BPR Spring 2022 Issue 1 by Brown Political Review

SPRING 2022

ISSUE 01

SPECIAL FEATURE

CONSUMPTION

Issue 01, Spring 2022

The Consumption Issue

Editors’ Note

Throughout history, societies have crafted their laws, norms, and political systems to facilitate consumption. Agricultural policy secures basic necessities like food and medicine, industrial policy improves access to advanced technologies like phones and computers, and laws regulate vices like drugs and gambling. But at the same time, our drive to consume shapes our societies in its own ways. The emergence of new markets and innovations transforms power structures, social relationships, and political coalitions, both for the better and for the worse. In this issue, several of our authors highlight the dangers of unfettered consumption and the need for government regulation that targets supply. Steven Long brings our attention to the North Korean state-sponsored crystal meth industry: What once helped uphold North Korea’s state apparatus now poses an existential threat to both the population and the regime. In extreme situations like this, governments bear the responsibility for reining in overconsumption to prevent societal deterioration. When overconsumption comes from technological advancement, governments need to devise and enforce innovative solutions. Scott Petersen contends that the metaverse, a new technology capable of transforming commercial and social life, has the potential to drive an unprecedented increase in energy consumption. In the era of climate change, reducing consumption through

innovation has become necessary to ensure the survival of our planet. Tackling overconsumption also frequently requires collaborative solutions between key stakeholders. Joseph Safer-Bakal highlights the need for international standards to govern sand consumption as competition for this increasingly scarce resource could spur geopolitical conflict. But institutions are not the only actors capable of regulating consumption—individuals have the power to effect change by forming collectives based on their consumption habits. Cole Powell points to the mistreatment of K-pop performers and argues that the interna-

tional K-pop fanbase should use its power as a collective to pressure the Korean government to reform the industry. When institutions fail to properly regulate consumption, we as consumers have an obligation to do so on our own. We hope that these articles will inspire you to think about what it means to consume responsibly. When is consumption beneficial? When is it excessive? When does it need to be regulated, and who is responsible for regulating it? — Gabe, Hannah, Matt, and Rachel

Brown Political Review EXECUTIVE BOARD

CONTENT BOARD

EDITORS IN CHIEF Gabe Merkel Hannah Severyns Matt Walsh

MANAGING WEB EDITORS Chaelin Jung Morgan McCordick Mathilda Silbiger

CHIEFS OF STAFF Casey Chan Eunice Chong CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER Meghan Murphy SENIOR MANAGING MAGAZINE EDITOR Rachel Yan MANAGING WEB EDITORS Chaelin Jung Morgan McCordick Mathilda Silbiger CHIEF COPY EDITOR Zeke Hertz INTERVIEWS DIRECTORS Alex Fasseas Miles Munkacy DATA DIRECTOR Zoey Katzive

SENIOR EDITORS Milo Douglas Natalia Ibarra Max Pushkin Isabella Yepes EDITORS Ben Ackerman Charlie Key William Forys Jillian Lederman Sarah McGrath Jack Tajmajer ACTIVISM SECTION EDITORS Sofia Barnett Amanda Page Gabby Smith STAFF WRITERS Omri Bergner-Phillips Laura David Nealie Deol Henry Ding

CREATIVE STAFF WRITERS CONT. Michael Farrell-Rosen Sophie Forstner Simon Giordano Jonathan Green Oamiya Haque Katie Jain Garrett Johnson Sai Karnati Alex Lee Zoe Magley Kara McAndrew Kevin Moclair Gabriela Paz-Soldan Fausto Rojas Bianca Rosen Mira Rudensky Francisca Saldivar Akhil Saxena Ellie Silverman Isaac Slevin Ian Stettner Peter Swope Sarah Uriarte Christopher Wai Jesse Ward Andreas Rivera Young Ben Youngwood

BUSINESS DIRECTOR Meghan Murphy CREATIVE DIRECTORS Christine Wang Iris Xie MEDIA DIRECTORS Mina Kao Autumn-Jade Stoner PODCAST DIRECTORS Elijah Dahunsi Alex Rubinstein Ellie Thomson LEAD WEB DEVELOPER Nick Young

EDITORIAL BOARD SENIOR MANAGING MAGAZINE EDITOR Rachel Yan MANAGING EDITORS Carmen Bebbington Claire Hodges Nathan Swidler ASSOCIATE EDITORS Lauren Griffiths Justen Joffe Annabelle Liu Steven Long Alexandra Mork Caroline Parente Cole Powell Sarah Roberts Joseph Safer-Bakal Ben Singer Ye Chan Song Asa Turok

CREATIVE DIRECTORS Christine Wang Iris Xie CREATIVE DIRECTOR IN TRAINING Daniel Navratil DESIGN DIRECTORS Erin Isla Roman Hope Wisor GRAPHIC DESIGNERS Patrick Farrell Yu Jung Jung Youjin (Amy) Lim Alina Spatz Ashley Yae Joel Yong

INTERVIEWS BOARD

CHIEF COPY EDITOR Zeke Hertz

INTERVIEWS DIRECTORS Alex Fasseas Miles Munkacy

MANAGING COPY EDITORS Robert Daly William Lake Bianca Rosen Jon Zhang

DEPUTY INTERVIEWS DIRECTORS Mira Mehta Zachary Stern Samuel Trachtenberg Alexandra Vitkin

COPY EDITORS Andrew Berzolla Rachel Blumenstein Yevin Chung James Dallape Meehir Dixit Mira Echambadi Dante Flores-Demarchi Lucas Galarza Jacob Gelman Livia Gimenes Isabel Greider Caleb Lazar Anavi Madnani Kevin Masse Jessa Mellea Christina Miles Dorothea Omerovic David Pinto Keith Richie Lilly Roth-Shapiro Ellie Silverman Roza Spencer Audrey Taylor Christopher Wai Hao Wen Adam You Claire Zeller

INTERVIEWS ASSOCIATES Lucy Anderson Ahad Bashir Omri Bergner-Phillips Alisa Caira Léo Corzo-Clark Elise Curtin Elijah Dahunsi Ava Eisendrath John Fullerton James Hardy Alice Jo John Kelley Stella Kleinman Izzy Lazenby Seungje (Felix) Lee Shinyoung Lee Alexandra Lehman Adriana Lorenzini Alyssa Merritt Lauren Muhs Hai Ning Ng Maya Rackoff Gidget Rosen Sana Sinha Anushka Srivastava Emma Stroupe Peter Swope Yuliya Velhan Tucker Wilke Anik Willig

CONTRIBUTING ILLUSTRATORS Ashley Castaneda Hannah Chang Naya Lee Chang Nicholas Edwards Camille Gros Maria Hahne Gloria Kim Lucia Li Kira Saks Madison Tom Elena Aguirre Uranga Christine Wang Kelly Zhou

ART DIRECTORS Rosie Dinsmore Jesse Hogan Lucia Li Jiayin Lu

DATA BOARD DATA DIRECTOR Zoey Katzive

COPY EDIT BOARD

COVER ARTIST Nadia Kossman-Newcomb

ASSOCIATE DATA DIRECTOR Arthi Ranganathan DATA ASSOCIATES Ashley Cai Elsa Choi-Hausman Kunal Handa Raima Islam Calvin Kirk Nicole Lugo Javier Niño-Sears Colby Porter Francisca Saldivar Sashank Varanasi Zhou (Harry) Yang

MEDIA BOARD MEDIA DIRECTORS Mina Kao Autumn-Jade Stoner MEDIA ASSOCIATES Dante Flores-Demarchi Mira Gupta Daniel Ma Alex Sarkissian Salonee Singh Jon Zhang

WEB DEVELOPMENT BOARD LEAD WEB DEVELOPER Nick Young WEB DEVELOPERS Adit Kadakia Rosella Liu Sophia Liu Parker Simon

PODCAST BOARD PODCAST DIRECTORS Elijah Dahunsi Alex Rubinstein Ellie Thomson PODCAST ASSOCIATES Fabian Antunez Lopez Elysee Barakett Ethan Drake Elizabeth Hirschfeld William Kattrup Kate Kuli Alexandra Ali Martinez Kara McAndrew Javier Nino-Sears Caroline Parente Alex Sarkissian Michael Seoane Annika Sharp Taha Siddiqui Anushka Srivastava

BUSINESS BOARD BUSINESS DIRECTOR Meghan Murphy ASSOCIATE BUSINESS DIRECTORS Charlie Key Chris Pool Gidget Rosen BUSINESS ASSOCIATES Charles Adams Rachel Blumenstein Cannon Caspar Stefanie Del Rosario Carys Douglas Peter Edelstein Jake Garfinkle Ellyse Givens Nadeen Kablawi Stella Kleinman Matias Meier Michael Obiomah Nicolas Pereira-Arias Martin Pohlen Arthi Ranganathan Alexandra Rubinstein Alex Sarkissian

Issue 01, Spring 2022

The Consumption Issue

Visual Essay:

WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS by Kate Dario ’22.5, a History concentrator illustrations by Jiayin Lu ’22, an Illustration major at RISD

How do you fight when you have nothing to fight with? Imprisoned by your oppressors, and with your campaigns and marches facing repeated failure, where do you turn? Voice silenced and hands tied, how do you continue the work? I knew the face of Bobby Sands—one of history’s famous hunger strikers—before I knew his name, what he did, or even what the Troubles were. He must have been in books in my grandma's house or maybe somewhere at the church. Yet, when I think of Ireland, I still think of hunger, and not just because of Bobby Sands. Being raised Irish Catholic in Boston meant I always had an acute understanding that being Irish meant something, even if no one articulated precisely what that was. All I got was that someone somewhere thousands of miles away suffered, and therefore I could not eat meat on Fridays. As I grew older, I became more interested in my Irish Catholic lineage, and I started to learn who that skinny, long-haired man was. The books and the articles I’ve read say that fasting has deep roots in Irish society. This makes sense considering Lent and the Potato

Famine in the 19th Century. Such pivotal rituals of Irish life are intimately tied to the feeling of an empty stomach. Over the course of the 20th century, as Irish Republicans fought to expel British control of their Northern Ireland, 22 hunger strikers died. Bobby Sands, a member of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), died in 1981 after hunger striking for 66 days while protesting conditions in the infamous H-Blocks prison in Northern Ireland. During this strike, he was elected in absentia to Parliament. The 27 year-old’s death—seen by many as the culmination of a showdown between the IRA and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher—gained international attention. One hundred thousand people attended his funeral. In New York City, Irish pubs closed for two hours to honor the dead, and Cardinal Terrence Cooke held mass in St. Patrick’s Cathedral. Five thousand students in Milan burned the Union Jack. Incarcerated Palestinians smuggled a letter to Belfast expressing their solidarity. Allowing protesters to greet death in this way seems extreme. But the International Committee of the Red Cross opposes the forced-feed-

ing of hunger strikers. Either the authorities acquiesce to the strikes, or they do not. And if they do not, then the hunger striker dies. That is the bargain, and that is what is at stake. There is no retribution or vengeance. The hunger striker enters the process knowing that they are appealing to the humanity of their oppressor and counting on the extremity of their protest to stir guilt in the people who have put them in such a position. In the Hunger Strike of 1981, nine more Irish prisoners died of starvation before the protest ended. The strike radicalized Irish politics, helping spur the growth of the IRA and the increased electoral success of its political party, Sinn Féin. Sands became a folk hero, an icon whose likeness and legacy influenced generations of freedom fighters across the world. Unlike other influential demonstrators like Nelson Mandela and Malala Yousafzai, who lived to witness the impact of their work, Bobby Sands cannot see us or the world he helped create. But he is survived by his zeal, his resolve, and the countless dissidents he inspired.

UNITED STATES 8 Misunderstood Migration by Kevin Moclair ’23

11 Interview with Sami Sage by Alyssa Merritt ’23

12 A Shot at Safety by Caroline Parente ’24

by Eunice Chong ’22

Interview with Alex O’Connor

by Joseph Safer-Bakal ’24

by Alex Fasseas ’23 and Marcus Ellinas ’23

18 by Michael Farrell-Rosen ’24

26 99 Problems and a Beach is One

Legal Haven

Gerryslandered

SPECIAL FEATURE: CONSUMPTION

Out of the Metaverse and into the Atmosphere

A Legal OTP

by Hannah Severyns ’23

Interview with Mark Blyth by Noah Pirani ’23

by Scott Petersen ’25

WORLD 36 32 Breaking Kim

Happily Never After

by Henry Ding RISD ’26

Virtually Defenseless

Interview with Lawrence Norden

by Jillian Talenda ’22

by Steven Long ’24

by Zachary Stern ’22

Pulling Back the Curtain

Striking the King?

by Cole Powell ’24

by Annabelle Liu ’22

46 Crude Behavior by Robert Daly ’25

My Life is Not Your Porn

by Ye Chan Song ’24

Interview with Robert Rector by Sam Kolitch ’23

Misunderstood Migration

UNITED STATES

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

Why emigration out of blue states may not be as tax-related as many think.

by Kevin Moclair ’23, a Political Science and International and Public Affairs Concentrator and a Staff Writer for BPR illustrations by Nicholas Edwards ’23, an Illustration major at RISD

Conservative publications love writing iterations of the same story every few months, with titles like “U-Haul Literally Ran Out of Trucks Leaving California,” “The Great California Exodus,” and “Amid the pandemic’s uncertainty, California is still bleeding residents from liberal areas.” According to these articles, tens of thousands of people are fleeing liberal cities in states like California for conservative havens because of excessive government taxation. The high-profile departures of Elon Musk and Joe Rogan from California to Texas have only contributed to this narrative. Conservatives are half right. Large numbers of people are leaving states like California for places like Texas. In 2020 alone, California lost 182,083 residents, leading to the state’s first population decline in over a century. However, conservatives’ rhetoric largely misses the point: Most people are not leaving the Golden State

because of excessive taxes, but rather because they cannot afford to pay exorbitant rents and $70 for a tank of gas. Government officials in California, and in many blue states like it, should be concerned about how their states’ high costs of living make it exceedingly difficult for working-class families to enjoy a decent quality of life. Every year, tens of thousands of low-income Californians leave and move to states with higher taxes just to avoid these crushing costs. Income taxes are California’s largest source of revenue, accounting for roughly half of the state’s total tax revenue. Like many blue states, California has a progressive tax system, meaning that wealthy people pay a higher tax rate than low-income people. In fact, many low-income Californians pay no income tax at all. It may seem logical that California’s progressive tax system would drive out higher-income res-

“Though California is notorious for having high taxes, the people who are leaving are usually not the ones with high tax bills.”

idents and attract lower-income residents—but the opposite is true. Between 2015 and 2019, California lost roughly 200,000 low-income residents and nearly half a million residents who had not completed a college degree. Meanwhile, the state gained almost 50,000 high-income, college-educated residents in the same period of time. The pandemic certainly accelerated these trends, but low-income residents have been leaving California at increasing rates for more than a decade. The people leaving California—mostly poor and uneducated—reveal something important about the state, especially when it comes to its tax code. Though California is notorious for having high taxes, the people who are leaving are usually not the ones with high tax bills. Texas, a favorite destination for ex-Californians, has no state income tax. Instead, the state funds its government services mainly

through regressive sales and property taxes that fall much harder on low-income residents. In fact, taxes are significantly higher for low-income residents in Texas than they are in California. California ranks as the 22nd highest state in the country for overall low-income tax rate, while Texas ranks 6th. Consequently, low-income residents moving from California to Texas end up paying more in taxes on average. Many of the other supposed tax havens that Californians are fleeing to, including Arizona and Florida, also have some of the highest tax rates in the country for low-income residents. Given that so many of the people leaving California are low-income, and that these groups of people usually pay higher taxes in the states that they move to, the conservative explanation that Californians are fleeing excessive tax burdens just does not add up. If low-income people were trying to avoid high taxes, they might move THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE

UNITED STATES

to states like Delaware, New Jersey, or Alaska, which have some of the lowest state and local tax rates for low-income families. So, then, why are so many people leaving states like California despite their growing economies and expansive social safety nets? The answer is simple: It is exceedingly unaffordable to live in California, with essentials like gas and rent more expensive than in any other state in the country. Despite Silicon Valley’s booming economy and other tech company growth, California has the highest supplemental poverty rate in the nation. The high cost of living in California has annihilated any possible benefits of a growing economy for most people. High-earning college graduates may be able to afford living there, but residents who have for years survived on low-paying jobs have been hit hard in recent years by the rising costs of living in the state. One-third of all California residents have considered leaving the state because of housing costs.

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

Democratic leaders in high-cost liberal cities and states, like California, have a serious problem: their constituents cannot afford the high cost of living. Despite perpetually campaigning on supporting their low-income constituents, Democrats have been unable to prevent these same people from moving out of their states in droves. For all the talk of an expanded social safety net, more and better economic opportunities, and greater government assistance, low-income Americans are most often fleeing the places where Democrats have the power to make greater economic security a reality. The Democratic Party is at risk of failing its stated mission altogether, becoming the party for educated elites while working-class people move to conservative states where they can actually afford to live. In order to stop this mass exodus, leaders in liberal cities and states like California must take action to decrease the costs of living for low-income people.

“The Democratic Party is at risk of failing its stated mission altogether, becoming the party for educated elites while workingclass people move to conservative states where they can actually afford to live.”

INTERVIEW

Using Humor to Advance Political Discourse Online

An Interview with Sami Sage

Interview by Alyssa Merritt ’23 Illustration by Naya Lee Chang ’24

Alyssa Merritt (AM): Your company, Betches, just celebrated its 10-year anniversary. When you started Betches, did you have any idea it would grow into what it is today? Sami Sage (SS): I started Betches with two friends in our college apartment during our senior year at Cornell. We did not have any idea it would grow into what it is today. It started as a blog to satirize the culture around us. At the time, satire was really big and quite misogynistic; sites like Barstool Sports, Total Frat Move, and Bro-Bible were at the forefront. We felt there was nothing that catered to the type of women we were. A lot of what was out there handled women with kid gloves and did not embrace what women are really like. So, we started writing as an outlet for ourselves to make sense of things, but then it went viral. We didn’t necessarily have a plan to take Betches to where we are now, but after the blog’s initial success, we started to consider making it a business. AM: According to the Pew Research Center, 70 percent of social media users rarely or never post about politics. As someone who regularly posts about politics on their platform, have you noticed a change in political engagement on social media? SS: Instagram and TikTok are both being used more for political commentary. I love that, because 10 years ago you would not have seen that on social media. Platforms like that were meant to share your personal life, and I don’t know that people saw politics as personal before. People now share more political

Sami Sage is a graduate of Cornell University and the co-founder and Chief Creative Officer of Betches Media. Started as a blog in 2011, the company has expanded into a website, a number of podcasts, three bestselling books, and several Instagram pages, including a main Instagram with over seven million followers. Sage co-hosts the Betches Sup and Diet Starts Tomorrow podcasts. She also runs the Betches Morning Announcement podcast, where she breaks down news stories daily. information because they realize there’s not as much of a divide between their lives and politics as they once thought. AM: People tend to consume and engage with news outlets in ways that reinforce their existing beliefs. Do you see the relationship between social media and politics as helpful or hurtful to political discourse and the spread of information? SS: As someone who uses social media to spread political information, I hate to say that I think it’s hurtful. People are fed things they agree with. Before, that meant you watched Fox News or you watched CNN. Now, algorithms are literally radicalizing people. We’re being fed alternate realities. I think social media is the reason that no one can talk to each other anymore. Since we don’t get to choose whether social media exists or not, it’s up to us as consumers to not contribute to the problem in whatever ways we can and to call our senators. I personally plan to continue taking advantage of social media to spread things that are positive and informative. AM: You use a lot of humor in your posts. Is it a conscious choice, or is that naturally the tone you gravitate towards? SS: Humor is the lens that makes the world kind of okay for me. I’ve always leaned on my sense of humor to make sense of things, especially heavy topics that can be painful to talk about. The way I cope is through humor and through seeing the ridiculousness in

things, which naturally comes out in my tone. I don’t try to make jokes with all of my content. With my morning announcements podcast, for example, I will. Because of the way it is structured, I try to include some classic punchlines in some of the stories, but a lot of the time, it is just me spouting out what comes to my mind as I record, because I don’t fully script it. AM: It can be hard to find a balance between being active on social media and staying up-to-date with the news while prioritizing mental health. As someone who works in media, how do you balance that, and do you have any coping advice for our readers? SS: I do not have it 100 percent figured out, but I do my best. The number one thing is going to therapy and working through your baseline issues. This enabled me to get out of my head. Especially for college students, you might not think you need therapy, but you’ll be better off with it. In the current political situation, coming from a community receiving a lot of hate can unearth a lot of pain. Therapy is the best care you can take of yourself. After that, basic selfcare, like turning off the phone if you are consumed by the news, is important. Focus on time away from your phone and with people you care about because that is what makes life worth it. You don’t have to be responsible for hearing all the world’s tragedies at every moment. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

UNITED STATES

A Shot at Safety by Caroline Parente ’24, a Political Science and English concentrator and an Associate Editor for BPR illustrations by Kira Saks ’24, an Illustration major at RISD

On Sunday, February 20, 2022, five adults gathered in an apartment in Commerce City, Colorado, and engaged in the recreational use of intravenous cocaine. When the drug hit, however, it quickly became apparent that it had been laced with fentanyl, a substance 80 times more potent than morphine. All five adults overdosed and died before anyone was able to call for help. The deaths of these five Americans can be attributed to the snowballing drug crisis in America, in which drug users are virtually left to their own devices to battle the terrifying disease that is addiction. Although this tragedy is heartbreaking, it is not unique. Over the past 50 years, intravenous drug use has skyrocketed in the United States. From the surge of crack cocaine use in the 1980s to the current fentanyl lacing crisis, there seems to be no end to the upward battle against addictive substances. Today, the illicit substance economy calls for “cutting” drugs with

How SIFs could help mitigate the United States’s drug addiction crisis

cheaper and more potent substances, leading to an overwhelming increase in accidental overdose deaths via synthetic opioids. As a result, fentanyl poisoning is now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45. The majority of these overdose deaths occur in private, where supervision is minimal and intervention is not readily available. Some American lawmakers have attempted to decrease overdose deaths through legislation like the Good Samaritan laws, which offer legal protection to people who try to aid others in an emergency, and a widespread supply of Narcan—a medication that counteracts the effects of opioid overdoses. But these actions fail to protect individuals who survive an overdose and then continue to use drugs. In seeking solutions abroad, city officials in America’s drug hotspots were introduced to Safe Injection Facilities (SIFs). SIFs are sheltered, sterile environments for individuals to consume intravenous drugs. These sites offer essential goods and services such as clean needles, medical supervision, and case management. The provision of sterile needles decreases the transmission rates of HIV and

Hepatitis and, with a constant presence of medical professionals trained in naloxone administration, these sites ensure that overdoses can be treated the moment they begin. The benefits of SIFs can be seen in many different cases abroad. SIFs were first developed in Switzerland in 1986 to prevent drug-related harm, and there are over 100 facilities open today across Europe, Australia, and Canada. In Vancouver, communities within a half-mile of a SIF saw overdose death rates per year drop from 253 to 165 per 100,000 people. Syringe-borrowing in the area dropped from 37 percent in 1996 to only 2 percent in 2011. In Sydney, a facility that opened in 2001 has supervised over one million injections, and medical interventions in 8,500 overdoses have resulted in zero fatalities. Although the numbers speak for themselves, the benefits of SIFs are best emphasized through the stories of the countless lives they have affected. Referring to the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) injection site, Darren, who goes to a SIF nearly every day, states that, “Without this place, people would be dead all over.” He adds, “This is a great place—and it saved me a couple days ago…these guys really

care about you here. They really do.” Doctors also echo their value: “These sites have robust data to support their existence, but I feel their most important role is demonstrating that compassionate care yields spiritual benefits that cannot be scientifically measured,” says Dayn Kent, a health worker at Moss Park Overdose Prevention Center in Toronto. Even with global success stories on the rise, most US cities still lack Safe Injection Facilities due, in part, to an outdated federal mandate. The 1986 statute 21 USC S856 from the AntiDrug Abuse Act—colloquially referred to as the “Crack House Statute”—prohibits the existence of any facility designed for controlled substance distribution. As a part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the mandate was designed to curb a flourishing illicit drug economy. The Justice Department adamantly claims that the statute bars the existence of SIFs; still, many states have attempted to impose their own laws to allow for the existence of SIFs. San Francisco—a city where drug-related fatalities outnumbered Covid-19-related deaths five-fold in 2020—has engaged in an ongoing dispute with the Justice Department as it has moved to establish Safe Injection Facilities. The city’s latest attempt to allow for the establishment of SIFs was shut down by the US Attorney for the Northern District of California David Anderson. In a public statement, Anderson said, “Adding medical supervision to such inherently destructive conduct does not change poison into medicine. The US Attorney’s Office will respond to supervised injection sites by enforcing federal law.” The US Attorney’s office continues to cling to the ungrounded critique that SIFs

will further facilitate the consumption of drugs and disincentivize actual recovery. When Philadelphia also proposed its own SIF legislation, the US Attorney's office was backed by former President Donald Trump’s administration in its determination to bar such facilities. On November 30, 2021, however, New York City officials broke the cycle of defeat and

“Fentanyl poisoning is now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45. The majority of these overdose deaths occur in private, where supervision is minimal and intervention is not readily available.” opened the doors to the first two official SIFs in the United States. The East Harlem and Washington Heights SIFs have prevented a combined 114 overdoses as of January 23, 2022, and the staff have witnessed these facilities transform into supportive “living rooms” for their clients. New York City was the first city to succeed in call-

ing the Justice Department’s bluff and is paving the way for more to follow suit. New York City’s successes are catalyzing action in other states. In July 2021, Governor Dan McKee signed a bill establishing the first SIF pilot program in Rhode Island—the state with the fifth highest opioid overdose rate per capita in the nation. The following December, Rhode Island released regulations for the SIF's official establishment regarding training and certification requirements. The state began accepting staff and provider applications on March 1, 2022, and officials are hopeful that the first facility will be up and running in Providence by 2023. Now more than ever, SIFs are needed in the United States to limit the number of citizens lost to overdose. It is time for 21 U.S.C. S856 to be reevaluated and for the federal government to support state efforts to mitigate the harms of the injection drug addiction crisis. As seen in New York and Rhode Island, states are going to fund and develop SIFs on their own regardless, and it is only a matter of time before other US hotspots also move past their fear of federal intervention. Although the federal government could pursue legal action against these sites at any moment, strength in numbers could help deter any federal action. The federal government can and should step back to allow states to decide at their discretion whether or not they can mitigate the dangers of injection drug use with SIFs. In doing so, the federal government could contribute to ending the opioid epidemic, and the United States could do a better job protecting the lives of the 20 million Americans who struggle with a substance misuse disorder.

UNITED STATES

Legal Haven Why the United States must restore gender-based asylum law by Eunice Chong ’22, an International Relations concentrator and Chief of Staff of BPR illustrations by Ashley Castaneda ’23, an Illustration major at RISD

Upon her arrival at the Texas border in late 2013, Jacelys Miguelina De Pena-Paniagua claimed asylum on the basis of her sex. She had suffered years of abuse at the hands of her former partner in the Dominican Republic, including death threats, severe beatings, and repeated instances of rape. She received no help from the local police, who labeled her former partner homicidal yet refused to arrest him. In the seven years after her arrival to the United States, the immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals clashed over whether gender-based persecution qualifies a person for refugee status. De Pena’s case exemplifies the conflicted state of gender asylum law in the United States and the imminent need for reform to ensure that all gender-based asylum seekers can attain refugee status. The United States is a party to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees—also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention—a multilateral treaty that outlines the rights of asylum seekers and the responsibilities of countries that grant asylum. Article 1 of the Convention defines a refugee as someone who has a “wellfounded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.” Despite the fact that the Convention makes no mention of sex or gender, the position of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is that the refugee definition covers gender-based claims. Gender-based persecution refers to forms of persecution uniquely or disproportionately inflicted upon women, such as rape, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, and bans on female education. Asylum seekers most often invoke the “membership of a particular social group” category in such cases. In practice, however, the lack of an explicit provision for gender-based persecution in the 14

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

“Over the past 40 years, US courts’ waffling over whether gender can define a particular social group has done immeasurable harm to female refugees.”

Convention has made it difficult for women to seek refuge using that category, particularly in the United States. Over the past 40 years, US courts’ waffling over whether gender can define a particular social group has done immeasurable harm to female refugees. Courts in common law countries other than the United States have repeatedly ruled that women can constitute a particular social group because sex is an immutable characteristic. Ironically, it was an American case in 1985 that first established immutability as the foundational requirement of the “particular social group” category. In Matter of Acosta, a group of Salvadoran taxi drivers claimed that they feared persecution from an organized faction in El Salvador. Their asylum claim was dismissed on the grounds that the Salvadoran taxi drivers did not constitute a particular social group because taxi driving is a profession, not an immutable trait. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reasoned in Matter of Acosta that race, religion, nationality, and political opinion—the specific grounds for claims outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention—all describe a shared, immutable characteristic. The BIA then concluded that membership of a particular social group should also be defined by immutability. It explicitly mentioned sex as an example of a valid immutable characteristic, thereby opening the door to future gender-based asylum claims. Courts in other common law countries, including those in the UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, have drawn on the precedent set in Matter of Acosta to rule that women in a certain society—for instance, one that has withdrawn state protection from women—can constitute a particular social group. Post-Matter of Acosta, American courts, however, have ruled without any discernible pattern. This lack of consistency is evident in two precedential gender-based asylum cases. The 1996 case Matter of Kasinga involved a young woman from Togo, Fauziya Kassindja, who fled from the threat of female genital mutilation and forced marriage to seek asylum in the United States. In a landmark decision, the BIA recognized that state-sanctioned female genital mutilation constituted persecution within the meaning of the Convention and was thus a valid basis for asylum. The BIA applied the Acosta test to find that Kassindja was persecuted for her membership of a particular social group defined by two immutable characteristics: her sex and her lack of having undergone female genital mutilation. Kasinga was the first successful gender-based asylum case in the United States. However, the BIA overturned its own precedent just three years later. In 1999, the BIA departed from its rulings in Acosta and Kasinga when it denied asylum

in Matter of R-A-. The case involved a Guatemalan woman, Rodi Alvarado, who had suffered a decade of brutal violence at the hands of her husband, including beatings to the point of unconsciousness. When the police and the courts refused to intervene, she was left with no option but to flee to the United States. An immigration judge granted Alvarado’s claim for asylum, applying the Acosta test to find that Alvarado had been persecuted for her membership of a particular social group. Once again, her membership was defined by two immutable characteristics: her sex and her prior intimate involvement with a partner who believed in male domination. In a highly controversial decision, the BIA reversed the immigration judge’s decision, ruling that Alvarado had failed to show that she was persecuted for her membership of a particular social group. The BIA departed from the standard set in Acosta by ruling that, in addition to immutability, asylum applicants had to establish that the proposed social group was socially visible—“recognized and understood to be a societal faction” within Guatemala. It claimed that Alvarado had not done so but failed to elaborate on a definition of social visibility. Matter of R-A- called into question whether gender could define a particular social group and thus whether domestic violence was a valid basis for asylum. In the decades since, US immigration authorities have consistently issued conflicting decisions. What can international refugee law do for women? As the High Court of Australia noted in 2002, international refugee law is meant to serve as a substitute for national protection of human rights in places where such protection is not provided for discriminatory reasons. Women fleeing state-sanctioned domestic violence fall directly into this category. To better meet its obligations as a signatory to the Refugee Convention, the United States should implement legal and policy solutions to provide gender-based asylum. First, the Board of Immigration Appeals should establish immutability as the sole and fundamental requirement to prove the existence of a particular social group. Second, advocates for asylum seekers should explore the other four grounds for persecution enumerated in the Convention—race, religion, nationality, and political opinion—with regard to their potential for asylum claims. In the past, the “particular social group” category may have seemed the most suited to gender-based claims due to its relatively wider scope. However, scholars such as Siobhán Mullally have recently argued that the other four Convention grounds may have been overlooked. In 2000, the Refugee Status Appeals Authority in New Zealand found that

“The Board of Immigration Appeals should establish immutability as the sole and fundamental requirement to prove the existence of a particular social group.” Iran failed to protect an asylum applicant from domestic violence for reasons of political opinion and granted her refugee status on that basis. The New Zealand case shows that claiming persecution on other Convention grounds, perhaps in concert with membership of a particular social group, can be advantageous to asylum applicants. The more sustainable change, however, would involve standardizing policy processes that deal with gender-based asylum claims. It would be politically unrealistic to assume that the 1951 Refugee Convention could be amended to include explicit protections for refugees based on gender. However, countries such as Canada and Sweden have set clear paths to asylum for victims of gender-based violence via codified rules. The dangers of not doing so are evident in the United States, where an egregiously high standard of suffering is required to prove persecution. Legislation that explicitly sets out the criteria under which a victim of gender-based violence can claim refugee status is necessary to ensure that the United States is meeting its asylum obligations as a signatory to the Convention. THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE

INTERVIEW

The Case for Veganism An Interview with Alex O’Connor

Interview by Alex Fasseas ’23 and Marcus Ellinas (University of Chicago ’23) Illustration by Naya Lee Chang ’24

Alex O’Connor is a prominent British advocate for animal rights and secularism. Over the past five years, he has frequently shared his views through his popular YouTube channel, Cosmic Skeptic, which has nearly half a million subscribers. On his podcast, O’Connor has conversed with many notable figures, including evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, philosopher Peter Singer, and political commentator Douglas Murray. Additionally, he has appeared on BBC South and Channel 4 News, as well as at various conferences, radio shows, and universities, where he has debated topics related to religion, politics, and ethics. He holds a degree in philosophy and theology from St. John’s College, Oxford University.

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

Alex Fasseas & Marcus Ellinas (AF & ME): Many of your arguments for veganism center on ethical consistency. You argue that meat-eaters’ ethical stance toward their diet is inconsistent with many other ethical precepts that they hold or actions that they take. Can you elaborate on some of these inconsistencies? Alex O’Connor (AO): One inconsistency is between how people view certain animals relative to other animals. In all of my years of vegan advocacy, I’ve almost never had to convince somebody to care about animals. All I’ve had to do is to convince them to care about animals other than the ones they already care about. For instance, most people think that it’s wrong to force a dog into a gas chamber

without sufficient moral warrant. But at the same time, they think that it’s morally permissible to force a pig into a gas chamber to produce bacon. Of course, we could talk all day about ethics, about building a meta-ethical foundation for saying whether either of these is right or wrong. But we could save a lot of time in terms of advocacy by simply saying, “Look, if you think it’s okay to put a dog into a gas chamber, but not a pig, then you have to identify the descriptive difference between the two. You have to identify what it is about that dog that makes it wrong and what it is about that pig that makes it permissible.” Let me put it this way: Take that dog and slowly metamorphose it into a pig—you can change its skin color, its furriness, give it a longer tail, all these kinds of things. Now, decide at what point it is wrong [to kill that animal by gassing]. Interestingly, you can do the same thing with human beings—you could gradually metamorphose a pig into a human being. It’s permissible to put a pig in a gas chamber, but what if we give that pig two legs instead of four, change its skin color, change its cognition? What we’ll find is that any of these traits—intelligence, skin color, number of legs, sociability—don’t seem to be relevant in determining whether or not we can force a human being into a gas chamber. And yet we say it’s okay in one case and wrong in the other. AF & ME: Why do you think people exhibit this cognitive dissonance when it comes to meat consumption? AO: It shouldn’t be surprising, especially if you consider the fact that we live in a world that has so normalized animal suffering. Animal products are absolutely everywhere: not just in our food, but in our cosmetics, our clothing, the tarmac, guitar straps—even British bank notes have traces of animal products in them. Animal products are deeply embedded in society. But if this is such an evil, abominable thing, why are people acting like it’s perfectly normal? It’s because it’s both: it’s evil, but it’s also normal at the same time. AF & ME: If someone is unconvinced by arguments for veganism that focus on animal rights, do they have a reason to stop eating meat out of concern for their fellow human beings? AO: Yes. I usually list five reasons to be vegan, or at least to abolish factory farming. The first of these is the moral case, which, in my opinion, is the best argument for veganism and the only one that should be required. But as you say, a lot of people are unconvinced by it, so the second case is an environmental one. It’s becoming more and more clear that ditching animal products, or at least ditching factory farming, is one of the best things we can do to prevent climate change. Now, you can care about the environment because of its effect on all animals, as I do. But even if you care about human beings alone, climate change is bad news, and one of the best things you can do as an individual to offset your environmental footprint is to go vegan. Reason number three is pandemic prevention. Our governments tell us to socially distance and avoid large crowds to prevent the spread of disease. Yet they simultaneously allow tens of thousands of livestock to be crammed together in factory farms, where diseases can

“In all of my years of vegan advocacy, I’ve almost never had to convince somebody to care about animals. All I’ve had to do is to convince them to care about animals other than the ones they already care about.”

easily spread between the animals. And then these animals are shipped around the world, moving any diseases they have with them. It makes a mockery of any government official saying that they’re doing everything they can to make sure that something like Covid-19 doesn’t happen again. Now, I’m not claiming that Covid-19 started in a factory farm, but what I am claiming is that factory farms are factories for viral diseases that could easily transfer to humans. The fourth would be antibiotic resistance, which is the biggest fear in the medical community, as far as I understand it. The vast majority of antibiotics are going to farmed animals—they’re not being used on humans. Now, that shouldn’t be surprising, given that these animals are living in such horrendous conditions, but a consequence of this is that antibiotic resistance among humans is being propelled by factory farming. The fifth and final reason would be the health concern. Now, I think that if you’re already living a very healthy lifestyle, you’re not going to become more healthy by going vegan. But if you’re not eating a great diet right now, and you then switch to a healthy vegan diet, you’re likely to see a substantial health increase—you’re likely to feel better and be fitter. AF & ME: Given the abundance of reasons that you see for no longer consuming animal products, do you think legislation promoting veganism or discouraging meat-eating is justified, and what might that legislation look like? AO: I think, ultimately, we have to advocate for legislation that protects animals from cruelty and suffering. We already have some laws in place that attempt to do that—for instance, in the United Kingdom, it is a legal requirement to stun animals before you kill them. So, it’s not unusual to have animal protection within the law. If there were some world in which the government suddenly made eat meating illegal, it would raise some difficult questions about the fabric of a country as a democracy—how can a government just override the will of the people, given that a majority wouldn’t support a meat-eating ban? Realistically, I think that the legislation would have to be about curbing factory farming, not prohibiting meat eating. My biggest gripe is with factory farming. The real strength of the vegan argument does not seem to be with regards to the fact that animals are dying, but the way in which they’re dying. I think legislation on factory farming would be easier to get through, because if you tell people they can’t eat meat, they’ll go loopy. But if you tell people, “Look, these animals are being treated horribly, if you can just sign my petition, you can keep eating your meat, but it’s going to be more humane,” then they’re more likely to sign it.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE

UNITED STATES

GERRY– SLANDERED One of America’s oldest political issues may require some unconventional solutions by Michael Farrell-Rosen ’24, a Political Science and Economics concentrator illustrations by Gloria Kim ’24, an Illustration major at RISD

Gerrymandering is almost as old as the United States itself. The term originates from an 1812 bill signed by Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry that strategically created state Senate districts in a way that expanded Gerry’s party’s majority in the state congress. Today gerrymandering remains a clear obstacle in the effort to form a more perfect union—one that is seemingly impervious to a simple solution. Interstate compacts, or legislatively-enacted agreements between two or more states with the goal of addressing policy issues, present a nontraditional opportunity to reduce partisan gerrymandering.

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

Occurring every 10 years, the United States Decennial Census marks the start of the reapportionment and redistricting cycle, during which each state’s share of congressional districts—as well as the lines that separate those districts—is determined. The party holding the majority in the state legislature, where the redistricting process unfolds, naturally seeks to maximize the number of elected representatives it sends to Congress. The most recent redistricting cycle has proved to be no exception. Republican-controlled legislatures in Texas and Georgia carefully wove together liberal suburban areas with rural conservative communities, diluting the Democratic vote to reduce the number of Democrats sent to Washington. In left-leaning Illinois, Democratic lawmakers drew tendrils that attached deep-blue Chicago with rural, down-state counties to create the opposite effect. The reality is that incentives to draw maps favoring one party over another are extremely strong, especially considering the razor-thin margin by which the Democratic party currently controls the US House of Representatives. For this reason, the solution to the age-old problem of gerrymandering may need to come two states at a time. Interstate compacts put this idea into action and have already proved successful multiple times in crafting major bipartisan solutions. In 2016, for example, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) introduced the “Potomac

Compact” bill, proposing that Virginia and Maryland, two politically opposed states, each send citizens to a joint independent redistricting commission tasked with drawing fair lines for the two states. Raskin’s bill drew upon the close ties between the two neighboring states to address an antidemocratic practice which both states had engaged in during the previous redistricting cycle. Recently, in 2020, 10 states—including the conservative bastion of Arkansas and deep-blue Massachusetts—joined the Bipartisan Interstate Testing Compact, an interstate compact to coordinate the supply of Covid-19 tests. Both the Potomac Compact and the Covid19 testing compact have laid the groundwork for agreements that could be forged between other pairs of states, regardless of the state legislatures’ majority party affiliations, in order to end gerrymandering. For fair redistricting, interstate compacts are especially useful because they neutralize the argument often employed by those drawing gerrymandered districts: “How can we compete if they are gerrymandering, and we are not?” This question is currently being asked in

“For fair redistricting, interstate compacts are especially useful because they neutralize the argument often employed by those drawing gerrymandered districts: ‘How can we compete if they are gerrymandering, and we are not?’”

Missouri, where the Republican-controlled legislature is debating whether to eliminate one of the state’s two Democratic-leaning districts. Republican state senators blame gerrymandering in Democrat-controlled New York and Illinois as justification for their own biased redistricting. An agreement to reduce gerrymandering could feasibly end this “eye for an eye” exchange of undemocratic redistricting; Missouri and Illinois, as bordering states with common economic interests and converse political views, present a sterling opportunity for an interstate compact. Interstate compacts for fair maps also eliminate some of the problems that arise with other common gerrymandering remedies. “Bipartisan” or “citizen-led” redistricting commissions often fall victim to the perverse incentives that create gerrymandering in the first place. For instance, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission was created in a 2008 referendum to reduce gerrymandering by the state legislature, yet the maps the body created in 2021 were still criticized by some for unduly favoring Democrats. And even when the state legislature is not explicitly involved in the redistricting process, partisan actors on so-called “independent commissions” can make choices that favor their party. It is difficult to separate the machinations of politics from the democratic principles essential to the political process. Interstate compacts address this issue by reducing the incentive for an individual state to gerrymander by assuring that other states in the compact will not. The 2020 redistricting cycle has mostly been a disappointment for antigerrymandering advocates. Interstate compacts present an opportunity for states to come together and fulfill the goal of increasing the democratic nature of representation.

THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE

UNITED STATES

A Legal OTP Fanfiction and fair use make a powerful duo in protecting fan communities You may not want to admit it—or you may not even know it—but you’ve probably read fanfiction before. It’s possible that you’ve stumbled across Archive of Our Own (AO3), a fanfiction site that received 1.7 billion page views in December 2020. Maybe you’ve picked up Anna Todd’s After, a New York Times bestseller with a corresponding Netflix movie that originated as a One Direction fanfiction on Wattpad, where it now has over 697 million reads. Or perhaps you’ve read Jean Rhys’s literary award-winning Wide Sargasso Sea, a published work granting Jane Eyre’s Bertha a backstory. Regardless of where you have encountered it, one thing is clear: Fanfiction might be a bit taboo, but the genre is hardly underground. Though fanfiction continues to grow in popularity, the genre has its critics, many of whom contend that fanfiction violates copyright laws. Just a couple of years ago, A Game of Thrones author George R. R. Martin claimed that fanfiction is fraught with “all sorts of copyright issues.” And in a now-deleted blog post from 2010, Outlander author Diana Gabaldon identified fanfiction as “immoral” and “illegal.” It’s no surprise, then, that when you search “fanfiction” on Google, one of the most asked questions that pops up is, “Is writing fanfiction illegal?” The less-than-satisfying answer? It depends. However, the fair use legal doctrine, which typically allows for the unlicensed use of copyrighted works if a four-factor test is passed, has the potential to help defend fanfiction. In order to strengthen the legal protections of fanfiction authors and preserve largely queer and BIPOC fanfiction communities, US courts must recognize that modern fanfiction meets at least one of the test’s criteria due to its transformative power. This power can be attributed not just to the content of a work itself, but to the democratizing, accessible nature of online publishing platforms. Authors who claim fair use as an exception to copyright laws must prove that their work

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

by Hannah Severyns ’23, an English concentrator and Editor in Chief of BPR illustrations by Christine Wang ’24, a Graphic Design major at RISD

“Shielding fanfiction authors is also about protecting the online communities they support.”

meets the criteria outlined in Section 107 of the US Copyright Act. These categories are known as: Purpose and Character, which questions whether a work is being published for nonprofit, for-profit, or other uses; Nature of Work, which asks whether the source text is fiction or nonfiction and published or unpublished; Amount, which describes the significance and portion of the source text being referenced or used in the new piece; and Market Effect, which accounts for how the new work would affect the source text’s existing market. If a work meets standards for fair use in the majority of these categories, it will most likely be granted a copyright exception in court. Of course, the more categories a work of fanfiction meets, the higher its likelihood of success. But fair use has not always been a friend to

fanfiction, and authors may have to fight to pass any of the tests at all. This difficulty can be partly attributed to the fact that copyright laws protect fictional works more than they do factual ones, which means that any fanfiction works using fictional source texts face an uphill legal battle right off the bat. Additionally, the Amount and Purpose and Character categories are largely ill-defined; there is no word count or page number that constitutes “too much” source text and no written standard for what makes a work meet its intended purpose. The uncertain nature of these standards became especially clear in the 2009 case Salinger v. Colting, in which the application of the fair use doctrine to a work of fanfiction was considered by a US court. In the complaint, The Catcher in the Rye author J.D. Salinger argued that Fredrik Colting, author of 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye, a novel imagining Salinger’s Holden Caulfield later in life alongside a characterization of Salinger himself, committed copyright infringement. Ultimately, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Salinger, barring the publication of Colting’s novel in the United States. The decision came after the court objected to the fanfiction’s publication because it failed to pass the four-factor test on multiple fronts. This included failures in the Market Effect category because Colting’s novel supposedly limited the market for a Salinger-authored The Catcher in the Rye sequel and the Amount category because it depended on the use of Salinger’s already-written main character, Holden. One of the court’s most fascinating objections to Colting earning a fair use exception was in

THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE

UNITED STATES the Purpose and Character category. While the court was troubled by the for-profit nature of the work, it also argued that the fanfiction itself was not “transformative,” which convinced them that the work did not meet Purpose and Character standards. With this decision, the Court established a test for fanfiction—work must be transformative—but it failed to establish how that test could be met in future cases, creating a legal gray area on which fanfiction authors may be able to capitalize. Had Colting’s work been declared more “transformative,” or more creative, perhaps it would have met fair use standards in the Purpose and Character and Amount categories. Yet the arbitrary standards for each of these categories ensured that the court could subjectively declare the work a copyright infringement rather than a publishable, valuable work. If fanfiction authors are ever to be protected under fair use, either these standards need to be clearly defined, or defendants must find a new way to approach current fair use laws. Luckily, the latter may be possible, if only courts are willing to slightly shift how they view a work as transformative. As in Salinger v. Colting, courts have historically argued that works are transformative (or not) by diving deep into their written content. With Colting’s piece, the courts fixated on the use of Salinger as a character as a potentially transformative aspect of the work. Yet little attention has been paid to the platforms through which fanfiction works are most often published, a factor that absolutely contributes to a work’s potential impact, especially in online settings. In fact, some argue that the online nature of modern fanfiction, which makes it highly democratic and accessible, alters fanfiction’s transformative potential for the better. Bournemouth University Professor Bronwen Thomas explains that some see fanfiction as a “democratic genre” stemming from readers’ ability to comment on pieces and potentially shape future chapters (AO3 tracked 3.5 million comments in December 2020), while others simply admire the unique “aesthetic of unfinish” that comes from authors posting few chapters at a time on fanfiction sites. Fanfiction, too, is uniquely accessible. Not only is sharing work as easy as clicking a button on many sites, but observers have found that fanfiction also tends to attract “women,

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

the queer community, and people of color” who may see themselves better reflected in fan communities and fan works than the traditional publishing industry, which is more often “catered towards a straight white male demographic.” AO3 even found that 6 percent of its members identified as genderqueer while only 4 percent identified as male, with the remaining users identifying as female. Shielding fanfiction authors is also about protecting the online communities they support. If courts can recognize the transformative power of the platform in tandem with the impact of the works themselves, fair use may just be online authors’ new biggest fan.

“With this decision, the Court established a test for fanfiction— work must be transformative—but it failed to establish how that test could be met in future cases, creating a legal gray area on which fanfiction authors may be able to capitalize.”

INTERVIEW

Money, Zombies, and Bitcoin

An Interview with Mark Blyth

Interview by Noah Pirani ’23 Illustration by Naya Lee Chang ’24

Noah Pirani (NP): Tell me why you think the tools currently at the disposal of central bankers are either inadequate or inappropriate for responding to the economic crises in the 21st century. Mark Blyth (MB): The Federal Reserve (Fed) really only has two tools: buy and sell assets or raise and lower the price of money via shortterm interest rates. Should it have other tools? Probably. But the Fed is absolutely terrified of anyone in Congress revisiting the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, which created its mandate in the first place, because that would mean politicizing the Federal Reserve System in a series of congressional audits that the Fed wants nothing to do with. So, they’ve got two tools, and they’re not going to ask for more. In normal times, when they do normal things, those tools are normally enough. But we haven’t been living in normal times since the 2008 Financial Crisis, when the Fed basically abandoned its official mandate—which is to maintain price stability—and actually engineered massive price instability in order to incentivize market actors to buy and hold assets that they normally wouldn’t. Quantitative easing is a bit like trying to fill a kettle by grabbing a giant fire hose, sticking it through the letterbox, and turning it on full blast until some of it gets into the kettle. It’s not effective, it’s incredibly expensive, and it tends to increase inequality in an already unequal society by ensuring the returns to asset owners. NP: In 2021, 20 percent of the largest American corporations were zombie companies, meaning they hadn’t earned enough profit

Mark Blyth is an economist for people who, if given a choice between speaking with an economist or punching one in the face, would 9 times out of 10 choose the latter option. GQ — yes, that GQ — describes him as a “sharp-tongued, no-nonsense Scotsman.” He is the Rhodes Professor of International Political Economy at Brown University. Professor Blyth’s research focuses on how uncertainty and randomness impact complex financial systems, and why people continue to believe stupid economic ideas despite buckets of evidence to the contrary. in any of the past three years to cover their annual interest expense. Forty years ago, this figure was just 2 percent. Is the Fed, by distorting the price of corporate borrowing, preventing the process of creative destruction that legitimates markets? MB: The short answer is quite probably. The real question is: Is this a structural or cyclical phenomenon? If it’s cyclical, we’re okay, but if it’s a structural issue, we’ve got a problem. Lending to corporations at zero real interest rates encourages them to issue debt that they can park on their balance sheet. If that balance sheet gets big enough, then they don’t need to worry too much about making profit because they’ll either be too big or too indebted to fail. And you can’t have capitalism without failure. We seem to have created a system whereby we don’t just insure individuals against labor market vagaries through unemployment insurance, we are now willing to protect firms that can’t turn a profit because of their structural importance to certain industries or the labor market. NP: Why are you so bullish on the US Dollar’s staying power as the world’s reserve currency? MB: What are you going to buy instead? Bitcoin? Really? There’s a structural bias in the world economy that makes it such that persistent demand for US debt places a ceiling on the rate at which the US can finance its borrowing. Why? All the export-oriented nations with low consumption and high savings rates—Germany, China, etc.—their growth model depends on countries with low savings rates, like the United States, consuming their

exports. They end up with a pile of dollars in their banking system that they can’t spend at home or else they’ll increase their domestic price level and lose their international competitiveness. So, they do one of two things: One, buy US debt (which further enables American consumption), or two, lend out dollars to other countries. That’s why 80 percent of global reserves and 70 percent of world trade is in US dollars. I think the only alternative that could really threaten this is if you had a fully convertible Chinese digital currency that everybody was willing to hold, which is exactly what China is trying to develop. But most investors like to hold assets in a country where rule of law is guaranteed and if you’re Jack Ma you don’t disappear for four months. NP: Eric Lonergan, co-author of your book Angrynomics, calls money a hedge against future uncertainty. If that’s the case, what do you call Bitcoin? MB: A gambler’s fear index for rich people. About 95 percent of bitcoin is owned by the top 2.5 percent of wallets on the blockchain. Just $90 million in inflows or outflows can change its price by 1 percent. The notion that Bitcoin is a harbinger of the democratization of finance is complete horseshit. NP: What advice would you give to the 20-year-old version of yourself? MB: Nothing you can print in this magazine. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

SPECIAL FEATURE | CONSUMPTION

by Joseph Safer-Bakal ’24, an International and Public Affairs concentrator and an Associate Editor for BPR illustrations by Camille Gros ’22, a Printmaking major at RISD

99 Problems

and a

BEACH Is One After water, sand is the world’s most consumed natural resource. It is used to make glass, satellites, concrete, and silicon. Although it may seem like the world has a virtually endless supply of sand in its deserts, oceans, and riverbeds, sand is a finite resource whose harvesting poses a myriad of complex political and environmental challenges. These include the environmentally destructive practices of sourcing sand, which damage riverbeds and erode shorelines, as well as rampant corruption and ties to organized crime. The finite nature of the resource also raises considerable security risks that must be addressed internationally. A future shortage of sand would compound all these issues. Since sand powers modern industry, it seems inevitable that this shortage will lead to tension and conflict. Despite being one of the world’s most important limited natural resources, sand is often overlooked in geopolitical debates. Currently, it is not widely regulated at an international level in the way that other resources are, such as lumber. However, as evidenced by the 2019 UN Report on Sand 26

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

d cusse s i d of nder The u rity risks nd secu d’s seco orl d the w consume most l resource a natur

and Sustainability, which outlines actions that countries can take to limit the consequences of sand production, the international community is beginning to recognize the negative impacts of this industry. Specifically, the report recommends measures to both improve transparency within the sand trade and reduce the consumption of sand. Improved transparency would allow countries and international bodies to better regulate the consumption of sand and thus counter the current security and environmental risks the trade poses. International rules and norms should be further developed to allow the international community to adequately survey and regulate the global consumption of sand. The 2019 UN Report estimated that the world consumes 40 to 50 billion tons of sand every year, a large portion of which is attributed to the construction industry. As developing countries grow their infrastructure, they consume tremendous amounts of concrete and asphalt which, in turn, require sand. China accounted for 58 percent of global cement consumption in 2021 and, from 2011 to 2013, consumed as

THE THE CONSUMPTION PROTECTION ISSUE

SPECIAL FEATURE | CONSUMPTION

“Although it may seem like the world has a virtually endless supply of sand in its deserts, oceans, and riverbeds, sand is a finite resource whose harvesting poses a myriad of complex political and environmental challenges.” much concrete as the United States did throughout the entire 20th century. The world’s appetite for sand is only likely to increase as populations and demand for infrastructure grow, especially in the developing world. In addition to buildings, roads, and bridges, sand is used to produce glass and silicon, both of which are vital in the current economy. Phones, computers, solar panels, satellites—virtually every piece of technology—use sand to some degree. While sand is seemingly abundant, the sourcing process is incredibly complicated and threatens future global shortages and competition over resources. Desert sand, although the most accessible, is not viable for creating concrete because it has been tumbled by the wind, resulting in smooth, round grains that do not adequately bind with cement and gravel. Riverbed and maritime

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

grains have rough edges and are thus ideal for concrete. Unfortunately, the process of sand dredging—where boats pump large quantities of sand from the bottom of a body of water— is extremely destructive to river ecosystems. As sand is pumped from the river or ocean floor, surrounding sand slides down to fill in the gaps. This erosion of riverbanks, combined with the stripping of riverbank foliage, increases flooding risks in the surrounding areas. The consequences of dredging were observed in Houston in 2017, as the flood damage caused by Hurricane Harvey was exacerbated by sand mining in the nearby San Jacinto River. Ocean dredging, similarly, not only leads to the erosion of coastlines, but it can also cause islands to disappear. Indeed, in 2005, Indonesia lost 25 islands due to eroding shorelines caused by sand mining. This occurrence could create strategic problems among states because when a coastal nation loses islands, its territorial waters can recede. And when territory recedes, that country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) recedes along with it. Thus, in addition to losing its physical territory, the country also loses control over the harvesting of fish and other resources that were previously within its jurisdiction. Further complicating this challenge is the fact that the harvesting nation may sometimes be different from the country losing its islands and maritime territory. Therefore, the nation facing the burden may not reap many advantages, while those benefiting from sand extraction face no consequences for doing so. For example, Singapore has added 20 square miles of territory using the same sand whose harvesting cost Indonesia 25 islands. In response, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam have all banned the export of sand to Singapore. This unequal

distribution of gains and losses will exacerbate geopolitical tensions in the future, highlighting the need for an international framework that can address such problems. Although Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam have all banned the export of sand to Singapore, illegal sand trading continues to undermine peaceful international relations. In 2010, 300 million cubic meters of sand were illegally exported from Indonesia, and Singapore was accused of facilitating these imports. Owing to the industry’s lack of transparency and standards of consumption, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam have lost tremendous amounts of sand that have been smuggled into Singapore. Reducing consumption and improving transparency go hand-in-hand: Greater transparency will allow exporter countries to better combat illegal sand mining, while lower consumption will decrease the demand that leads to this harmful practice. Beyond international security issues, sand has created domestic security risks in many countries. High demand for sand has spurred the rise of violent “sand mafias.” In India, where

“Further complicating this challenge is the fact that the harvesting nation may sometimes be different from the country losing its islands and maritime territory.”

these mafias are most prevalent, hundreds of people have been killed for interfering in the illegal sand trade. Illegality and corruption around sand mining not only hurt local communities, but they also make it difficult for governments to fully understand sand consumption demands in their countries. A transparent sand industry would allow for more effective regulations, accompanied by proper enforcement. As demand for sand grows, however, the environmental, political, and security challenges posed by its consumption will continue to increase. The 2019 UN Report on Sand and Sustainability argues that countries can fight these challenges by adopting international standards to reduce sand production and, more importantly, consumption. They would pledge to construct compact cities that require fewer roads and thus less sand for asphalt. Additionally, nations would avoid unnecessary construction projects, including those “for speculation or prestige,” and utilize alternatives to concrete in construction. The report also emphasized the use of recycled materials in lieu of natural sand. These recycled materials could be drawn

from recycled concrete and waste byproducts of other industrial processes. It also recommends the use of “green infrastructure,” including permeable asphalt to absorb and filter rainwater, thereby requiring less concrete for construction of roadways and sidewalks. The report’s broad list of international sustainability goals and recommendations for rules and norms around the sand industry would seriously curb the world’s sand consumption. These changes would alleviate pressure on the environment and reduce the damage caused by the overproduction of sand. In calling for the switch of the resource used to bind concrete from finite sand to renewable materials, the report also presents more longterm solutions. The global sand industry is vital to the modern world, but as it stands, there are virtually no international standards surrounding sand consumption. States must commit to the sustainability goals outlined in the 2019 UN report and work to further develop treaties that reduce the consumption of sand and improve transparency in the industry. Doing so would curb organized crime, reduce environmental impact, and

“The global sand industry is vital to the modern world, but as it stands, there are virtually no international standards surrounding sand consumption.” improve relations between states. While international rules and norms are certainly a step in the right direction, they may not be enough to tackle the current and future challenges caused by sand extraction. Even so, such proposed standards offer the best available opportunity to begin both addressing and mitigating the worst environmental damages and security challenges that sand extraction exacerbates.

THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE

SPECIAL FEATURE | CONSUMPTION

by Scott Petersen ’25, an intended Economics concentrator infographics by Raima Islam ’25, Harry Yang ’25, and Erin Isla Roman RISD ’23

Out of the

METAVERSE and into the ATMOSPHERE

Eme techno rging log for new ies call e consu nergy mptio n regula tions

In late 2021, Meta (formerly Facebook) underwent an enormous rebranding effort, introducing the Metaverse, a new virtual reality (VR) platform that will allow users to participate in a vast virtual sandbox. Meta, which acquired VR headset manufacturer Oculus in 2012, hopes to be a pioneer in the virtual world by dominating the VR space and integrating its products into daily life everywhere it can. If Meta’s vision is successful, the metaverse will become a center for gaming, commerce, business, and more. While this is all good news for Meta’s bottom line, the rise of the metaverse will also contribute to an exponential increase in energy consumption. As tech companies seeking to stake out their market in the metaverse promote energy-hungry services, the United States must follow the lead of Europe and major software companies to reduce the environmental impact of cloud gaming, blockchain services, and the data centers which make it all possible. In recent years, data centers have been responsible for enormous amounts of energy consumption. These huge server rooms, which 30

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

Gaming currently makes up 7 percent of global network demand.

30 percent of gamers use cloud gaming platforms.

store, process, and manage data, collectively consume on average about 200 terawatt hours annually—more energy than the entire country of Iran. Unfortunately, data centers are a vital part of modern life: They store our information, host websites, and keep the internet running smoothly 24/7. Furthermore, this wireless, interconnected, and tangled world is only growing more complex and energy-dependent by the day.

One energy-hungry service that has emerged in recent years is blockchain technology. A blockchain is, essentially, a registry or ledger of online transactions that are stored chronologically in blocks. The existence of blockchain enables services like nonfungible tokens (NFTs) and cryptocurrency transactions to occur safely and securely. Meta plans to integrate blockchain-based services into the Metaverse and is already selling virtual plots of Metaverse land

as NFTs, for which celebrities, companies, and investors are paying millions. These types of transactions are responsible for a tremendous amount of energy use, highlighting the need to improve blockchain’s energy efficiency. One interesting solution that would reduce blockchain energy consumption is an alternative algorithm called proof-of-stake. Normally, blockchain transactions are processed in a system known as proof-of-work, which allows anyone to validate blocks by expending computational energy for a small profit, a process commonly referred to as mining. Proof-of-stake would require validators to stake a monetary sum before mining, enabling a much less computationally expensive validation to suffice because miners would have a stake in the outcome. The crypto protocol Ethereum claims that this change could reduce energy consumption by 99.5 percent. But, in the end, whether or not environmentally beneficial changes in blockchain are implemented is up to the market. The current proof-of-work system is extremely profitable for investors, so it may be challenging to implement this change. For this reason, it is critical that government regulations are implemented before systems like proof-of-work become ingrained in the virtual world. If governments can enforce the use of proof-of-stake in mining and blockchain services, the world will see a decrease in overall emissions from blockchain, now and in the future. Another computationally taxing innovation that has taken off is cloud gaming. In recent years, the value of the gaming industry has surpassed that of the movie and music industries combined. The future of gaming is a heavily contested battleground as major tech companies, including Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta, duke it out over the rights to certain titles and even entire companies. Microsoft, for example, recently acquired Activision Blizzard—a video game company—in an astonishing $68.7 billion

If 30 percent of gamers transfer to cloud gaming platforms, there will be a 29.9 percent increase in carbon emissions from gaming.

cash transaction. Cloud gaming allows users to stream the games of their choice, rather than having them as a downloaded file or physical disk. As game data becomes more complex, playing these games will require more and more energy. A Nature article presented a model which predicts that in less than two decades, information and communications technology could surpass 20 percent of global electricity usage. Much of the projected increase is driven by an interest in cloud computing. The metaverse, a platform built on streaming, will be inherently reliant on cloud computing services, and the larger it grows, the more energy it will use. Europe is already looking to mitigate the environmental impact of its data centers. Anticipating a rise in cloud gaming, European regulators have been discussing mandates to force data centers to become carbon neutral. While many US data companies—such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google—are already working toward carbon neutrality on their own terms, governments can certainly expedite this process

If 90 percent of gamers transfer to cloud gaming, there will be a 112 percent increase in carbon emission from gaming.

and ensure compliance through mandates. One of the best ways to reduce emissions may be to invest in these companies with stipulations that such investments must be used for green energy and efficiency. Theoretically, these investments could be used to supercharge technological innovation, potentially resulting in both an increase in product quality and a decrease in energy use. The US government has an opportunity to both increase innovative technology and reduce its projected environmental impact. According to Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, it will be at least a few years before the metaverse becomes mainstream. Indeed, today’s world seems quite a ways away from the fully integrated commercial and social world that Zuckerberg describes, especially considering the inequality of technology access in the United States. However, given the growth of video calling services during the last few years, the integration of smartphones into daily life, and the persistence of major VR developers like Meta, it is easy to imagine how daily life could look very different by the end of Zuckerberg’s predicted timeline. If projected energy consumption increases are correct, a VR platform built on cloud gaming and blockchain could exacerbate climate change and carbon emissions significantly. This presents a challenge for the United States to not only reduce emissions but also to simultaneously invest in technological improvements that can help it maintain its status as a world leader. Before the Metaverse becomes our new reality, the US government must prepare to regulate the environmental impact of this new commercial hub. Otherwise, one small step into the virtual world could leave a giant carbon footprint.

THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE

SPECIAL FEATURE | CONSUMPTION

by Steven Long ’24, a Classics concentrator and an Associate Editor for BPR illustrations by Maria Hahne ’24, an Illustration major at RISD

Breaking In a recent news program by the North Korean state media, Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un was described as having “withered away,” ostensibly as a result of his miraculous weight loss over the past few months. The media’s description of Kim’s weight loss serves as a potent reminder of another kind of withering away taking place across North Korea: widespread methamphetamine abuse, stemming from tacit state support throughout much of the 1990s and early 2000s. North Korea’s greatest threat isn’t the West, as its leader claims—it’s meth.

“North Korea’s greatest threat isn’t the West, as its leader claims—it’s meth.” Unlike issues of international significance such as missile strikes or targeted assassinations, the ramifications of the government’s denial are contained to the domestic sphere. That is, whether or not North Korea admits its meth problem to the world, the ill effects of this epidemic have little spillover to other countries. Thus, this issue presents a rare opportunity to investigate the domestic workings of the “Hermit Kingdom” and the lives of its citizens. Furthermore, it reveals a rare case of aligned interests for the North Korean people and their leaders: For once, North Korean leaders acting in their own interest will also benefit their people. Near the turn of the 21st century, then Supreme Leader Kim Jong-il’s top priority was to increase the country’s foreign currency stockpile, which would enable its elites to finally access the consumer goods that were commonplace in other countries. To accomplish this, North Korea embarked on an ill-fated excursion into the international drug trade, creating a meth industry almost overnight in state-run

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

need The urgent orea for North K to its to respond ic em meth epid

KIM

chemical plants. As meth flowed from North Korea into the world at large, it quickly became clear how the regime obtained its new stores of wealth. A secret government agency known as ‘Room 39’ distributed drugs and other illicit goods into international supply chains, mostly through China. By some estimates, the government’s meth business raked in between $100 and $200 million annually, accounting for 10 to 20 percent of the country’s export revenues. By the mid-2000s, the state-sponsored drug trade had mostly disappeared due to international pressure. Amid increasing efforts around the globe to shut down the activities of ‘Room 39,’ meth became less lucrative to produce and harder to export. Crucially, the Chinese government began to stem the flow of drugs across its border. The meth producers, however, did not change their profession. After North Korea’s government-sanctioned international drug trade shut down operations, Korean meth producers moved quickly to develop a domestic market. Although all narcotics are technically illegal in North Korea, bribery for and because of crystal meth is widespread, supported by the culture of corruption that permeates all levels of civic society. In fact, meth has become as ingrained

“For once, North Korean leaders acting in their own interest will also benefit their people.” in the domestic economy of the regime as it once was in the international drug market. For North Koreans today, crystal meth is as normalized of a substance as cigarettes or alcohol. It is given as a gift during the Lunar New Year, moreor-less sold openly throughout the country, and generally accepted as an energy supplement. In North Korea, widespread drug addiction is not just a problem in and of itself—it is also a symptom and exacerbator of other existing troubles. What started as a quick way to finance the desires of the country’s elite has become another manifestation of the state’s inability to protect its own people. Now disrupting the lives of workers and elites alike, meth addiction has ironically become a great equalizer. Elites abuse meth recreationally against the backdrop of luxury. Meanwhile, a starving population uses meth as a hunger suppressant, and overworked laborers consume it to increase productivity. Sadly, in the long term, meth use ultimately begets more hunger, and productivity drops as addiction becomes all-consuming. In this way,

North Koreans’ meth addiction has become another cog in the nation’s positively reinforcing cycle of oppression and hunger. By 2019, North Korea’s government seemed to understand the dangers of society-wide drug abuse, propagating posters that urge citizens to stop using drugs “for the motherland.” However, even if the political will is there, North Korean leaders, confronted with mass bribery and a demanding aristocracy, can do little to mitigate the country’s domestic meth epidemic at this point. While North Korea may posture and outwardly present the image of a robust state, this crisis clearly illustrates the weakness of its institutions.

“By some estimates, the government’s meth business raked in between $100 and $200 million annually, accounting for 10 to 20 percent of the country’s export revenues.”

THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE

SPECIAL FEATURE | CONSUMPTION

by Cole Powell ’24, an International and Public Affairs concentrator and an Associate Editor for BPR illustration by Madison Tom ’23, an Illustration major at RISD

PULLING

Back the

Abuse in the K-pop industry deserves the spotlight

CURTAIN

Just three days before his 28th birthday, the South Korean Parliament gave Kim Seok-jin, the eldest member of the international K-pop sensation group BTS, an unexpected gift: He was granted a two-year immunity from performing mandatory military service. The revision to the nation’s Military Service Act, dubbed the “BTS Law,” will allow Seok-jin and other male K-pop idols to perform until they reach age 30 under the justification that they enhance national prestige. This addendum to South Korea’s conscription law comes as no surprise given the importance of the industry: In the year 2021 alone, BTS managed to bring $5 billion to South Korea—nearly 0.5 percent of the entire South Korean economy. As a whole, the K-pop industry has grown to be such a major commercial success that, according to Gangnam District Director of Tourism Kim Gwang-soo, the Ministry of Culture has dedicated a parliamentary committee to provide it with state-sanctioned support. As K-pop is a major facet of the Korean Wave phenomenon—the international explosion of South Korean culture through television, tourism, music sales, and fashion—it makes sense that the South Korean government would go so far as to tweak legislation to protect one of the country’s essential exports. Yet, the BTS law only protects a small class of elite K-pop idols; 34

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

the government leaves many lesser known idols out to dry by failing to ensure their health and wellbeing in a competitive industry. As such, it is up to K-pop fans to pressure the South Korean government into taking action to protect performers. While BTS may be the most famous K-pop group, its songs make up only a fraction of the 134 billion minutes of stream time K-pop has garnered on Spotify since 2014. Receiving the rest of K-pop’s streams are mostly smaller, lesser-known groups and K-pop idols who are often looking to make it big on the international stage. And while the media depicts only the exciting, fast-paced lives of those who do make it to the top, it often hides the exhausting and cumbersome nature of the journey to debut. Many aspiring K-pop idols and groups train for years at exclusive agencies under grueling conditions while enduring starvation, long hours, and separation from family. In perhaps the most egregious method, “trainees” debut on survival reality TV programs hosted by Korean media channels. These series, which require months of filming, show contestants undergoing weeks of televised challenges and performances wherein they are ranked and eliminated. Those who rank at the top by the end of the contentious competition shows instantly leap into the

spotlight, debuting in a K-pop group with an initial fanbase transplanted from the survival reality TV program. These programs are incredibly eye-catching and allow the viewer to become invested in the success of their favorite contestants. For example, in September 2021, MNET (a South Korean pay television music channel) debuted Girls Planet 999, a survival K-pop competition show in which 33 Korean, 33 Chinese, and 33 Japanese female idols competed for nine coveted spots in the show’s final lineup. The show was an instant success: In its first month alone, it amassed a record-breaking 233 million views on YouTube and over 1.4 billion views on TikTok. Yet, after viewing Girls Planet 999, one is left wondering what truly lies behind the thin veneer of electrifying performances and

“The government leaves many lesser known idols out to dry by failing to ensure their health and wellbeing in a competitive industry.”

high-caliber production efforts. After the show finished airing, many of the eliminated contestants, primarily Chinese and Japanese idols, spoke up about the racism, maltreatment, and long working hours they endured off-air. Jiang Qiao, a Chinese idol eliminated from the show, admitted that the girls filmed some performances for 40 hours straight; while filming the theme song, they received just one hour of sleep per day for three days of production. Additionally, many of the international idols received considerably less screen time than their Korean peers. And of those who did receive considerable screen time, many fell victim to a recurring harmful tactic in K-pop survival reality competition shows: “evil editing.” This tactic is meant to portray some of the shows’ contestants as villains, with the producers airing only their most untoward moments. For instance, Fu Yaning, a Chinese contestant on Girls Planet 999, was shown to have an attitude problem in a scene where she engages in a verbal altercation with a Korean contestant. In a tweet shared by a netizen close to Yaning, Yaning was reportedly sobbing to her parents as she watched the scene’s broadcast, horrified that she had fallen victim to “evil editing.” This false narrative, while potentially entertaining to viewers, is damaging to the show’s participants; given that the show consists of young women, it is obvious that such tactics could have lasting, damaging psychological effects. This dark reality is in no way endemic to Girls Planet 999. Other similar programs, such as Produce 101 and Produce 48, have received similar backlash. In SIXTEEN—the show from

which internationally acclaimed K-pop girlgroup TWICE was formed—TWICE leader Park Jihyo was outwardly criticized by one of the show’s photographers who shouted, “Jihyo, you look fat” during a weekly challenge. With SIXTEEN having aired in 2015, it is apparent that many of these injustices have persisted for years, contributing to a system that normalizes the exploitation of those involved.

“What is more surprising is that these abuses— prevalent throughout the K-pop industry as a whole—are known to many in South Korea, yet the malaise in this industry goes unspoken and is accepted as the price of stardom.” What is more surprising is that these abuses—prevalent throughout the K-pop industry as a whole—are known to many in South Korea, yet the malaise in this industry goes unspoken and is accepted as the price of stardom. As K-pop continues to expand, this price becomes an expense many idols pay for with their lives. In the recent half-decade, Sulli of the group f(x), Goo Hara of Kara, and Jon-

ghyun of SHINee have all taken their lives after years of being subjected to bullying, abuse, and overall harsh standards. Even after they debut, K-pop idols continue to face oppression in spite of their success. The solution to these abuses lies within reach: K-pop fans have the power to pressure the Korean government into standing behind performers rather than profits. While popular K-pop tabloids posted anti-suicide hotlines and mental health resources following Sulli’s death, these efforts are largely futile because any discussion of mental health is still taboo in Korea. If there were greater public outcry directed toward the government, wide-reaching regulations like the BTS Law could be enacted to ensure the appropriate treatment of idols, thus protecting the industry’s reputation and legitimacy. If the central government pressured agencies to raise their standards of care by threatening to withhold state-sanctioned aid, agencies would be forced to improve the quality of treatment given to idols. Given that the industry comprises around 1 percent of the nation’s total GDP, it seems conspicuous that the government should have a vested interest in preserving the mental and physical health of those at the forefront. Even so, if the conversation is not started, it is likely that K-pop idols will continue to suffer in a system that benefits from their ill-treatment.

THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE

WORLD

Happily Never After Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness system is internationally praised, yet structural and humanitarian problems remain There is a new trend catching fire across the world: happiness. From the famous “Science of Well-Being” course at Yale University to the introduction of a “Minister of Happiness” role in the United Arab Emirates, institutions around the world have recently begun formalizing the concept of happiness. Riding this happiness wave, Bhutan developed a first-of-its-kind

FALL 2021 | ISSUE 01

by Henry Ding ’26, an Architecture major at RISD illustrations by Lucia Li ’24, an Industrial Design major at RISD

system of Gross National Happiness (GNH) in 1998, which uses quantitative indicators to measure the formerly abstract concept of happiness. Even though Bhutan received international acclaim for its innovative new system, major issues lurk below the surface. Notably, GNH diverts attention away from alarming issues in the nation ranging from poverty to ethnic

“Rejecting GDP as a principal measure of success, the nation formed its own system around four pillars: good governance, sustainable socioeconomic development, cultural preservation, and environmental conservation.” cleansing, reading more as a surface-level publicity stunt than a systemic shift in priorities. Rather than as a source of inspiration for other nations, GNH serves as an alarming case study that countries aiming to implement happiness metrics should be wary of replicating. Dating back to 1971, Bhutan’s GNH is one of the world’s oldest and most well-known government-mandated programs on happiness. Rejecting GDP as a principal measure of success, the nation formed its own system around four pillars: good governance, sustainable socioeconomic development, cultural preservation, and environmental conservation. The measurement system is applied via a survey of around 300 questions that are answered by a randomized group of Bhutanese citizens in a three-hour period. Polling questions essentially ask for a respondent’s thoughts on their life and mental health. Citizens are then sorted into four categories: unhappy, narrowly happy, extensively happy, and deeply happy. Using these results, the government attempts to contextualize its socioeconomic standing and achievements. The program has been internationally acclaimed; in 2011, a UN resolution backed by 68 countries called for more widespread adoption of Bhutan’s GNH development framework and the creation of a UN panel to oversee methods of implementation. The happiness metric has arguably become one of the nation’s greatest sources of publicity, helping to bolster the country’s growing tourism industry and increase government revenue. So, does this program properly measure the country’s success? The answer is complex. According to the GNH’s findings in 2015, more than 90 percent of the country’s population falls within one of the three levels of happiness: narrowly, extensively, or deeply happy. While these results appear to be positive, Bhutan falters when its metrics are considered against more tangible measures of success and well-being. Classified by the UN as a “least developed country,” Bhutan struggles with growing unemployment, rising crime rates, and poverty. The youth unemployment rate rose by 2.7 per-

cent from 2013 to 2017, the capital’s crime rate surged a staggering 161 percent in just one year, and the nation’s poverty rate stands at 11.2 percent as of 2020. It is easy to see how important issues can be overlooked when the measurement system uses questions like “How happy did you feel yesterday” and “how often do you practice meditation” rather than empirical data sources. Perhaps the greatest problem with GNH is its failure to accurately represent the demographic makeup of Bhutan. The survey fails to address the concerns of specific peoples, facilitating an almost nationwide cognitive dissonance regarding the issues facing its marginalized populations. The country’s rural population, constituting more than 60 percent of all citizens, experiences disproportionate poverty and unemployment—urban poverty stands at around 0.8 percent compared to rural poverty at 11.9 percent. Poverty also unequally affects homes with heads of household who are over 65, a problem related to the lack of economic support for the country’s older population. Both rural and senior residents are especially vulnerable when confronted with Bhutan’s lacking healthcare infrastructure: In 2016, the country had three doctors and 14 nurses for every 10,000 citizens. This points to a serious national labor shortage and lack of funding in the healthcare industry, which has become even more of a challenge with rising rates of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes. Lack of access to mental healthcare is particularly concerning. Even as rates of suicide and mental health problems increase, the country has only four psychiatrists for its entire population of over 700,000—a troubling statistic for the country known as the “Happy Kingdom.” The struggles of Bhutanese women are another topic not addressed by GNH. The female literacy rate is 59 percent, substantially lower than the national average of 71.4 percent. Additionally, women hold just a fraction of the roles available in civil service and government, and they are prevented from assuming positions of power because of the country’s deeply rooted THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE

WORLD

“GNH diverts attention away from alarming issues in the nation ranging from poverty to ethnic cleansing, reading more as a surface-level publicity stunt than a systemic shift in priorities.” patriarchal traditions. A study by the National Commission of Women and Children found that nearly 40 percent of women agreed with the traditional saying that “women are nine births lower than men,” and over 50 percent of respondents agreed that men are justified in hitting their wives. Unfortunately, it comes as little surprise that the country also experiences higher than average rates of gender-based violence. This raises the question of how the GNH is able to obscure a deeply ingrained tradition of sexism while polling its population on their level of happiness. Worst of all, GNH systematically ignores the plight of the ethnically Nepali and Hindu-majority Lhotshampa people of Bhutan, who have faced discrimination from Bhutan's government for decades. Starting in the 1980s, the government enacted institutionalized ethnic cleansing of the Lhotshampa, which continues to this day. The government stripped Lhotshampas of their citizenship, and from the 1980s to the 2010s, it forcibly expelled 80,000 to 100,000 Lhotshampas from the country. The remaining Lhotshampas in Bhutan face broad discrimination: They are labeled “illegal immigrants” and forbidden from expressing their culture. Because Lhotshampa and Nepali speakers have not been able to obtain citizenship, they are also excluded from the GNH survey. Furthermore, because the GNH is strictly upheld on the basis of Buddhism, it actively excludes non-Buddhists—including many Lhotshampa—from the national dialogue. This excludes Lhotshampa perspectives from the discussions on GNH and limits press coverage on Bhutan's oppressive practices. After all, how could the “Happy Kingdom” be involved in ethnic cleansing? At this point, Bhutan has publicized and carefully curated its GNH to the point where it is more of a publicity stunt than an effective policy. In fact, GNH directly detracts from issues that actually matter. Bhutan is facing a mental health crisis, an unbroken tradition of gender inequality, and institutionalized ethnic cleansing. Yet, none of these issues receive a fraction

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

of the publicity that the GNH has received. Furthermore, for a program that claims to contextualize the nation’s socioeconomic success, the measurement system remains far too simplistic and superficial. Most concerning, GNH excludes important communities and perspectives from its polling. All of these problems raise the question of whether 90 percent of Bhutanese citizens—of all ages, genders, classes, religions, and ethnic groups—are truly happy. Happiness has been shown to improve life expectancy and quality of life far more than traditional measures of success, and it should be prioritized by more nations around the world. In doing so, however, countries must learn from Bhutan’s mistakes and be cognizant of the dangers of sensationalizing happiness. Measuring happiness accurately is more important than generating publicity.

Virtually Defenseless How the United States can learn from its allies to develop more effective cybersecurity policy

by Jillian Talenda ’22, an International and Public Affairs concentrator illustrations by Elena Aguirre ’22, an Illustration major at RISD

In December 2020, as the United States dealt with a pandemic, heightened diplomatic tensions, and a delicately recovering economy, the country was dealt another blow: the SolarWinds attack. Targeting government agencies and private contractors alike, SolarWinds was a landmark cyberattack that garnered a high level of media attention and plunged the American public into a heightened state of fear over cybersecurity concerns. This devastating intelligence breach revealed the dismal state of US ‘cybersecurity mission resilience,’ or how effective cybersecurity policy and structure is at detecting and defending against cyber threats in a timely manner. To remedy its poor cybersecurity resilience, the United States must look toward its allies who have implemented model cybersecurity strategies and policies. Estonia and the United Kingdom both offer important insights into how US cybersecurity could be improved. Both countries have remarkable cybersecurity policies in place, and while they take different approaches, each yields impressive results. Since Estonia experienced

THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE

WORLD

its first ever countrywide cyber attack in 2007, Estonia has produced and upheld one of the strongest cybersecurity strategies in the world through the creation of the Estonian Cyber Defence League, the establishment of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence, and a widespread effort to educate citizens about cybersecurity. The United Kingdom is known for its Active Cyber Defense Program and the National Cyber Security Centre, which monitor the internet for malicious websites and have collectively prevented thousands of cyber attacks. Studying these countries’ policies would provide US security policy researchers with invaluable insight into some of the world’s best cyber defense models. The successes of Estonia and the United Kingdom’s cyber policies can inspire policy recommendations for the US government to enhance its own cyber defense capabilities. The Estonian Cyber Defence League was established in 2010 as a subdivision of the Estonian Defence League, the country’s volunteer paramilitary force. The Cyber Unit was formed as a direct response to the 2007 attack with the goal of bolstering cyber defense on a national level. It is dedicated to promoting national security by protecting the country’s IT infrastructure, as well as the network of devices and technology that citizens use every day. In Estonia, nearly all national activities, from taxes to voting, are accomplished online, creating plenty of targets for prospective hackers. Thus, strong cybersecurity capabilities to protect this data are critical to Estonia’s national security. The Cyber Unit works alongside the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCD-

COE), a NATO-affiliated cyber hub that involves collaborators from 34 countries, including the United States. The group focuses on the research and development of technology, operations, strategy, and law regarding cyber policy. The CCDCOE also carries out initiatives to test the cyber capabilities of member states. Most notable is Locked Shields, a training exercise that pits a red team against multiple blue teams in a cyber defense exercise. The blue teams are composed of NATO member nations that work to defend against the red team in a cyberattack simulation. These yearly exercises not only unite member states with a common mission, but also help educate and prepare cyber professionals across the world for attack scenarios. As of 2018, the CCDCOE was put in charge of the cyber defense training and education for all NATO bodies. The fact that it works so closely with the Estonian Cyber Defence League highlights the strength of Estonia’s cybersecurity mission resilience. Aside from the organizations that protect the nation from cyber attacks, Estonia’s cyber strategy focuses on protecting the country’s citizens at an individual level. Estonia has made a serious effort to educate its citizens, especially its youth, about cybersecurity. This effort has significantly improved the country’s technology literacy, creating a citizenry that is aware of the importance of cybersecurity. From elementary school onwards, coding and computer science skills are prioritized in children’s education, and adults are offered free computer training courses. More than 90 percent of Estonia’s population is considered computer proficient, while a 2019 Pew Research study found that only 40 percent of US adults on average answer ques-

“Estonia and the UK both offer important insights into how US cybersecurity could be improved. Both countries have remarkable cybersecurity policies in place, and while they take different approaches, each yields impressive results.”

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

“The United States is a significantly larger country than Estonia and the UK, with a more convoluted IT infrastructure, more citizens, and consequently, more vulnerabilities.”

tions on topics like cookies and phishing scams correctly, indicating lower rates of digital literacy. Like Estonia, the United Kingdom has consistently held a top spot in the Global Cybersecurity Index. The UK also has organizations dedicated to cybersecurity like the Active Cyber Defence (ACD) program, which is a part of the broader National Cyber Security Centre. These government initiatives are largely successful due to their partnerships with the public sector, international organizations, and industry. One of the ACD’s most valuable programs is the Takedown Service, which tracks malicious websites and fake information and then alerts the host to remove that information from the internet. The ACD has directly reduced the average amount of time that a phishing site typically remains online from 27 hours to only 1. The time that vulnerabilities are “live” and therefore still a threat—also known as their threat life cycle—is just as important as how many malicious campaigns exist. Through the efforts of organizations like the ACD, the United Kingdom has prevented thousands of cyber attacks. Although the United States has a low cybersecurity mission resilience—a low capacity to detect and defend against cyber threats—this should not be confused with having poor cybersecurity abilities. In fact, the United States houses most of the world’s digital security agencies and is consistently listed as having one of the largest arsenals of cybersecurity resources and tools. The United States already has a plethora of cybersecurity agencies, is a member of the CCDCOE and other international cybersecurity forums, and has initiatives for cyberse-

curity education and awareness. Simply put, the United States has a lot of resources, but it is not distributing those resources in a way that provides high cybersecurity mission resilience. The country’s potential for strong cyber defense is incredibly high, but a far greater number of attacks have managed to breach the country’s defenses than those of Estonia or the United Kingdom. So, what makes US cybersecurity mission resilience so much weaker than that of other countries? One explanation could be differences in organization between the United States and other countries. The United States is a significantly larger country than Estonia and the United Kingdom, with a more convoluted IT infrastructure, more citizens, and consequently, more vulnerabilities. To adopt practices from these countries, the United States must first reorganize its cybersecurity infrastructure such that its technology is universally secure and up to date. The United States must also merge its various cybersecurity agencies into a smaller number of more focused and better-funded organizations. As it reshapes its cybersecurity systems, the United States can look to the policies of Estonia and the United Kingdom for guidance. The United States should adopt a more assertive education initiative that would aim to improve computer literacy, similar to that of Estonia. Plenty of information is available online in the United States for those who seek to understand cybersecurity, but an earnest government effort to teach people this information has yet to be implemented. Computer science skills should be integrated into the education system, and free courses should be made available offline for adults who may not have the ability or interest to find online resources. The United States should also adopt an initiative similar to the ACD’s Takedown Service. Because the United States struggles with such a high number of cyber attacks, having a team dedicated to tracking down phishing sites and other malicious campaigns will considerably lower their threat lifecycles. The United States has the means to develop a very strong cybersecurity mission resilience; it just needs to direct its resources more effectively. By learning from its allies, the United States can implement better cybersecurity policy and better protect its sensitive information and infrastructure.

THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE

INTERVIEW

Reforming Our Democracy—What We Learned from the 2020 Election and What Comes Next An Interview with Lawrence Norden

Interview by Zachary Stern ’22 Illustration by Naya Lee Chang ’24

Lawrence Norden is the director of the Election Reform Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, where he leads the Center’s work in a variety of focus areas. These include reforming campaign finance, combating voter suppression, ensuring that the American election administration is safe and secure, and combating disinformation and foreign interference in US elections. Norden is the author of The Machinery of Democracy: Protecting Elections in an Electronic World (2006) and contributed to Defending Democracies: Combating Foreign Interference in a Digital Age (2021). His work has been featured in programs and publications including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and NPR, and he currently serves as a member of the Election Assistance Commission Board of Advisors and the vicechair of the Election Security Committee.

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

This interview was conducted on March 28, 2021. Zachary Stern (ZS): What would the For the People Act mean for election security? Lawrence Norden (LN): The bill would spend hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrades to our election infrastructure. It would fund risk-limiting audits, widely considered the best kind of audit of paper ballots to make sure the results that machines provide are accurate. It would also create federal standards for electronic poll books, which can be security vulnerabilities. And it would get rid of paperless voting machines, which experts and the intelligence community have been saying for years are an unnecessary vulnerability. If a voting system doesn’t have a physical record of every vote, there’s no way of retrieving votes as they were intended to be cast in the event of

“My number one lesson is that the more options you have for voting, the more resilient our elections will be.”

a cyber-attack, virus, software malfunction, or even the manipulation of election results. There’s been a gradual move away from paperless systems because of these security risks, but there are still some states that use them. ZS: Why do we continue to underfund election security?

LN: In a knee-jerk way, Republicans in Congress have opposed federal funding for elections, even for election security. Many of them have stuck to the argument that they don’t want a federal takeover of elections, but that might be changing. A good number of Republicans in the last couple Congresses have recognized election security as part of Congress’s responsibility in protecting the nation. The only election-related funding Congress has provided since the 2016 election has been for election security, but it hasn’t been nearly enough money. Securing funding for election administration at the state and local level is also difficult because it is not something that you generally run a campaign on. Things like school funding and garbage pickup have much more salience for voters. In general, we don’t invest in elections, and election security is an election investment. ZS: In what ways does election security increase voting access? Does access also increase election security? LN: Interestingly, the two are often presented in opposition when in fact they are mutually reinforcing. Going into the 2020 election, my team and I were very worried about the security of our election infrastructure, but by Election Day we were feeling pretty good because people were voting by mail and voting early. The worst-case scenario for our election infrastructure would have been an attack on our power grid, voting machines, or electronic poll books, but by spreading out voting through early voting and vote by mail, the risk was also being spread out. That’s a security measure because there’s no one point to attack on election day the way there has been in previous elections. Attacks on voter access are also an attack on election security. ZS: How do you balance the push for improving our election security with the need to instill faith in our elections in a climate where Trump and others in the Republican party have sought to undermine the legitimacy of these systems for their own political gain? LN: That’s a needle to thread, no question about it. The best way you can do that is to make sure we’re investing in election security to show people that there is a commitment to security. Our elections have become much more secure and transparent over the last several years. I think emphasizing those good practices both reinforces confidence in the system and pushes all jurisdictions around the country to adopt them. In 2016, for example, about 20 percent of people were voting on paperless systems. By 2020, that number was only 5 percent. This was partly because more people voted by mail, but it was also because a succession of states recognized that we can’t use this paperless equipment anymore. The truth of the matter is that there are some people you will never convince because they don’t want to be convinced, but the more we talk about good practices and where they’re happening, the more we can

simultaneously increase confidence while pushing better practices around the country. ZS: What lessons does 2020 offer for future elections in terms of election security? LN: My number one lesson is that the more options you have for voting, the more resilient our elections will be. It was also incredibly helpful that in all of the states that were at issue, everyone was voting on paper and they conducted post-election audits in all of those states. A third lesson—and maybe the biggest of all—is that we have to devise a better way to respond to disinformation. The hacking of people is a bigger threat than the hacking of our infrastructure. We need more transparency and better education for everyone about how our system works. We also need to anticipate what types of disinformation we are going to see and attempt to neutralize them in advance. Finally, we need to give election officials more prominence while ensuring that they can remain independent and continue to put voters first. An unfortunate outcome of the 2020 election has been that election officials, who were a bulwark against disinformation and attempts to delegitimize the election, are now under attack themselves, facing legislative efforts to criminalize certain actions and even getting death threats. ZS: In what ways did the private sector save the 2020 election? Do you see this as a solution that could be leaned on long-term? LN: I can’t tell you how many election officials I spoke to who said that they wouldn’t have been able to do what they did without private sector help. The private sector provided hundreds of millions of dollars to buy protective gear for poll workers, offer additional polling places, and run public information campaigns—all of which were massively important. I do think there may be an ongoing role for the private sector around encouraging employees to volunteer as poll workers and doing voter education, maybe by giving them paid time off. At the same time, we never want to be in the situation again where we’re relying so heavily on the private sector for basic services that the government should be providing. Ensuring that poll workers have protective gear against Covid-19 or buying drop-boxes so that people can safely and securely drop off their mail ballots, for instance, cannot be left in the hands of the private sector long term. These kinds of things are basic government functions. That’s giving too much power to the private sector when elections are supposed to belong to the people. That said, this was an extraordinary circumstance, and their help was needed, so everybody should be grateful that the private sector came through. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE

WORLD

Striking the King Why Africa’s last remaining absolute monarchy requires leadership reform to quell an impending civil war As one of the smallest countries in Africa at 6,704 square miles—less than the size of New Jersey—Eswatini easily slips under the radar. Despite its size, Eswatini bears a title that no other country in Africa currently claims: It is the continent’s only remaining absolute monarchy. EmaSwati, the people of Eswatini, have historically believed that the king is heaven-sent and that the country is given to the king by God. However, the centuries-old sacrosanct relationship between the emaSwati and their monarchy is quickly crumbling as emaSwatis tire of the country’s severe wealth disparities and human rights violations. To avoid civil war, King Mswati III must rein in his self-aggrandizing ways and address the peoples’ calls for greater political liberalization in a neutral, unbiased setting outside of his own court. Formerly known as Swaziland, the tiny country avoided annexation from its encircling neighbor South Africa after the 1899 Anglo-Boer War thanks to Queen Regent Labotsibeni. King Sobhuza’s 61-year reign from 1921 to 1982 only strengthened the relationship between emaSwati and their king. When my dad lived there in the 1970s, it was common knowledge that the king’s wisdom, negotiation skills, and care for his people were what won Eswatini’s independence from the British without bloodshed in 1968. Citing the incompatibility of colonial and foreign practices, King Sobhuza issued a 1973 decree that simultaneously dissolved the British-imposed constitution and banned political parties. It was this absolute monarchy that King Mswati III inherited when he was crowned in 1986 at the age of 18. Though the government of Eswatini has a bicameral parliament, political power remains primarily vested in the king,

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

by Annabelle Liu ’22, a Behavioral Decision Sciences and International and Public Affairs Concentrator and an Associate Editor for BPR infographics by Elsa Choi-Hausman ’24, Francisca Saldivar ’24, Zoey Katzive ’24, Arthi Ranganathan ’24, and Iris Xie ’23

who appoints the prime minister and 20 of the 30 members of the Senate. King Mswati III now lives lavishly with his 15 wives, a modest number compared to his father’s 70–plus. He is said to have a personal net worth of at least $50 million, and he also controls a sovereign wealth fund with assets worth over $140 million. In 2004, he purchased a $690,000 Mercedes Maybach 62, adding to his ultra-luxury car collection that already includes 10 BMW sedans. Social media shows that his 36 children live no less lavishly, and many of them are known to flaunt their extravagant birthday parties in their many residences. Despite what the king’s opulent lifestyle may suggest, Eswatini is one of the world’s least developed countries. Nearly two-thirds of the population live in poverty, with many civilians lacking access to clean water and electricity. Additionally, the country has made headlines in recent years for its extensive human rights violations and lack of proper law enforcement. For example, even though the law forbids torture and cruel punishment, there are various reports of such actions being taken by both official police and untrained volunteer community police, or nongovernment-affiliated rural vigilantes. According to a 2020 US State Department human rights report on Eswatini, the government “was inconsistent in its investigation, prosecution, and punishment of officials who committed human rights abuses.” With such immense wealth inequality and widespread human rights violations, the number of pro-democracy protests in the country has increased. In May 2021, the mysterious death of 25-year-old law student Thabani Nko-

Income Inequality in Eswatini by the Numbers monye—believed to have been killed by the Eswatini royal police—instigated petitions and peaceful street protests from 500 youths, teachers, and academics speaking out against police brutality. In response, Prime Minister Themba Masuku issued a “zero-tolerance” decree on June 25 banning all protests and petitions. The decree was enforced by strict security personnel who allegedly shot at protesters indiscriminately and severely injured bystanders. On June 29, the internet shut down, which was believed to be a deliberate attempt by the government to suppress the spread of information. Protests grew after Members of Parliament (MPs) Mduduzi Mabuza and Mthandeni Dube were arrested for pro-democracy activities in July 2021. Over 10,000 peaceful protesters marched to the US Embassy in October of the same year to advocate for their release, only to be violently suppressed by security forces wielding live ammunition, rubber bullets, and tear gas. By October 18, the estimated death toll of peaceful protesters at the hands of the police surpassed 80. Yet offending police officers were met with little to no repercussions, and the MPs that remain in custody are still awaiting trial. Shockingly, the monarchy continues to deny the veracity of both of these violations and their role in creating the economic challenges currently facing the country. Princess Sikhanyiso, who serves as her father’s Minister of Information, Communication, and Technology, stated in regard to the use of excessive force against the June 2021 protests that, “unknown mercenaries invaded the country in uniform masquerading as the country’s soldiers and police to kill the people.” In a statement on Twitter, Prime Minister Masuku said of his June “zero-tolerance” decree that the ban was “by no means stifling Eswatini citizens from raising grievances.” Furthermore, in his first public appearance responding to the riots, King Mswati III dismissed the youth protesters as “marijuana smokers.” Following international pressure from the South African Development Community (SADC) last fall, King Mswati III agreed to call a national dialogue to resolve the crisis using the traditional forum of Sibaya. Though countries like the United States view this as a positive step in addressing citizens’ grievances, domestic pro-democracy groups criticize the Sibaya as ineffective because of its customary setting in royal residences. The groups insist that the Sibaya is biased, likening the king and his government to referees and players on their home field. Moreover, the Sibaya often excludes most citizens’ submissions and allows dialogue only from senators, MPs, and a select few close to the king. Those who are allowed to speak risk

“Despite what the king’s opulent lifestyle may suggest, Eswatini is one of the world’s least developed countries. Nearly two-thirds of the population live in poverty, with many civilians lacking access to clean water and electricity.”

harassment, arrest, and material dispossession if their submission is deemed insulting to the king. Another SADC-led political intervention through Sibaya is likely to fail just as all previous ones have. Yet finding a neutral and inclusive democratic platform for dialogue is not enough to resolve the crisis. If the government does not amend the 1973 ban on political parties, emaSwati who voice their concerns at Sibaya lack any representative capacity, and the implementation of their demands cannot be guaranteed. Although Eswatini’s 2005 constitution guarantees its commitment to international human rights standards set out in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the continued enforcement of the 1973 decree renders this declaration largely ineffective. Any other changes to the constitution are also blocked by the decree. For example, a May 2008 legal challenge sought a court order to force the government to convene a constitutional assembly so that a more legitimate constitution could be drafted, but the Mswati-appointed Supreme Court denied it. Until recently, even though it lacked democracy, Eswatini had been the only country in southern Africa to remain peaceful since its independence. Such stability was due to the strong bonds that existed between the monarchy and the emaSwati. However, gone now are the days of annual Sibaya meetings where the monarch would sit with the emaSwati as equal partners, forging the future of their country together. If King Mswati III wishes to avoid civil war and restore the golden days seen during his father’s reign, his regime must accept the emaSwati’s demands for change, especially those concerning public political participation and the 1973 decree. THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE

Crude Behavior Why illegal oil refineries in the Niger River Delta region cannot simply be eliminated by Robert Daly ’25, an intended Mathematics and Philosophy concentrator and a Copy Editor for BPR illustrations by Kelly Zhou ’23, an Illustration major at RISD

“This looks post-apocalyptic,” says Vice News Correspondent Gianna Toboni as she looks out across a blackened landscape in a formerly vibrant section of the Niger River Delta. Crude oil and other flammable chemicals from an illegal oil refinery cover the ground, forming a thick black sludge. Skeletal trees and rusted containers litter the ground. A man, silhouetted by the towering flames of a nearby furnace, throws fuel onto a massive open fire. The work looks dangerous, dirty, and unrewarding—but appearances only tell half the story. While illegal oil refineries in the Niger Delta are threatening and highly pollutive, they are vital to the continued survival of the local economy and have been resilient to the Nigerian government’s campaign to eradicate them. To make this eradication campaign successful, the Nigerian government must address the general economic conditions that SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

incentivize illegal oil refining and mitigate environmental damages. The Niger River Delta, located in the southernmost region of Nigeria, contains some of the world’s largest oil and natural gas reserves. The region contributes to Nigeria’s 37 billion barrel oil reserve and roughly 200 trillion cubic meters of gas reserves. As a result, petroleum companies like the Shell group began operating in Nigeria as early as 1936. Since then, these companies have laid upwards of 1,650 kilometers of crude pipelines across the Niger Delta. The Nigerian government struggles to properly monitor the integrity of the pipeline system due to its massive size. As a result, teams of three to six people can weld illegal taps onto pipelines within a matter of days, allowing for the unsanctioned extraction of crude oil from large companies’ pipelines. The crude oil is then siphoned off and transported by boat to illegal refineries nearby, where it is stored—sometimes in pits with inadequate lining—before being heated and distilled in an oven, releasing dense clouds of black smoke. The process yields diesel, petro-

leum, kerosene, bitumen, and other waste products. The desirable products are stored for later distribution, while waste products are used to fuel the fire for the next day’s batch. Unsurprisingly, illegal oil refineries have significant negative effects on the Niger Delta’s ecosystem. According to the research findings of Amnesty International, oil theft and sabotage accounted for at least 59.7 percent of the oil spills in the Niger Delta between 1998 and 2017. Such spills have been linked to increased concentrations of dangerous heavy metals like chromium, lead, and mercury in crops as well as a decrease in the local fish population. The Niger Delta’s ecosystem is not the only casualty of pollution from oil refineries, however. Nigerian citizens also directly suffer. A study from the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the United States found that oil spills have doubled the risk of neonatal mortality in the Niger Delta, killing about 16,000 infants during the first few months of their lives in 2012. Numerous deaths are also caused by unsafe working conditions

in the illegal refineries. Given the highly combustible nature of hydrocarbon products and the high temperatures required to distill them, the oven fires used in the refining process can easily get out of control. In a place where crude oil and other flammable waste products litter the ground, a mismanaged fire can be deadly, as shown by the recent explosion of an illegal refinery that killed 25 Nigerians. Despite extremely unsafe conditions, significant environmental damages, and direct loss of life, there are few economic alternatives for citizens of the Niger River Delta. In a historically impoverished region with a high unemployment rate and few other available jobs, the financial motivation to tap pipelines, steal oil, and refine it illegally is simply too great to ignore. An average tapped pipeline can earn more than $1,038,000 each month for the refineries and their operators, and workers in the business of illegal oil refinement “earn significantly more than in any other local job.” As one local put it in an interview with a research group from Stake Holder Democracy, illegal oil refining “has affected our environment negatively… we see the way they pour the waste in a very shallow pit. But we have also built houses with the money from this business.” Thus, although illegal oil refining is a potentially fatal and pollutive practice, it also provides an economic lifeline to the local community in an area where one would not otherwise exist. Even under pressure from the Nigerian military to cease production, illegal oil refineries

"While illegal oil refineries in the Niger Delta are threatening and highly pollutive, they are vital to the continued survival of the local economy and have been resilient to the Nigerian government’s campaign to eradicate them."

in the Niger Delta have flourished. In 2019, the Joint Task Force (JTF)—the section of the Nigerian military charged with fighting oil crime— claimed to have destroyed as many as 988 illegal oil refineries in just six months. Yet, a 2019 study by Transparency International found that “members of the Nigerian armed forces have enabled and benefitted from the illegal trade in a number of ways” by extorting refiners for protection money, accepting bribes, and even standing guard for oil thieves. It is clear that the influence of bad actors in the JTF prevents the task force from effectively closing as many illegal oil refineries as it claims. Furthermore, sources generally agree that even when the JTF actually eliminates refineries, “the set up costs are so low and returns so high that within weeks illegal refiners start up new camps.” While the act of destruction has little effect on the illegal oil market, it has significant environmental drawbacks. When the JTF destroys a refinery, it slashes storage containers, leaking refined petroleum into the ground and nearby waterways. Therefore, the JTF’s actions only accelerate the deterioration of an already fragile ecosystem, contributing to the environmental degradation of the Niger River Delta. This damage can then encourage more locals to turn to illegal oil refining instead of trying to eke out a living through fishing or agriculture. Until the economy of the Niger Delta can thrive without the threat of oil crime, it is unrealistic to believe the destruction of refineries will provide a long-term solution to the issue and lessen environmental degradation. New taps will be made, and illegal refineries will simply be rebuilt. Fortunately, there is reason to believe that the Nigerian government can find success in alternative solutions not based on direct eradication. In the past, oil thieves in the Niger River Delta have shown genuine willingness to work with the Nigerian government. For example, over 20,000 militant oil thieves participated in the Presidential Amnesty Programme of 2009, which provided them with a state pardon, educational training, and a monthly stipend in exchange for the surrender of weapons. In the following years, the amnesty program led to fewer supply chain reductions and a 40 percent increase in oil production as companies repaired damaged infrastructure. The program benefited the Nigerian government, oil companies, and the inhabitants of the Niger River Delta. Even so, a lack of progress in job creation and economic development has sustained the recent return of oil theft. Considering the ineffective nature of the Nigerian government’s current response to oil crime, reviving a similar program, based in education and the creation of jobs, would be a much more viable solution and have the potential to revitalize the region.

WORLD

My Life is Not Your Porn Why South Korea must change its legal system to address online sexual violence

by Ye Chan Song ’24, an International and Public Affairs and Economics concentrator and an Associate Editor for BPR illustrations by Hannah Chang ’23, an Illustration major at RISD

Seoul’s Hyehwa station saw 12,000 women assemble on May 19, 2018 to protest the rise of online sexual violence against women. Between 2004 and 2017, hidden camera cases involving the filming and distribution of private or explicit scenes rose from 4 to 20 percent of sex crime-related prosecutions in South Korea. Furthermore, more than 30,000 cases of illegal filming were reported between 2013 and 2018 alone. It is therefore no surprise that the women who gathered at Hyehwa Station chose the slogan “My Life Is Not Your Porn” in the hopes that their outcry would spark desperately needed change. The Hyehwa Station Protest is one of many symbols of the resurging feminist movement in South Korea. It parallels the longstanding comfort women protest movement, which has organized demonstrations since 1992 and demands that the Japanese government formally apologize for its violence against South Korean women who were forced into sex labor during the Japanese annexation. The resem-

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

blance between the two movements may, at first glance, suggest that South Korea is deviating from its traditionally patriarchal values as it reckons with pervasive sexual abuse against women. However, the government has diverged in its response to these two feminist campaigns. Despite its vigorous efforts to seek justice for former comfort women, the government has neglected to meaningfully address online sexual violence. Unless the government recognizes present-day misogyny and rectifies the exploitation of women, it will fail to uphold the principles for which it claims to stand. The abuse of comfort women remains an agonizingly personal issue for many South Koreans, as approximately 200,000 women were forced into sex labor during the Japanese annexation. Recognizing the magnitude of the issue, the current South Korean government criticized the inadequate terms of the 2015 settlement between the former South Korean and Japanese governments. In this settlement, former Japa-

nese officials issued an informal apology, and their government pledged $8.8 million to establish a foundation to care for survivors. Yet the current South Korean government claims that both negotiating parties ignored the demands of surviving victims when devising the settlement. It pledges to renegotiate a new settlement that will reflect a “victim-oriented approach” and require an official apology from the Japanese government. The South Korean government has since taken active measures to initiate diplomatic talks on the matter, issuing a court order demanding that the Japanese government compensate the surviving victims directly, rather than through a proxy foundation. These measures demonstrate the South Korean government’s willingness to match its words with actions to redress past human rights violations against South Korean women. However, the government has not demonstrated the same resolve in addressing the harms perpetrated against contemporary South

“South Korea has repeatedly prioritized bandaging immediate controversies over constructing comprehensive laws to prevent sexual violence.”

“In 2020, 79 percent of convicted perpetrators of nonconsensual filming were only punished with fines, suspended sentences, or both.”

Korean women. The recent investigation of the Nth Room case exposed a systematic operation that blackmailed women into performing sexually explicit acts and sold the footage. While the total number of victims remains unknown, reports suggest that there were at least 103, including 26 underage girls. Prior to the Nth Room case, it was legal to possess nonconsensually obtained sexual content, meaning that the estimated 60,000 users who subscribed to Nth Room content did not violate the law. This is representative of a culture of violent misogyny that has proliferated not in spite of the law, but because of it. While South Korea criminalized possession of nonconsensually filmed sexual content following the exposé, the Nth Room case nonetheless demonstrates the reactive nature of the government’s response toward online sexual violence. South Korea has repeatedly prioritized bandaging immediate controversies over constructing comprehensive laws to prevent sexual violence. It must rectify this failure by instituting policy changes so that the legal system serves victims rather than perpetrators. To do this, the South Korean government should first adopt stricter sentences for individuals convicted of sex crimes to deter such behavior. In the United States, individuals convicted of online sex crimes involving minors are sentenced to between 15 and 30 years in prison.

By contrast, in South Korea, individuals convicted of filming or distributing nonconsensual sexually explicit content face a maximum sentence of five years in prison or a fine of 30 million KRW (approximately $25,000) regardless of whether the victim is a minor or an adult. By failing to condemn online sex crimes involving minors with harsher punishments, weak legislation has enabled perpetrators to commit violent acts with relatively few repercussions. The government should also enforce current laws more strictly. In 2020, 79 percent of convicted perpetrators of nonconsensual filming were punished with just fines, suspended sentences, or both. In 2017 and 2018, convicts of online sex crimes against minors faced an average imprisonment term of just two years. One method to address these lenient sentences would be to introduce mandatory minimums, thereby eliminating the possibility of avoiding imprisonment by paying fines. This would serve as a strong deterrent to individuals who previously might have been willing to bear the cost of financial punishment. Furthermore, the South Korean government should establish police agencies that specialize in online sex crimes. These agencies would primarily track and uncover cases of online sex crimes, but they would also be trained to provide victims with support and counseling. To ensure that they are serving the needs of victims, the government could institute strict consequences, such as subjection to tribunal proceedings, if agencies fail to comply with protocols. Just by listening to the stories of victims and acting on the information they provide, the judicial system could transform into a bastion of rectitude. Finally, the South Korean government should fund the creation of additional assistance bodies to support victims recovering from trauma. These bodies would provide mental health support to aid victims in their rehabilitation, as well as grant them funding for legal costs of pursuing litigation against their offenders. Furthermore, an open feedback system between victims and authorities could allow them to aid the victims according to their individual needs. Victims of sex crimes are subjected to longterm pain with consequences that persist for years. As the South Korean government works to ameliorate this pain for former comfort women, it must do the same for victims of online sex crimes. These efforts will be critical to the government's long-term goal of advancing justice and gender equality.

THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE

INTERVIEW

Probing the Conservative View of Poverty and Welfare An Interview with Robert Rector

Interview by Sam Kolitch ’23 Illustration by Naya Lee Chang ’24

Robert Rector is the Senior Research Fellow for Domestic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. He joined Heritage in 1984, and he previously worked as an analyst in the US Office of Personnel Management. Rector also served on the congressionally mandated Millennial Housing Commision. He is the co-author of America’s Failed $5.4 Trillion War on Poverty (1995) and co-editor of Steering the Elephant: How Washington Works (1987). He received a bachelor’s degree from the College of William and Mary and a master’s degree in political science from Johns Hopkins University.

SPRING 2022 | ISSUE 01

This interview is the second installment of BPR’s latest series, The Last Line of Defense: How Expansive Should the US Social Safety Net Be? This series spotlights differing viewpoints on the efficacy of widening our social safety net, particularly in light of the coronavirus pandemic and the heated debates in Congress over President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better Act. Sam Kolitch (SK): You are an ardent critic of expanding the US social safety net, particularly through measures such as those included in President Biden’s Build Back Better Act. In fact, you recently wrote, “Today’s welfare system—plus Democrat expansions and changes—penalizes work and discourages marriage, undermining self-support and the well-being of the poor.” Broadly speaking, what values should an ideal welfare system embody? Robert Rector (RR): We need to have a welfare system that not only meets material needs, but does so in a way that helps to meet higher-order human needs as well. First is

the need for strong families, for strong relationships. Second is the need for accomplishment—for an individual to be able to contribute to society and gain respect from that contribution; that need is fulfilled, in part, from work. I think the current welfare system utterly fails in respect to these needs. Since the beginning of the war on poverty in the ‘60s, there has been an absolute collapse of family structure in low-income communities and a huge loss of employment in the labor force, primarily among unmarried, less-educated men. The decline in labor force participation among these men is linked to their declining role as husbands and breadwinners. We spend a lot of money on material needs, most of which is not counted. But we have undermined the fulfillment of higher order needs. We need a welfare system that seeks to harmonize needs, creating a synergistic effect where we’re encouraging work and marriage while meeting material needs. SK: You just said, “We spend a lot of money on material needs, most of which is not counted.” If you are referring to how we measure poverty, in what ways do you think we fall short? RR: We don’t measure poverty correctly at all. What we do is preposterous. For example, since Lyndon Johnson launched the war on poverty in 1964, we have spent $34 trillion—with a "T"—on means-tested cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services. Out of that, the Census Bureau has only counted $2.5 trillion as income for the purposes of measuring poverty. In other words, the entire war on poverty from the perspective of the Census Bureau was off the books and effectively never even happened. The money just disappeared. Because the Census's official poverty reports are the foundation by which people gain information about welfare and poverty in the United States, people do not understand that, in reality, we have a large means-tested welfare system. If you were to look at the typical poor family with children today, it receives, on average, something like $38,000 in cash, food, housing, and medical care from the government. The Census Bureau only counts roughly $3,000 of that as income in its official measurements of poverty and inequality. So it is not that the Census misses the welfare state, it is that the welfare state is essentially non-existent by their records. SK: Is that entirely true if the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) includes, in its words, “government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals that are not included in the official poverty measure”? RR: The Supplemental Poverty Measure rarely appears in the press or political discourse. The SPM excludes all medical aid and undercounts cash, food, and housing benefits by around 40 percent. This can be determined simply by looking up the budget outlays of these programs (net of administrative costs) and comparing them to the benefits reported in the SPM. The SPM also undercounts the earnings of low-income persons by around 30 percent. This can be determined by comparing the earnings figures in the SPM with the earnings for the same family in

IRS and Social Security records. At the top and bottom of the income spectrum, you have serious underreporting of all forms of income. And everyone who is in this field knows that. The great mystery about the SPM is that it ostensibly counts welfare benefits but actually ends up with higher poverty rates than the Official Poverty Measure, which basically does not count welfare. How did that happen? It happens because the Supplemental Poverty Measure has raised poverty thresholds by about 30 percent in a complicated way that only a few specialists can understand. This is almost never explained. The poverty thresholds in the SPM are auto-escalating. As the constant dollar incomes of the lower-middle class rise, the poverty income thresholds also rise. Over time, it takes more and more real income to rise out of poverty. It’s like running a race where every time you take a step the finish line moves away from you by three feet. It is designed so that it is almost impossible to cross the finish line.

“We don’t measure poverty correctly at all. What we do is preposterous.”

SK: So do you believe that there is a deliberate misrepresentation of poverty in America as well as the true size of our welfare state? RR: Yes, clearly. Government bureaucracies are not nonideological. The permanent bureaucracy in Washington promotes a larger welfare state and what I would call the “grievance culture.” Accurately reporting the current size of the welfare state is not advantageous to those goals. Therefore, the bureaucracy consistently underreports resources through both the Official Poverty Measure (OPM) and Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). With the Official Poverty Measure, they are using a flawed methodology from 1945 that excludes nearly the whole welfare state. When the SPM was introduced, it was very well known to everyone in Washington that it still undercounted benefits and earnings, but nothing was done to fix it. SK: Lastly, is there anything in the Build Back Better Act that you think would be beneficial if enacted? RR: Not really. The main thing it does is effectively remove work requirements out of what will be the largest cash grant program. It expands the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) budget by effectively 50 percent. It heavily subsidizes center-based daycare and pre-K in public schools. But most parents, low- or high-income, do not want their kids in highly formal centralized daycare and do not want their kids in pre-K, and those programs do not have the benign effects that are usually touted for them. The bill exacerbates the marriage penalties across the board. It’s just an absolute disaster. And it is by far the largest expansion of welfare in US history. It is adding close to 1 percent of GDP into the welfare system. Again, I would say if you want to expand the welfare state, you should be honest about what’s currently being spent and what’s currently being received. We certainly do not have that factual base in our current discourse.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

THE CONSUMPTION ISSUE