Tuskan Times Volume 7 Issue 4

February 2019 Issue

International School of Florence

Volume 7, Issue 5

What’s in this issue?

DOES AMERICA NEED A WALL, 1 AMERICA’S RIGHT TO PROTECT ITS BORDER, 3 BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY: DID IT DESERVE ALL THE GLORY?, 5 THE WAR ON JOURNALISM, 6 NASA’S NEW FRONTIER, 8 BIRD BOX: OVERRATED?, 9 WOODSTOCK 2.0, 10 THE VENEZUELAN CRISIS, 11 SURVIVING R.KELLY, 12 WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH BREXIT?, 15 WHO’S RUNNING IN 2020?, 17 SHOULD CELEBRITIES TALK POLITICS, 20 HUMANS OF ISF, 22

STAFF Editor-in-Chief Isabella Lovalvo

Artists Grace Ihle Jacqueline Obert

Co-Editor Niccolò Platt

Advisor John Pitonzo

Layout Editors Giulia Oosterwijk Jacqueline Obert

Front cover by Grace Ihle Back cover by Jacqueline Obert

OPINION: DOES AMERICA NEED A WALL?

By Isabella Lovalvo In the last couple of months, the American government has faced the longest shutdown in recent history, one that has deprived millions of federal workers of their rightful pay, permanently inflicted around three billion dollars worth of damage on the US economy, and left multiple state parks in extreme disarray. The shutdown’s purpose? To force the House of Representatives, now led by a Democrat majority, to allot $5.7 billion for President Trump’s long-promised wall along the United States’ southern border. Trump’s willingness to close the government for such an extended period of time demonstrates the extent to which the president believes in the necessity of the wall, but is this belief well-placed?

One of Trump’s most well-known justifications for the construction of the border wall is that it will stymie the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico into America. In theory, a physical barrier should be able to do this, but the situation is, in reality, far more nuanced and complicated. One must first consider the concept of asylum. Though hundreds of thousands of prospective immigrants are stopped by border control every year, many are actually caught by choice, and then attempt to

apply for asylum. According to the Guardian, 303,916 individuals were apprehended in 2017; thirteen percent stated “credible fear of returning to their home country,” the first requirement needed to legally commence the asylum application process. Following this declaration, officials then carry out what Trump refers to as “catch and release,” allowing prospective asylum-seekers into the United States while they await the decision of an immigration court.

The process that follows is lengthy, especially in a drastically understaffed system such as that in the United States. It may take months or years for judges to see and decide upon cases, while asylumseekers remain in the country without official legal status. Should judges decide against granting asylum, individuals can somewhat easily remain in the US, undetected, for lengthy periods of time.

Asylum is a legal process, and all prospective immigrants have the right to apply for it. Whether or not a wall is present, a large amount of prospective immigrants would still enter the country legally due to governmental policies such as “catch and release,” allowing prospective asylum-seekers into the United States while they await the decision of an immigration court.

Another statistic that Trump has left unaddressed in his quest for the construction of the wall is the number of people who enter legally and remain in the US after their visas have expired.

Though it is the most high-profile case at the moment, the arrest and possible deportation of rapper 21 Savage, an alleged UK national who legally entered the US at the age of twelve, is far from unusual. According to the Department of Homeland Security, in 2017, over 600,000 people

GLOBAL 1

who legally entered the US remained in the country after their visas had expired. This number is double that of those who attempted to enter illegally, and refers solely to those who entered via air or sea, excluding land. If the president truly wants to prevent illegal immigration, as he claims, perhaps he should focus on attempting to restrict the number of travel visas given out instead of using $5.7 billion from American taxpayers to construct a wall that would do little to address the true root of illegal immigration.

In order to further justify the wall, Trump has claimed that it will prevent the entry of drugs that contribute to thousands of deaths in the US each year. It’s clear that America is in the midst of a horrific opioid crisis, but will a wall prevent the decimation of entire cities? The short answer is no.

The long answer is that, yes, many drugs do enter the US from Latin America, but very few do so illegally. Most, instead, pass through legal ports, secretly smuggled in along with actual trading products. There is little we can do to better the situation; completely cutting off trade with Latin America, the only real preventative measure, is entirely unrealistic and economically unviable.

Besides this, placing the brunt of our blame for the opioid crisis on Mexico is foolish. According to the President’s Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, 80% of heroin users first became addicted through prescription opioids, often needlessly doled out by doctors. Perhaps then, the finger is better pointed at Big Pharma, who have GLOBAL 2

who have pushed the sale and prescription of these dangerous substances due to their high profits.

Despite Trump’s repeated demands, Democrats have remained unyielding, refusing to fund the wall.

This, of course, has opened them to criticism from the president, who accuses them of wanting completely open borders. This accusation is, however, entirely inaccurate. In the past, Democrats have introduced and voted for several measures to protect border security. In response to Trump’s claims, Chuck Schumer tweeted, “@realDonaldTrump ? The bipartisan immigration bill I authored had $40 billion for border security and would have been far more effective than the wall,” referring to the Gang of Eight bill that would have brought several key immigration reforms, employing several thousand more agents in understaffed areas along the border and even constructing 700 miles (around 1125 kilometers) of border fencing. Nancy Pelosi has also rebutted the accusations, stating, “We care about protecting our country, but we don’t think we need to protect the border by putting children in cages. We want to be smart and strong — not reckless, rash, and ruthless.”

Clearly, the vast majority of Democrats don’t desire open borders; they just don’t want Trump’s wall. And who can blame them? In reality, the wall will do little to stymie the entry of illegal immigrants and illicit substances into the United States, instead consuming billions of dollars that could be better spent elsewhere. Though the wall served as a key point of Trump’s campaign, it’s hard to avoid seeing it as an unviable, redundant concept, and due to the Democrats’ refusal to budge from their stance, something that is doomed to become yet another empty promise by the president.

Disclaimer: the views and opinions expressed in this editorial are solely those held by the author and do not necessarily represent those held by the Tuskan Times or its associates.

OPINION:AMERICA’S RIGHT TO PROTECT ITS BORDER AND CITIZENS

By Jacqueline Obert

As the President of the United States, Donald Trump has brought plenty of attention to an ongoing matter the country has been dealing with since 1924.

Over the years, both Democrats and Republicans, as well as conservatives and liberals, including Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, have agreed that the United States (specifically, its southern border) needs more border security. A large portion of President Trump’s campaign was centered on immigration issues within the US. President Trump has made many clear points and decided that building a wall at the U.S./Mexican border is an integral part of any comprehensive plan to solve the ongoing immigration problems.

Although the idea has been well accepted by conservatives, many liberals are still having difficulty understanding the advantages of having a border wall, despite their having previously funded sections of a wall in 2006.

The United States is the melting pot of the world. A place to which people can immigrate legally. Some strive for a new life, freedom, better financial opportunities, or escape from their own countries.

Although construction of the wall sounds costly (eighteen to twenty billion dollars over a ten year time period), in realityit results in a net savings over current costs.

Currently, the US spends 250 billion dollars on illegal immigrants per year! With the partial border fence we have now, over 170,000 immigrants were able to illegally enter the U.S. on a yearly basis.

These numbers multiply annually and cost the US and its taxpayers even more.

By lowering the number of illegal immigrants, the U.S. would be be able to provide more and higher paying jobs to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants. In addition, a wall would provide a first-line of protection against the influx of drugs and criminals coming into the United States across the unprotected sections of the southern border. According to a 2018 Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Report, “95% of illegal immigrants and drugs are entering without a single U.S. official noticing.” In addition, only about 53% of illegal immigrants crossing the border are incarcerated. (Disclaimer: Not all Mexicans nor illegal immigrants are drug lords, or criminals, but some are. Every country has innocent people and felons. It is for the same reason that everyone boarding a commercial aircraft must undergo security screening.

Not all people are terrorists, but some are and the damage they can do can easily cost lives.) According to the U.S Border Patrol figures, 16,067 unaccompanied minors entered the states in 2011, 24,481 in 2012, 38,833 in 2013, 68,541 in 2014, 39,970 in 2015, and 59,692 in 2016.

While many Mexicans and liberals are angered by Trump’s so called “racism,” the fact is that President Trump is only seeking to uphold existing U.S. laws and regulations that were specifically enacted to secure the U.S. border and maintain the country’s sovereignty.

GLOBAL 3

The two main reasons why illegal immigrants should not be allowed to cross the border are: (1) countries are entitled to national sovereignty over their lands, so no person has the “right” to enter into a country of which they are not a citizen in violation of that country's laws; and (2) countries have a duty to protect their citizens from outside threats.

First, the United States is entitled to protect its border and land. As such, the U.S has it own laws and regulations that should be followed by both citizens and non-citizens. The United States does not prohibit most people from coming into the country, but it does require, like every other country in the world, that people entering do so lawfully. Not allowing illegal immigrants is not only a US policy. Other Countries such as Japan, Hungary, China, and Poland also do not allow illegal immigrants. As such, these countries have lower crime rates. Countries like Germany, Sweden, England, and France are having many problems with the illegal immigrants they allowed to enter their countries. People are getting raped, stabbed, having acid thrown at them, and terrorist attacks are taking place.

Second, while not all illegal immigrants are dangerous, some are. There have been shootings (with illegal guns), (terrorist) attacks, drug deals, etc. As you can see, the current border situation is not sturdy enough. The construction of the wall is important for the United States as it is not the U.S’s responsibility to take in illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants are okay as they are coming into the country by following the law. Some argue that illegal immigrants who are leaving a war zone should be allowed into the country. First, this is unfair to the other illegals who would like to enter, and second, if these individuals are entering from a war zone, they can be dangerous. Why should we put our own country in danger to support a small portion of individuals we don't know?

GLOBAL 4

Creating a border wall will save lives. Many families of immigrants usually die or become injured along their journey just to the border.

Travellers will pay their smugglers thousands of dollars just to come into the United States. It is known that these smugglers do not care about their customers and treat them as if they were a package in the mail. According to the United Nations University, research has proven that men, women, and children immigrating/migrating are raped, kidnapped, and/or abused on their journeys. Some of the immigrants do not even make it to the border. By having a border wall, the idea of crossing the border successfully would decline and therefore discourage immigration among many.

Clearly, the construction of the border wall is a great idea and will be very beneficial to the United States’ safety and the safety of those wishing to immigrate. Not only will the border wall protect the United States and its citizens, but it will also reduce smuggling rates, and save the lives of many immigrants wishing to enter the states.

Note: the opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Tuskan Times or its associates.

BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY: DID IT DESERVE THE GLORY?

By Sophia Grella While the Golden Globe-winning moment was one for the books in the eyes of many Queen superfans, it sparked great controversy in the eyes of other audience members. Fox’s biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, first hit the screens in late October 2018.

The movie starred Mr. Robot’s Rami Malek and was co-produced by Jim Beach, Graham King, Robert De Niro, and Bryan Singer. After just a few months of screen time, the movie has gathered an overall profit of $743.7 million, a number which is only expected to rise given the numerous awards won, and a ‘sing along’ version is also rumoured to be in the making.

Despite its apparent success, the movie has also

accumulated a decent amount of controversy, especially after its Golden Globe success, bringing home the prizes for Best Motion Picture - Drama, and best Performance by an actor in a Motion Picture - Drama. While the public critiquing an actor’s performance is usually brushed under the rug due to it being a subjective opinion, what got many upset was the movie’s success despite the unsuccessful critic response, amounting only 62% on Rotten Tomatoes and 49% on Metacritic.

GLOBAL 5

The movie was also heavily criticised for the portrayal of certain subject matters; an example being Freddie Mercury’s sexuality and subsequent contraction of AIDS in 1987, which in the movie is not historically correct, as he announces his diagnosis before the Live Aid concert in 1985. The movie also gives more screen time to Freddie’s toxic relationship with Paul Prenter, and little to no screen time with his longterm boyfriend of almost a decade, Jim Hutton.

This choice was made to portray Freddie as someone incapable of establishing long term and meaningful relationships, but solely interested in a party-filled and drug-fuelled lifestyle, and was perceived by the public as a comment on homosexuality.

This interpretation of the movie gained so much popularity that the slogan ‘We Love Freddie’s Voice We Hate His Queerness’ infested all Bohemian Rhapsody’s social media profiles, mocking the producers for portraying him like a “rockstar before a human being”.

News also surfaced that the main producer, Bryan Singer, who last year was subject to numerous lawsuits due to sexual assault allegations, had initially intended to make Freddie Mercury’s death occur halfway through the movie, and would then show how the band coped with their loss and moved on. This was perceived as the band’s attempt to gloss over or undermine Freddie’s death in order to focus on their successes for more publicity. As the entire band, cast and production team have denied all the previous claims, it’s really up to the interpretation of who’s watching.

THE WAR ON JOURNALISM

By Giulia Oosterwijk The global debate on the rights of journalists, and even the freedom of the press, has been brought to light again. Attacks against journalists in the past years have all merged into one story filled with injustice and a seemingly never ending stream of prosecutions and trials; the recent prosecution of two young Reuters journalists has sparked the discussion once more.

Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo were investigating the killing of 10 Rohingya Muslim men and boys in a village in Rakhine state, a war-torn state which has displaced thousands of people. Since August 2017, 700,000 Rohingya people have fled their homes in Rakhine to escape the ethnic cleansing that the government and military have started. The Rohingya are a Muslim minority group marginalized by the government of Myanmar due to their differences in religious beliefs. On 25 August 2017, Rohingya Arsa militants launched deadly attacks on over 30 police posts. The clashes between the two parties has gained a mass amount of media attention, as both Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo are victims of censorship.

On 10 January 2018, the pre-trial hearings began, and prosecutors were looking to bring charges against the journalists on behalf of the Officials Secrets Act. Only a month later, Reuters published the work that the reporters were investigating revealing that both security forces and local

Rakhine individuals were involved in the planning and murder of 10 Rohingya Muslim men. The clashes between the court and lawyers continued for several months, with the defendants’ lawyers claiming that there was a lack of evidence for the prosecution. The developing case caught the attention of the human rights lawyer Amal Clooney who stated: “Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo are being prosecuted simply because they reported the news”.

On 3 September 2018, Myanmar’s High Court rejected the appeals due to the breaching of the Official Secrets Act, a colonial-era law which covers the possession of documents and possible evidence of the killings; the verdict ruled that both journalists had to face seven years in prison. The ruling paved the way for an uproar against censorship, and the unethical treatment of journalists. Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo have told the public that they were not surprised and that the question of justice was never in their favour, especially when arguing without an immense amount of evidence.

This is only one unfair trial against journalists in the past year but according to the latest annual (2018) report from Reporters Without Borders, 348 journalists were detained, 60 were held hostage, and 80 were killed. The Secretary-General Christophe Deloire has commented on the striking statistics

GLOBAL 6

saying that opposition of journalism “has reached unprecedented levels”. The most unnerving aspect of these statistics is that there are many more deaths, but that the organization cannot include them due to them being under investigation.

When looking at all of the instances in which journalists have been censored, it sheds light on the injustice found within the 21st century and even on how we as a society react to it. Not only have nongovernmental organizations formed, but masses of people are protesting and taking a stand against governments who have censored journalists. If the concept of freedom of speech is not as complex as governments argue it is, then why is censorship on the rise? Maybe it is due to the constant “threat” of any governmental secrets leaking or, in this case, exposing the mass killing of a minority. Maybe there truly is no solution to protecting journalism without straying away from its main principle: uncovering the truth.

Now, why is it that these individuals are targeted for their work? Journalists have an extremely dangerous job, and risk being killed while in the field, as were the three Russian journalists killed in Central African Republic. Nevertheless, it is known that governments target journalists. In 2018, nearly 350 journalists were detained, with roughly half of them being held in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and China. Many organizations have taken a stance against the injustice, such as the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Press Institute, and the International Federation of Journalists. The threat against journalism has become such a vital topic that multiple agencies have issued documents containing the rights of journalists. The United Nations has gotten involved with numerous cases of violence against journalists, and places an immense amount of pressure on governments to take responsibilities and/or prevent any acts of violence.

GLOBAL 7

A NEW FRONTIER FOR NASA’S AMBITIOUS PROBE PROGRAM

By Peter Wood New Horizons is a probe that was launched into space as part of NASA’s New Frontiers program on 19 January 2006. Its mission was to do a flyby of Jupiter, Pluto, and Ultima Thule, also known as 2014 MU69. It managed to do a flyby of Jupiter on 28 February 2007 and reported important, previously unknown information about the composition of the gas giant’s atmosphere. previously estimated, so those hoping for its rereclassification may be disappointed.

On 1 January 2019, New Horizons finally got close and took pictures of one of the oldest objects in our solar system. Scientists at NASA say that “Ultima Thule” (or simply 2014 MU69) holds remnants from the birth of our solar system. NASA’s New Horizons Is now the first spacecraft to explore Pluto and Ultima Thule, an achievement both Between December 2014 and January 2015, New Horizons managed to complete its next

notable and unlikely to be repeated in the near future.

mission, making the first ever flyby of Pluto. With

This being said, the spacecraft has not yet

the information it garnered, many new things were

finished its journey; scientists plan its continued

discovered about the dwarf planet. One of the most

exploration of the universe until 2021. Until then, it

important discoveries is that Pluto is now

will continue to supply us with more images of our

confirmed to be the biggest dwarf planet in our

solar system and the Kuiper belt, providing

solar system, a title previously disputed between

invaluable and previously undiscovered information

Pluto and Eris, another dwarf planet near Neptune.

Pluto had been stripped of its planetary status right

to mankind.

after New Horizons was launched, however with this new flyby the argument has been opened again, and Pluto may in fact be accepted again after so many years of exclusion. However it has only been found to be slightly bigger than GLOBAL 8

BIRD BOX: OVERRATED OR WORTH THE WATCH?

By Sophia Lovalvo

Bird Box, a suspense filled psychological thriller, began streaming worldwide on Netflix on 21 December 2018. Â Soon after, this Netflix original became an internet phenomenon, catching the attention of celebrities, and trending on various social media platforms for weeks.

So, what is it about Bird Box that had everybody talking, and is it worth the watch?

Bird Box starts off strong with an action packed first few minutes that will keep you curious as to how the story unfolds. The first three and a half minutes of the film give viewers a snippet of the events that are currently taking place, before moving back five years on the timeline to provide context and a backstory. The opening scene depicts the Smith river in Northern California, accompanied by an eerie voice-over of a one sided conversation over a radio transceiver, that foreshadows the ending of the movie. It is followed by the female lead, Sandra Bullock (Malorie), giving strict instructions to two toddlers about their journey on the river, and the adversaries that they will have to face in order to survive.

The plot switches back and forth throughout the entire duration of the movie, between following Malorie and the children’s journey on the river, to explaining the backstory, and what it was that caused them to have to make this trip in the first place. While this is entertaining, it makes certain aspects of the film easily predictable, and takes away from the suspense that this genre should have. This problem continually worsens throughout the movie, spoiling the various plot twists and

otherwise unexpected deaths, which would make the movie actually thrilling.

One thing the writers of Bird Box can be commended for are the many lovable characters in the film. Although this is a standard expectation for all movies and shows, it is a lot harder to find than you would think. Luckily, the characters in Bird Box were charming and interesting enough to hold the plot together, and keep me watching. The characters in any TV series or movie make or break it, and this was definitely a saving grace for Bird Box, one that I found helped make up for other issues in the film.

Excluding the unfortunate fates of some of the best characters (be warned), Bird Box concludes with a relatively happy ending, which is a rare occurrence for its genre. But this positive ending will leave you less satisfied than you think, because it lacks any element of surprise, something that is a supposed to be a staple part of the plot of all thrillers. The ending might not be bad but it definitely doesn’t belong in a suspenseful movie. It’s almost as if the writers got bored and incorporated a surprise into the ending by making it unexpectedly dull. It will definitely leave you wanting more, but not in a good way.

So, what was it that had everyone ranting and raving about Bird Box? What set it apart from all the other Netflix original films? The answer?

Nothing. Bird Box was a mediocre, predictable, and not so thrilling thriller. The plot was clichè and the ending was lazy. It may have indeed caught the internet's attention, but that doesn’t quite mean that it will catch yours.

GLOBAL 9

WOODSTOCK 2.0

By Omid Sheikh Back in 1969, the U.S. was going through a period of anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, new psychedelic drugs, the race to the moon, and the Stonewall riots. For many, it was a time of chaos and confusion, characterized by the fight for love and peace through flower power. It was also an era of psychedelic music and very talented musicians such as Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, Carlos Santana, and many others who have left their mark on the music industry and the world.

In January 1969 a group of friends joined together to organize a large festival where entrepreneurs could come together and make business with artists.

Michael Lang, Arie Kornfield, Joel Rosenman, and John P, Roberts started to plan the event that same month, and started to sell tickets for eighteen dollars, about 120 dollars today. Immediately, around 186,000 people ordered tickets, and the organizers said about 200,000 would show up. Then in April,  Creedence Clearwater Revival were the first performers to sign up, and the lead drummer Doug Clifford said that “Once Creedence signed, everyone else jumped in line and all the other big acts came on. The location of the festival was still unclear. The original spot was going to be at Wallkill, New York but the land owner and the townspeople quickly refused, and the search continued. Kornfield and Lang found another suitable area in Saugerties, New York, but some

misunderstanding between the organizers forced them to search for another venue. With the lack of progression, Roberts and Rosenman took matters into their own hands; after another disagreement on a 300 acre Mills industry in the town of Wallkill, New York all hope seemed lost from the project.

Time was growing short, but finally a landowner named Max Yasgur allowed the festival to take place on his property. However, the festival was three days away and there was no time for fencing and the creation of a ticket stand. The only money that was left was put into building the stage, and the next day tens of thousands of people lined up and walked straight in, forcing the organisers to make the festival free of charge. Originally there were going to be about 50,000 people, but an additional million joined the crowd.

This caused kilometers worth of traffic jams, which caused a lot of problems for the townspeople, because they couldn't get out of their houses. In 2019 there will be another Woodstock to celebrate its 50th anniversary. It will take place for “three days of love and music”in New York on August 16th, 17th, and 18th. There will be pop stars, rappers and original bands, at least the ones that remain living. Additionally, the bird of peace is back, in a more modernised version, and is this year’s symbol for Woodstock. There is not a lot of other information on who's attending, but for now, we know that it will take place once again.

GLOBAL 10

THE VENEZUELAN CRISIS

By Luca Fagotti

A Shrinking Economy and Reputation Venezuela’s crisis has taken a toll on its population. Growing discontent has been fuelled by hyperinflation, power cuts, and food shortages.

According to the opposition-controlled National Assembly, the annual inflation rate reached 1,300,000% in the twelve months prior to November 2018. Citizens are forced to buy ready cash (at an interest rate) so that they can make their daily purchases. The country’s GDP has fallen by about 15% since 2012 (the year of Maduro’s election). This is mainly attributed to corruption and the falling production of oil, which is the backbone of the Venezuelan economy. According to the country’s annual living service (Encovi 2017), eight out of ten people are eating less due to a lack of food. Most people (64.3%) said that they lost an average of 11.4 kilograms in 2017 alone. The threatening absence of medicine has led to the revival of multiple threatening diseases, including malaria, which are spreading rapidly. These precarious living conditions have led to mass emigration: since 2014, three million Venezuelans have left their home and have fled to Colombia, Peru, the United States, Ecuador, and Spain.

Who’s the President?

This would be an unusual question in most countries, but not in Venezuela. On 23 January, Juan Guaido declared himself acting interim president.

This move directly challenged Mr. Maduro, who was sworn into a second six-year term two weeks before. Mr. Guaido is the leader of the oppositioncontrolled National Assembly. Unlike Mr. Maduro, he is the only political representative that has been elected by the people.

Mr. Maduro’s rise to power was the result of political persecution and fraudulent elections, leading the National Assembly to refuse to recognize his presidency. According to Article 233 and 333 of the Venezuelan constitution, the head of the National Assembly has the authority to take over as acting president when elections are illegitimate.

This legally justifies Mr. Guaido’s claim to power.

The US, Canada, and more than a dozen Latin American countries have already backed Mr. Guaido. On 26 January, Spain, Germany, France, and the UK promised to back Mr. Guaido if elections aren’t held within eight days. Contrarily, Russia has condemned foreign support for Mr. Guaido. China, Mexico, and Turkey also back Mr. Maduro.

What’s next?

Venezuela’ military forces are seen as the key players that can break the standstill. Their loyalty to Mr. Maduro is most likely dependent on higher wages and working benefits. These incentives might no longer be enough. In the past, the armed forces have allowed protests to continue. Furthermore, they all fled their posts during the drown attack of last year. Several high-profile members of the army have disavowed Maduro, instead throwing their support behind Mr. Guaido.

Also on the table is a possible US intervention, the possibility of which President Trump has refused to discount.

Though Venezuela’s political future remains to be seen, one thing remains certain: its political climate has taken on a highly volatile nature and could be subject to intense reform at last.

GLOBAL 11

SURVIVING R. KELLY

By Jay Hughes Ransley

In the wake of the “Me Too” movement, more and more information is coming out regarding the communities that have protected the powerful people that abuse and control young people at every turn. Thankfully the abusers are being “outed” and confronted by their victims.

“Surviving R. Kelly” has provided a powerful platform for the singer’s alleged victims to speak out about the nearly two decades of abuse by this man. The documentary graphically outlines the obstacles and fear that victims encounter when they come forward to speak about their personal abuse stories and to search for justice. Though many sought help from authorities, the documentary revealed that these very people often obstructed justice, shielding abusers. The victims, meanwhile, faced possible retaliation not just from the accused abuser, but from the very people from whom they sought help. These appalling occurrences only served to compound their fear, creating intense feelings of shame in doing so.

GLOBAL 12

Thankfully, the spotlight has shone onto this predatory man, and finally, American mainstream television is trying to uncover a picture of his private life. They are, in doing so, finally making steps to give a voice to black women, who are disproportionately affected by sexual assault.

The documentary outlines and highlights the women’s relationships with R. Kelly by exposing the abuse through interviews with several of his accusers. Kitti Jones, Jerhonda Pace, Lisa Van Allen and Asante McGee have spoken openly about their suffering at the hands of the singer.

“There is a particular kind of shame for black women, not wanting to give up black men to a system that they know to be unjust and corrupt and historically racist and having targeted black men,” stated Dream Hampton, the producer of Surviving R. Kelly.

Ben Zand, who was a former fan of R. Kelly, and an independent filmmaker, produced a documentary for the BBC, titled “R. Kelly: Sex, Girls and Videotapes.” In the documentary, Zand takes to the streets of Chicago, where R. Kelly grew up, and speaks to former members of his inner circle to try to uncover the truth behind the allegations that have corrupted the singer’s thirtyyear career. He interviewed R. Kelly’s former girlfriend, Kitti Jones, who told him about the abuse she suffered after dating him from 2011 2013.

Kittis allegations were horrific, confirming for the first time that she was part of the singers “sex dungeon.” where she was forced to have sex with him and other people more than ten times. She believed some of the girls were underage, recounting a conversation with R. Kelly where he told her he had been “training” a girl who was fourteen to be one of his “pets.” He later denied these claims, calling them false and defamatory.

This is not the first time that the singer has faced controversy for his alleged abuse of women. An article from BBC journalist Kieran Yates stated that “Back in July 2017, a crowd had gathered in Chicago where Timothy Savage had told the world that he believed his twenty-one year-old daughter

was being held against her will as part of an alleged sex cult led by the R&B singer R. Kelly. The story had made global news, and put the spotlight on the fifty-one year-old superstar’s private life, particularly the rumors about his alleged sexual

relationships

with underage girls.”

Mr. Savage indicated that he believed that his daughter Jocelyn was part of an abusive sex cult, where they were grooming and abusing young girls, and claimed that Robert S. Kelly was its leader. Upon reaching out to Jocelyn Savage, it was later confirmed by a local news channel (through a video call), that she was not being held against her will, but she did not know if she could leave or disclose her location.

James Lee, a studio engineer who had worked for R. Kelly, reveals the artist would pick up women from McDonalds. He tells a story about Kelly writing one of his chart hits, “Feelin’ on yo booty,” surrounded by scantily-clad girls for inspiration.

They were there for one thing, to service Rob, and when he was tired of you - it’s like you’re a Big Mac, and when he’s done eating you, he throws the wrapper away.”

One of the first scandals surrounding R. Kelly came back in 1994, when the singer, twenty-seven at the time, illegally married his fifteen year-old protégée, Aaliyah, when she released her album "Age Ain't Nothing but a Number.” The marriage was annulled by her parents when they discovered she had listed her age as eighteen on the certificate and the pair continued to deny marriage allegations for the remainder of her life. She tragically died in a plane crash in the Bahama's when she was just 21.

GLOBAL 13

Yet another allegation of controversy; a women

These are just a few of the many examples of abuse

named Lizette Martinez, who was only a teenager at

allegations faced by R. Kelly. In 2002, he was

the time when she met R. Kelly in the late 1990's,

indicted on thirteen counts of child pornography, but

has spoken out about her experience with the man.

She was in the mall with some friends when she said to her friend, “I think that’s R. Kelly.” To which she

was acquitted on all charges in 2008. With the highly publicized release of the Lifetime docuseries, these

“Why would he be at the mall?” He

women have finally been able to detail their sexual

heard her say this and approached her, then hugged

abuse. This has put intense public pressure on his

her, he left shortly after stating he was making a new

supporters and members of the group #MuteRKelly

album. Soon after, his bodyguard approached her

have been successful in getting his record company,

responded,

and gave her his number. She thought this was going to be her rise to fame, however, after meeting with him and passing out from drinking alcohol supplied

RCA Records, to drop him. The allegations have also sparked intense debate about the ethicality of

to her by the singer, she awoke realizing that she had

listening to music from an artist accused of such

had her first sexual experience. Their relationship

horrific allegations: can one separate the artist from

carried on for several months, but it turned into a

the art? Whatever the case, it is hoped that R. Kelly

controlled relationship where she was not even

will be held accountable for his crimes against

permitted to go to the bathroom without his

women and underage girls, and justice will be served.

permission. She suffered a miscarriage when she was still in high school.

GLOBAL 14

WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH BREXIT?

By Niccolo Platt Brexit: if you live on earth, you probably know what it means. If not, you’ve at least heard it hundreds of times since the referendum on 23 June 2016, which gave the British population the choice of remaining in the European Union or leaving.

You are also probably aware of the fact that, with a majority of 51.9 to 49.1%, the UK decided to exit the Union. However, most voters had no idea what they were getting themselves into (as shown by the top search in the country being “What is Brexit?” the day after the referendum). A big part of the UK population was - and still is - unaware of the several implications the deal will bring to European economy, travel, and trade. To make sure that the next time you hear the word “Brexit” you’ll be able to participate in the conversation, let’s go over the current situation and the effect it could have on our lives in the near future.

The actual exit will happen on 29 March 2019, as UK Prime Minister Theresa May started the process on the same day of 2017. From then, the procedure has been stalled in a two-year negotiation period between the two parties, which will continue until the established date. What will happen at the end of it? Nobody actually knows. The negotiations could have many different outcomes, which would affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union in a variety of ways. The only fixed points of the agreement spectrum are the

extremes: on one side, a “hard Brexit” - or “no deal Brexit,” as the media is calling it - and on the other, a “soft Brexit.”

A “hard Brexit” is one where the UK separates from the EU on all fronts: no free trade between the two, no unrestricted travel, and new regulations on imports and exports. Although some politicians believe this would be the best solution, and are pushing for the “no deal,” it would bring many disadvantages to Britain. Severing all ties with Europe immediately would make the importation of goods difficult, so basic resources would not arrive instantly as they do at the moment, and would take days to reach the shops. This would decrease supply, causing prices to skyrocket, and possibly pushing the country into s e r i o u s depression, not to mention the thousands of citizens who would remain jobless. Healthcare and banking are only two of the areas in which jobs would be at risk.

A “soft Brexit,” on the other hand, is essentially the opposite. After a “soft Brexit,” it would be as if the UK never left, meaning same travel policies, same trade regulations and so forth.

Then, there is a wide spectrum of possibilities and combinations the deal could have - free trade and no travel, free travel and no trade, no additional tariffs on food but extra taxation on clothing - the potential outcomes are infinite.

GLOBAL 15

The “out but actually still in” solution would be the ideal option for many, especially those against the separation, but it does raise several questions.

Would the UK then be considered out of the EU, even though it would have the same benefits as a member state? Would this type of Brexit be constitutional, as it goes against what the people voted? Would it call for another referendum?

Obviously, all these questions fall in the grey area of uncertainty. The only way to find out is to wait and see.

At this point, you might be wondering “Why should I care?” or “How does this affect me?”

Well, depending on the deal May establishes with the EU, the impact of Brexit on other European countries and Europeans will vary. Although the “soft” type - where nothing actually happens wouldn’t affect our lives and our economies much, a stricter agreement would - big time, and in mainly two ways: travel and exports.

As of now, because both the UK and Italy are still formally part of the European Union, one is able to travel freely between the two countries, given that one is an EU citizen. A possibility is that the deal being negotiated will not include non-regulated travel, one of the mainstays of Union policy. This would imply going through customs, meaning longer lines and less immediate transfers.

Also, free - or basically free - education for Europeans in the UK would no longer be available, and universities could come to cost up to 30000 Euros. Additionally, depending on the strictness, all European citizens living in the UK and vice versa would have to leave the country in which they currently reside, as there would no longer be the possibility for them to live there without a visa, and return to their home country.

With regards to exports, Italian economy could be greatly hurt by a harsh Brexit. According to SACE (Sezione speciale per l'Assicurazione del Credito all'Esportazione), exports could slump by 7%, as the UK is Italy’s fourth biggest export market.

Machinery, vehicles, textiles, and food are only a few of the sectors which would be affected negatively, bringing down Italian economy as a whole in the process. Obviously, the same would happen with British products entering Il Bel Paese.

Although these potential changes might sound scary, nothing is decided - yet. The scenarios that could emerge from the negotiation period are several, ranging from fairly acceptable to catastrophic for both Brits and Europeans. However, the only thing to do now is wait patiently for 29 March, and see what ends up happening. In the meantime, eat your Digestives, drink your tea, and embark on your travels, because who knows what will come next.

GLOBAL 16

WHO’S RUNNING IN 2020? A BREAKDOWN

By Sophia Lovalvo

1. Bernie Sanders

parental leave, free tertiary education, and singlepayer health care, but has been criticized by several US Socialist parties as simply a reformer of capitalism. Sanders says he does not desire that the government controls the means of production, but rather that it provides a decent living standard for the working and middle class families of America.

Sanders, a Democratic Socialist who currently serves as a Vermont senator, ran in the 2016 presidential elections and is almost certainly running again in 2020. Bernie surprised voters back in 2016 when he successfully won 43% of pledged delegates, (compared to Hillary’s 55%) and twenty-three primaries, giving Clinton a run for her money in what was supposed to be an easy victory. His ability to attract young voters definitely gave him an advantage, and will continue to do so if he runs in the upcoming elections, giving him a distinct edge over the other candidates. However, he notably has failed to attract black voters in the past, something that will prove an important challenge for him to conquer in order to clinch the Democratic nomination.

Concerning policy, Sanders supports government-

2. Elizabeth Warren Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren announced that she was running for the 2020 elections in late December of last year. Warren, who is a leftist Democrat with a similar stance to Bernie Sanders, began to gain popularity in the late 2000s for her relentless attack on the financial industry. Following the 2007-2008 recession, Warren started advocating for stronger bank regulations to create market transparency and provide consumer protection. “Our government is supposed to work for all of us, but instead it has become a tool for the wealthy and well connected.” said Warren, whose economic position is centered around creating a social safety net through poverty reduction programs provided by the state, e.g. universal healthcare, homeless shelters, and equal economic opportunities for all. She also focuses on bettering consumer protection, and played a

provided benefits through raised taxes, such as GLOBAL 17

significant role in the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Elizabeth Warren is definitely running in 2020, the only noticeable disadvantage she faces could be her age, as she'll be seventy-one by voting time next year. However, it should be noted that the elections will likely play host to several septuagenarians, including President Trump, who will be seventy-four by that time.

Biden is also a strong supporter of women’s choice in the Roe vs Wade debate, stating that the government should not have a say in whether a woman should have an abortion. Biden also advocates for gay rights, stating that he is absolutely comfortable with same-sex marriage and that all married couples, regardless of their sex, are

3. Joe Biden

entitled to the same civil rights. Though he has yet

Former Vice President Joe Biden decided against

to definitively announce his candidacy, Biden is

running in the 2016 elections following the death of

currently seen as a favorite in the polls, alongside

his son Beau, but he just might take the stage once

Bernie Sanders.

more in 2020. If Biden were to run, he would be seventy-seven on election day and seventy-eight by inauguration, were he to emerge victorious.

Concerning the rumors surrounding his candidacy, Biden stated, “I’ll run if I can walk,” highly suggesting his eventual participation. Biden served as Vice President from 2008 to 2017 alongside former President Barack Obama, where he oversaw infrastructure spending in response to the Great Recession. Biden also supported the use of economic stimuli in order to aid the economy in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Biden is more of a central left candidate, advocating for free, single-payer healthcare to benefit economically lower-class Americans. Biden has also generally supported gun control, voting for the assault weapons ban and against the “gun show loophole” which allows dealers at gun shows to avoid performing background checks on customers and keeping sales records.

4. Kamala Harris California Senator Kamala Harris advocates for many causes that are very pleasing to the majority of Democrats, such as marriage equality, criminal justice reform, and single-payer healthcare, along with supporting the legalization of recreational marijuana. Harris passed a Dream act for sanctuary cities, or certain cities with municipal laws to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation and prosecution. Harris believes in lowering taxes for those constituting the working and middle classes of America, while advocating raising them for corporations and for the wealthiest 1% of Americans.

GLOBAL 18

Harris has promised to fight for what she calls the “largest middle-class tax cut in a generation.”

Additionally, she has consistently supported gun control, stating that ‘thoughts and prayers’ are no longer enough and that we must commit ourselves to action. Harris is definitely running in 2020, but might face criticism for her lack of political experience, as she was originally a lawyer and prosecutor before moving into the political field.

5. Cory Booker New Jersey senator Cory Booker also appears to be running for the 2020 elections, and is an appealing candidate to many center-left Democrats. Booker is a strong proponent of criminal justice reform along

As the 2020 Presidential Elections draw nearer, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Democrats will face a broad range of candidates, all vying for the Democratic nomination. Though their key issues

with removing marijuana from the list of schedule

and stances may differ, they all face one common

one substances. Booker is considered a social

goal: preventing Trump’s reelection and restoring

liberal and supports women's rights, affirmative

executive power to their party.

action, and single-payer healthcare.

He also

supports same sex marriage, stating that it is a civil right guaranteed by the U.S. constitution. Booker supports the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms. Attributing most shootings to criminals and illegally purchased weapons, he has voted to prohibit the purchase of guns by people on terror watch lists. Booker has possibly hinted at a strategy for the upcoming elections, by bringing up a very important point for all Democrats, stating, “We cannot make our elections about being against Trump, we have to make them about being what we are for.”

GLOBAL 19

OPINION: SHOULD CELEBRITIES TALK POLITICS?

By Dante Fagotti Often, celebrities, or influencers, take it upon themselves to use their platform to express their political views, urging their followers or fans to follow in their footsteps. Take, for example, Taylor Swift, who after endorsing two Democratic candidates during the 2018 Midterm Elections, inspired around 65,000 people to register to vote.

In this day, celebrities seem to have an enormous impact on what we think and believe, but should this in fact be the case? I would argue against it, given a few different reasons. Firstly, celebrities live in a “bubble,” that is, Hollywood and they are often isolated from reality and out of touch with the common person. This does not mean that celebrities cannot make eloquent and intelligent comments regarding current political situations.

Celebrities, in fact, can make bold statements that reflect the concerns of the common good.

However, they are significantly less likely to understand and communicate the concerns of ordinary citizens when they’ve not experienced similar difficulties, being accustomed to a different reality.

“I try to stay out of politics. I am a private citizen and I have a right to believe in my own political point of view, but I try not to get up on a soapbox and tell people how to think.” - Billy Joel.

GLOBAL 20

Generally speaking, celebrities live a luxurious lifestyle that doesn’t correspond to that of an ordinary citizen. In other words, they rarely experience the difficulties of everyday life. The only way they become a part of our life is when we watch a movie or a TV show, therefore, for entertainment. I don’t mind watching and listening to them in whatever fictional world they’re acting in, but I do mind if they insert themselves in a nonfictional world dominated by politics.

“I generally have a tendency to steer away from outright political discussion in interviews, because I am an actor, and there’s so much that I don’t understand, and I don’t for a second feel like I have a right to that platform.” - Gillian Anderson.

Celebrities have a massive following and this can be beneficial in the entertainment industry and in making a profound impact on other people’s lives.

It’s a platform only they have, that only they can take advantage of. This, though, cannot be exploited to tell people ‘how to think’ and ‘what to think.’ Private citizens have the right to form their own political point of view. Not everything that a celebrity does needs to be made public. A celebrity can share their political point of view with their family, but arguably, they cross the line when they tell me who to vote for and why.

“Anybody in entertainment who thinks people care what they think politically are really misinformed,” the actor added. “That’s one thing I stay away from. I stay away from politics because nobody cares what I think.” - Josh Duhamel. Beyond this, it is true that celebrities are influencers, but studies have shown that contrary to popular belief, most ordinary citizens don’t actually care much about what celebrities have to say. The Hollywood Reporter/Morning Consult poll asked 2,192 adults across the U.S. whether celebrity opinion holds sway with Americans. 58% of those surveyed said that they’re not interested in the political and social opinions of celebrities they follow, while only 9% of those surveyed strongly were interested in hearing from their favorite celebrities.

Furthermore, only 24% of those surveyed said that a celebrity’s point of view was very effective in influencing them politically. Undoubtedly, every human being is entitled to form and believe their own views and opinions, and should be encouraged to do so. However, whether one’s favorite celebrity does or does not like a certain presidential candidate shouldn’t impact who one votes for. Celebrities, unfortunately, are contained to a small set of experiences reserved for solely the elite few, not the majority, and to put too much stock in their opinions and beliefs is not only unwise, but dangerous.

GLOBAL 21

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Tuskan Times or its associates.

HUMANS OF ISF: MOCK EXAMS

By Isabella Lovalvo Recently, our ISF Seniors completed their January mock exams. Often characterized by stress and confusion, the mock exams are also a valuable tool in helping IB Year Two students to prepare for May exams. We caught up with a few seniors to learn more about their experience.

SMILLA COLOMBINI

NICCOLÒ BAGNOLI

What was your hardest exam?

Physics, because I’m better at the mathematical side of physics than memorization, which is also important.

What was your hardest exam?

Physics, because I underestimated how difficult it would be.

Tell us about your mock exam experience. Was it helpful in the end?

It was very, very stressful. It was probably the most stressed I’ve ever been for exams. But at the same time, it made me understand what I will really have to go through in May. After taking the mocks, what have you learned about the studying process?

Studying is very tiring; it’s not a good idea to try to study multiple subjects at the same time instead of focusing on one.

Do you have any advice for eleventh graders taking the mocks next year?

Stop the IB right now; no, I’m kidding, but start taking your subjects seriously from now on, or else you’ll pay the price at the mocks.

Tell us about your mock exam experience. Was it helpful in the end?

It wasn’t actually stressful for me; I found it quite helpful as I was put in the actual conditions of the real exams.

After taking the mocks, what have you learned about the studying process?

Mastering time management skills is really important if you want to be successful. So are organizational skills.

Any advice for eleventh graders?

Being organized is key. Make an actually realistic schedule for your studies and stick to it. Breaks in between are really helpful as well.

LOCAL 22

LEO CONSUMI

What was your hardest exam?

For sure math, more specifically the part about logarithms and geometry.

PIETRO RIGHI

What was your hardest exam?

English, specifically Paper 1, because I found the passages quite difficult and I did not manage my

Tell us about your mock exam experience. Was it helpful?

I was deeply enlightened by the experience and I feel that I almost reached Nirvana. The experience made me feel closer to God because of all the praying I had to do.

time as well as I could have.

Tell us about your mock exam experience. Was it helpful?

It was pretty stressful, but helpful in the end.

After taking the mocks, what have you learned

After taking the mocks, what have you learned about the studying process?

Note-taking is vital for efficiency. I also learned that after dinner, studying is pretty useless for me personally.

Any advice for eleventh graders taking the mocks next year?

Don’t. Take the American diploma and the SATs. Standardized tests increase the chances of you going to college.

about the studying process?

It can really suck. It can honestly be painful; you have to grind through it.

Any advice for eleventh graders taking the mocks next year?

Always keep in perspective the fact that this part of your life will pass and soon be over. One day, you’ll be old, so don’t care too much about the IB; it’s not everything.

LOCAL 23