobs, wealth, etc. I don't think we should go as far as the EU, but making privacy policies clearer and notifying users about a data breach should be on the table.

Questions:
1.) Are you personally concerned about how much companies like Facebook and Google know about you?
2.) Do you believe in data regulation? To what extent?
3.) Should internet content continue to be funded by ads, or should companies explore different business models?
4.) Is social media a net good for society?

Sources/Further Reading:
https://media.wired.com/photos/5acd15fe4e39060f2e49e9a2/master/pass/HowtoWatchZuck_18100667406080.jpg

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-zuckerberg/zuckerberg-resists-effort-by-u-s-senators-to-commit-him-to-regulation-idUSKBN1HH1CU

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/us/politics/mark-zuckerberg-testimony.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-zuckerberg/facebooks-zuckerberg-unscathed-by-congressional-grilling-stock-rises-idUSKBN1HI1CJ

https://youtu.be/woEq42aKEI4

https://qz.com/1248979/senate-testimony-on-cambridge-analytica-mark-zuckerberg-is-standing-trial-for-the-entire-tech-industry/

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-testimony-key-points.html

Oklahoma Teachers End Walkout After Winning Raises and Additional Funding

Article: Oklahoma Teachers End Walkout After Winning Raises and Additional Funding

Summary:

Oklahoma’s largest teachers union ended their walkout on Thursday after winning a pay raise of about $6,000 per year for teachers and $1,250 for school support staff. The raise comes in the midst of a wave of teacher protests, as West Virginia teachers won a raise of 2,000 earlier this year and Arizona teachers are advocating for increased funding for education.

Despite the win, many of the teachers’ demands will not be met because of Oklahoma tax laws. Teachers demanded the repeal of tax exemption laws for wealthy individuals, however Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin instituted taxes on oil and gas production. The tax raise is not nearly enough to cover the costs of new textbooks and furniture that teachers need. Oklahoma is a notably red state that has instituted many tax cuts and public service cuts in the last 10 years, and the outcome of the walkout has persuaded many teachers and parents to reconsider their political stances on taxes going into the 2018 midterms.

Analysis:

The debate over taxes and school funding relates directly to our study of taxes this semester in economics. The teachers demanding higher pay wanted taxes based on the ability to pay principle, in that they wanted to ban a tax that exempted wealthy individuals. Instead, they got an excise tax with negative incentives, as the tax passed by the Oklahoma Governor included taxes on oil, gas production, and gambling.

I think that the most efficient way to raise funding for schools would be through the repeal of tax exemption laws and using more money from income taxes. Oklahoma receives $1 billion annually in personal income tax, and more of this money should be put towards education given that many taxpayers and their children benefit from public education.

Oklahoma teachers have textbooks that are old and inaccurate, teach in classrooms with furniture that is falling apart, and often have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. Raising their salaries is not controversial; it is crucial to the future of Oklahoma students. Eliminating exemption taxes for the wealthy and using more money from income tax would be fair and effective.

Questions:

1. What do you think is a viable solution to raise more money for Oklahoma education?
2. Do you think they should stop the walkout or continue pressing the government to change existing laws?
3. How do you think the issue of education funding will be addressed going into the 2018 midterms?

For the ACT and the SAT, Pencils No Longer Required, but Sometimes Necessary

Article: For the ACT and the SAT, Pencils No Longer Required, but Sometimes Necessary

Summary:

ACT Inc and the College Board have begun to offer digital testing for the SAT and ACT. Digital testing has been in development for some time, however the transition is extremely challenging. Many high schools cannot provide a chrome book to every student and technological malfunctions such as power outages and wifi issues can affect students’ scores and exacerbate testing anxiety. A transition to a different format always results in a score drop, and no students want to be guinea pigs for the new format on an extremely high stakes test. While scores do rebound, studies have shown that scores typically remain low for students who do not use computers every day for schoolwork.

Despite the complications, there are also many advantages to online testing. Eliminating test booklets lessens the risk of cheating, prevents scoring errors, and lowers the overall cost of the test for students. Online testing would make college entrance tests more similar to graduate school tests, as the GRE, MCAT, and GMAT are all in digital format. Many students are already using digital format when preparing for the SAT and ACT through use of KhanAcademy.

Analysis:

I believe that accessibility is the most important issue related to standardized testing. While the College Board preaches inclusivity and recites their “equal opportunity” speech before every test, the fact remains that standardized testing is not standardized. Students with money to buy expensive test prep books or pay for private tutoring have a clear advantage given that both the SAT and ACT are extremely strategic.

I understand that it is impossible to make the test same for every single student, but I am afraid that the shift to online testing would further exacerbate score inequalities. Students without consistent exposure to technology would not be used to the testing layout, and students living in school districts without access to laptops would have to travel to take the online test. Online testing is obviously inevitable, however testing companies need to do more to adjust for the change. Easier access to free online practice, providing aid to schools that do not have enough laptops for every student, and offering more information about the layout of the test would be a good start.

Questions:

1. Would you be comfortable taking high stakes standardized tests online? Why or why not?
2. Would you prefer online testing or paper testing?
3. Do you think that online testing would make standardized testing more or less accessible?
4. Do you think that scores will improve with online testing?