the POLITIK PRESS 11/18/13
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013
the
POLITIK PRESS
Volume XIV, Issue X
Volume XIV, Issue X
1
Volume XIV, Issue X
the
POLITIK PRESS
the
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013
POLITIK PRESS A publication of
JHU POLITIK jhupolitik.org
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Alex Clearfield & Rachel Cohen MANAGING EDITOR Colette Andrei ASSISTANT EDITORS Julia Allen Katie Botto Christine Server CREATIVE DIRECTOR Victoria Scordato MARKETING & PUBLICITY Rebecca Grenham Audrey Moss WEBMASTER Sihao Lu FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
HEAD WRITER Ari Schaffer MARYLAND EDITOR Adam Roberts COPY EDITOR Peter Lee STAFF WRITERS Akshai Bhatnagar Mike Bodner Adrian Carney Henry Chen Virgil Doyle Dylan Etzel Rosellen Grant Sarallah Salehi Eliza Schultz Geordan Williams Chris Winer
VOLUME XIV, ISSUE X NOVEMBER 18th, 2013 2
Volume XIV, Issue X
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013
INSIDE THIS ISSUE WEEK IN REVIEW: Immigration ................................................
Page 4
David Hamburger Special Visiting Student
POLICY DESK
AMERICAN MILITARISM AND ITS GRAVE CONSEQUENCES IN IRAQ: THEN, NOW, AND TOMORROW ....................................................... Page 5
Sarallah Salehi ‘16
FULL SPECTRUM SPACE: THE BENEFITS OF SPACE EXPLORATION FOR INDIA
...............................
Page 6
Ryan Conroy ‘15
AMERICA HAS FAILED ON HIGH SPEED RAIL ........................ Page 7 Peter Lee‘14
THE BOOGEYMAN OF CHARLES MURRAY: ON THE CAUSES OF INEQUALITY IN AMERICA ......................................
Page 8
Adrian Carney ‘14-
U.S. MUST END PAKISTAN DRONE STRIKES ...........................
Page 9
George Gelashvili ‘16
“MOVEMBER” PUTS SPOTLIGHT ON PROSTATE CANCER ....
Page 10
Victoria Scordato ‘14
3
Volume XIV, Issue X
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013
WEEK IN REVIEW: Immigration By David Hamburger, Special Visiting Student President Obama Seeks to Reform Immigration for Military Families The Obama administration released a new policy directive for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Service (USCIS), allowing the agency to extend a policy for citizenship applications to the families of servicemen and women. The beneficiaries of this policy, including family members of armed forces members and veterans, will have the opportunity to apply for citizenship while under a “parole in place,” in essence granting them permission to remain in the nation while they await permanent residence or citizenship. As comments from Republicans this week led to increasing doubt over whether Congress would be able to pass the Obama Administration-backed immigration reform plan, executive directives such as this one may remain the most effective way to change current immigration policies, albeit on a smaller scale, rather than a sweeping bipartisan reform.
House Speaker Addresses House Response to Senate Immigration Bill The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, announced this week that the House would reject an attempt to pass the immigration bill proposed and passed earlier this year by the Senate, stating that he had “no intention” of seeing the bill come to the House floor. This announcement comes as Republican leaders, including Boehner and Representative Greg Walden, explained that any Republican plan for immigration would come “piece-by-piece” as opposed to the vast reforms proposed in the Senate plan. Boehner also stated that there is no guarantee the House will vote on any such partial proposals before the end of 2013, a reflection of the continued efforts of House Republicans to address the Affordable Care Act and its implementation.
New Poll Shows Minorities Value College Education as Path to Success A newly-released poll conducted by the College Board and the National Journal reveals that, for many first-generation college students and minorities, a college degree remains key in the perception of chances for success in the workforce. Among other questions posed to the over 1200 respondents, the poll asked “do you think young people today need a four-year college degree in order to be successful?” Seventy percent of Hispanic respondents answered in the affirmative, a stark contrast with the 47% of white respondents. In addressing the effect of education on the economy, 68% of Hispanics felt that a greater number of college graduates would improve the economy, while only 48% of white respondents felt similarly. The polls speak to the perceived importance of a college education among those statistically least likely to complete a four-year degree program. PP
4
Volume XIV, Issue X
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013
POLICY DESK
American Militarism and Its Grave Consequences in Iraq: Then, Now, and Tomorrow
T
by Sarallah Salehi ‘16, Staff Writer
he great American historian William Appleman Williams wrote in 1955 that one of the few “central themes in American historiography is that there is no American Empire.” While today this myth has largely been shattered within the academic realm, it is still very troubling that the broader American public has yet to accept this notion. However, with over 600 confirmed military installations in over 100 countries around the world and countless “black” bases that can only be presumed to exist, the term ‘empire’ might understate the true extent of our nation’s global reach. In addition to these sites, we have significant standing armies still in Afghanistan and Iraq, several unofficial covert drone wars raging in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and incipient calls for attacks on both Syria and Iran. There seems no end in sight to our unquenchable thirst for military adventures. There was a time not too long after the U.S. withdrawal from the failed campaign in Vietnam where the sentiment for war and excessive military might was disdained among both the mainstream public and intellectual class. Shocked by the sheer loss of lives on both sides, almost 60 thousand for the U.S. and maybe millions for the Vietnamese, a healthy skepticism toward imperialistic incursions emerged that led to one of the longest periods of peace in U.S. history. Most critically, the political aura that pervaded Washington was one of solemnity, a deep recognition that arrant force was not the sole tool in pursuing the United State’s national interests. But what happen? How did we go from having a military budget that was the largest in the world, yet comparable to other countries, to one that eclipses the next largest 11 nations combined, of whom most are allies? Though the full answer is undoubtedly at an indiscreet intersection of numerous economic, social, and political factors, the latter has unequivocally led the charge in transforming U.S. foreign policy to its present state: one of never ending intervention and conflict, unable to recognize, let alone check, its unmitigated growth. Fed by an
unremitting rhetoric of fear, it has imbued a sense of constant nervousness in society that has once again engendered an acceptance of blind military force as the lone option to remedy potential problems. Though it can be tempting to pin the blame on the rise of so-called “neo-cons” and the like, the inconvenient truth is that it has been largely fueled on both sides of the political spectrum. In fact, this could be the most unfortunate development of all; that there isn’t today a noteworthy political coalition in power that is strictly opposed to the new militaristic American foreign policy. Nowhere else has this precarious approach been more evident than with the country of Iraq. Once the most prosperous nation in the region with the highest living standard, a vibrant intelligentsia, and a capital that was the jewel of the Middle East, today Iraq is nothing more than mere rubble, a shadow of its erstwhile eminence. But this description is not the portrait that most Americans would posit today if they were asked how Iraq was before the U.S. invasion of 2003. Instead, one might hear of the evil tyrant Saddam Hussein and his unbridled mission to destroy his people. A man so savage and ill-minded that if not stopped by the U.S., he could one day seek to impose the same evils on our friends and allies, or even worse, us. Coupled with the false accusations of possessing WMDs, Saddam was harshly indicted, his fate sealed before he could even whimper a plea for mercy. It is unquestionable that Saddam Hussein reigned with an iron fist and imposed restrictions on normal societal functions that sometimes resulted in severe violence. However, to compare Iraq under Hussein’s rule to today’s Iraq is to juxtapose two completely alien eras in two completely different worlds; there are no similarities. The Iraq of pre-2003 was one that possessed a very strong sense of national belonging. Very rarely did anyone consider their identity as first laying along sectarian lines of Shia or Sunni. Rather, people viewed themselves as Iraqis. The socialist Ba’ath party that
5
Volume XIV, Issue X
the
POLITIK PRESS
But herein lies the true reason the invasion occurred. It wasn’t because Iraq had WMDs—by this calculus, a dozen more Iraqs would have happened by now—nor was it primarily about oil, of which the U.S. and the world had plenty of at the time. It was about destroying an idea. The idea that believed that an Islamic country did not have to be obsessed with preventing little girls from obtaining an education, an idea that did not require every citizen adhere to anachronistic social orders and the threat pertinent to Western nations, the idea that a Middle Eastern country did not have to kneel at the mantle of foreign powers. It was revolutionary. This idea challenged and sought to undermine all vital stakes in the region. Today, however, the country is essentially shattered along sectarian and ethnic divisions. The United States and its allies, seeking a firm ally when it invaded the country, inverted the anti-sectarian system in place and implemented a policy whereby the Shia leaders of the majority sect obtained almost complete control over government. Fueled by the resentful vitriol of the Iranbacked mullahs, the new Shia leaders immediately set out to assert their dominance over the Sunni minority, which held political parity during the time of Saddam. Receiving an almost unlimited supply of funding and training from the “democracy-bringers”, the Shia regime created murderous militias that aimlessly roamed the streets of Baghdad in their glistening Toyota pickups, killing and arresting anyone whom they deemed an “insurgent,” when, most of the time, the only crime these men were guilty of was being a Sunni.
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013
the recent surge in violence—almost seven thousand civilians have been killed this year—only seems to be escalating, being fed by the deadly sectarian strife across the border in Syria. As a result, Iraq has splintered into three autonomous entities, with the Kurds, Sunni, and Shi’a all claiming political immunity from any foreign authority. The price paid by the Iraqi people for all of this liberating ‘‘democracy’’? Though impossible to know for sure, experts have estimated that anywhere between 500,000 to 1.5 million Iraqis have died in the last decade due to the invasion and subsequent occupation, and more than a million refugees still persist in neighboring Jordan and Syria. The chances of a democratic state ever developing in Iraq is a fantasy ten years past its prime. The Iraq of the future is one in which the moniker “Iraq” is nothing but a façade, serving as a blanket to cover the deep fractures of a formerly united nation. Fortunately, the current state of deadly violence is likely to attenuate soon, but that will only mark the beginning of an even more difficult battle in rebuilding Iraq. However this effort will require a sense of common purpose and collective action, which, sadly, do not exist. The danger of repeating Iraq will surely present itself once again, cloaked in a different but still preposterous guise and speaking the same illusive rhetoric, yet the lessons learned in Baghdad must prevail. The integrity of our great nation depends on it. PP
Fast-forward almost ten years later to 2013 and it is hard to argue that anything has changed for the better. Multiple suicide bombs rip through the city of Baghdad on an almost daily basis. The constant fear of sudden death has paralyzed any sense of civility. The corrupt government of Prime Minister Nouri-Al-Maliki continues to promote cronies to important positions of power, further isolating the Sunni community who sees no other option but to maintain the violent stance toward government hostilities, leading inevitably to a vicious cycle of sectarian attack and retribution. All the while, the Obama administration has voiced its support for AlMaliki’s government, arguing that a stable Iraq under Al-Maliki presents the best opportunity for moving Iraq down the road to a fledgling democracy. The irony in this continued stance could not be more sickening. Sadly,
6
Volume XIV, Issue X
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013
FULL SPECTRUM SPACE: THE BENEFITS OF SPACE EXPLORATION FOR INDIA by Ryan Conroy ’15, Contributing Writer
I
n the years leading up to Neil Armstrong’s first steps on the moon, space exploration was a contest of political will and socio-economic ideology: America versus the Soviet Union, the free-market versus the command economy. Since that time, however, the overt element of competition in space exploration has been transformed in the popular imagination into a human endeavor: an achievement for all nations equally. The launch of India’s Mars Orbiter Mission last week has reignited discussion about ‘competitive’ exploration, and in doing so, gives us an opportunity to reflect on the politics of exploration. The rocket at the center of India’s Mars Orbiter Mission, informally called Mangalyaan (Hindi for ‘Marscraft’), embarks on what will be a 35 million mile voyage to Mars. It carries with it 30 lbs of equipment that will be used to analyze the Martian atmosphere and map the planet’s surface. The primary objective of the mission is to develop the capacity to organize and execute interplanetary missions rather than to gather data on Mars. A successful mission would make India the first Asian nation to reach Mars, ahead of both China and Japan. This fact, in the context of India’s meteoric growth in the last half-century, is especially poignant to some. Although the Mars Orbiter Mission is a remarkably lowbudget operation—at $79 million, it is just 1/16 the cost of NASA’s current Maven mission to Mars—it has been called an egregious and symbolic expenditure in light of the country’s widespread poverty. Despite India’s growth since Americans and Soviets vied for the moon’s prestige 50 years ago, close to 30% of Indians still live below the national poverty line. Such criticism is perhaps misleading. Even if the Mars Orbiter Mission fails to contribute any new information on the Martian atmosphere or topography, the mere mounting of an interplanetary mission will benefit India’s overall development. Historical evidence from the United States in particular shows that the technological capacity necessary to carry out the Apollo missions
created a market for research-intensive electronics such as the silicon transistor. Some have argued that this market catalyzed the formation of Silicon Valley, the metonymic seat of American post-industrial power. While irresponsible to some, India’s desire to support its own mission to Mars may ultimately reinforce its competitive advantages in the information sciences and reduce relative levels of poverty. Launching satellites happens to be $300 billion industry. However, India’s critics are right to point out the symbolism of the mission. Exploration is undoubtedly symbolic, whether the objects involved are ships and colonies or rockets and planets. Escaping the Earth’s atmosphere is a stark counterpoint to human limitation, and the nation that accomplishes it joins the cadre of elite societies that lead mankind both scientifically and socially. Orbiting Mars is a particularly appealing conquest for any of the nations that this cadre labels as ‘developing’ because it represents mankind’s furthest progress in the solar system. In this light, criticisms of the extravagance of an India’s Mars Orbiter Mission are really a commentary on the merit of Indian society of belonging to this group. Perhaps this misses the value that difference brings to human society. It is true that India suffers from considerable disparity - and yet, the tragic waste of poverty is precisely the waste of the potential and the perspective that could generate collective discovery. India’s socio-economic position lends an element of frugality to the Mars Orbiter Mission that is groundbreaking in astronautics. We should not downplay the role of strategy and symbolism in international relations. However, they should not obscure a unique moment in history, in which more and more nations have the capacity to contribute to the great human endeavors. If we are ever to venture beyond superficially into the universe, it will only be on the condition that we realize the immense potential of difference on Earth. Here’s to a successful Indian mission to Mars. PP
7
Volume XIV, Issue X
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013
AMERICA HAS FAILED ON HIGH SPEED RAIL by Peter Lee ’14, Copy Editor
O
n May 10, 1869, after years of grueling, backbreaking labor, two railroad companies met at Promontory Summit, Utah to drive the final spike into what would become known as the First Transcontinental Railroad. The project was nothing short of astounding. Despite an unforgiving terrain, numerous logistical obstacles, and unbearable working conditions, over 1,900 miles of railroad tracks were laid from Iowa to California in six years. The effects of the Transcontinental Railroad were immediately felt and long-lasting. Interstate trade surged and the nation was brought closer together as the time spent traveling from coast to coast was reduced to a week rather than months. In a remarkable turn of events, the young United States had come together and emerged as a pioneer in engineering and transportation. 150 years later, the U.S. has become one of the leastadvanced nations when it comes to high-speed transportation. While much of Western Europe and East Asia’s metropolises are connected via high-speed rail regularly exceeding 170 MPH, the US maintains only one measly high-speed rail line from Boston to Washington DC going around 125 MPH. Furthermore, with aging railroads and the number of commuters rapidly rising, billions of dollars will be needed in the coming decades to maintain functionality and increase capacity. To date, the US arguably lags behind nations such as China and Uzbekistan when it comes to high-speed rail. China was able to lay 5,000 miles of rail in only six years, while Uzbekistan has managed to connect all its major cities and provinces via high-speed rail lines. To combat this situation, President Obama, in 2009, introduced a high-speed rail initiative for America. The proposal allocated approximately $13 billion of federal funding for ten major corridors in states including California, Washington, Wisconsin, and Florida. The proposal envisioned high-speed trains going upwards of 150 miles per hour in certain areas. Yet, four years later, the project has largely been a dud. Much of the federal funding, as CNN’s Drew Griffin notes, has gone towards maintaining and repairing aging rail, rather than actually creating new high-speed trains/rail. Furthermore, there have been staggering accounts of fiscal incompetence and waste. In Washington, for instance, $800 million in federal funding to
create a high-speed rail line between Seattle and Portland only ended up shaving ten minutes off a three-and-a-half hour ride. Of the ten original corridors, only two seem to be making any semblance of progress. The Chicago-St. Louis route expects to have trains running at top speeds of 110 MPH by 2015, and the San Francisco-Los Angeles route estimates a 220 MPH train line by 2029. Granted, the struggles of the program have not been entirely Obama’s fault. The administration has faced numerous obstacles on state and local levels. Some states, such as Washington, expressed reservations about accepting federal funding for rail, stating that high-speed rail wasn’t a pressing priority for the state. Others, such as Wisconsin and Florida, outright rejected federal funding, arguing that high-speed rail would not save commuters time or money. Indeed, the Obama administration has run into much more operational and organizational difficulties, along with political obstructionism, than expected. In Milwaukee and other cities around the nation, abandoned rail projects have produced empty train cars, uselessly sitting in warehouses. The Obama administration’s troubled rail initiative comes on the heels of many administration flops including, most recently, the launch of the health care exchanges. The lack of progress on Obama’s transportation vision only serves to add to what Daily Beast editor-in-chief Tina Brown calls a “miasma of incompetence”—a public perception that the administration cannot effectively enact its grand pronouncements. Earlier this year, billionaire inventor Elon Musk introduced a fantastical mode of transportation dubbed the “hyperloop.” While the technology, a sort of ultra high-speed tube transport, is clearly years in the future, the announcement served to remind Americans that the nation is missing out on the current era of high-speed rail—and the numerous economic, environmental, and cultural benefits attached to high-speed transportation. The type of ambitious, fantastic, and somewhat ridiculous vision that Musk pursued, also embodied by the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, has largely been absent in American culture in recent times. Instead, we have been content with half-hearted visions, hollow rhetoric, and an uninspired populace. PP
8
Volume XIV, Issue X
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013
THE BOOGEYMAN OF CHARLES MURRAY: ON THE CAUSES OF INEQUALITY IN AMERICA by Adrian Carney ‘14, Staff Writer
L
ast week, the Politik published an article by Christopher Winer about a talk given by Charles Murray at this university. The article discussed views on future of American society, as well as the role of the growing class divide in the United States, the importance of family life, and the importance of educating children. I do not dispute Winer’s emphasis on the importance of any of these issues. However, I do question the premise of giving any uninhibited praise to the work and policy suggestions of Charles Murray. In 1994, Charles Murray published the controversial book The Bell Curve, where he proposed causal links between one’s environment and intelligence and its inheritability. The book was heavily criticized on multiple fronts. According to experts and a majority of the scientific community, he misinterpreted statistics, ignored, understated, or misinterpreted environmental factors in the heritability of intelligence, and even allegedly fostered scientific racism by claiming that black people were genetically inferior due to low IQs. The fact that about half of the studies that Murray uses were bankrolled by racist institutions like the Pioneer Fund did not help his case. After the controversy surrounding his claims, Murray has re-emerged with a new book, titled Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. In it, he has an image of a split America, challenging the idea of a hardworking lower class. He says that it has lost its way and ignored the ‘founding virtues’ of religiosity and hard work. He notes the increased number of children born out of wedlock, and the number of adults on unemployment benefits. The second America is one that the majority of us at Johns Hopkins will inhabit – those of the elites. He sees this second group with a tendency to concentrate in certain zip codes with easy access to education, where we work hard and center power and money amongst ourselves, giving little care to those outside. He sees these groups of people as failures and triumphs of moral virtue, and it is the weakness of us cognitive elites that we do not spread our values to the poor.
Even if we take Murray’s claims at face value, he is ignoring one of the main laws of statistics – just because he has plotted two sets of statistics together and created a narrative does not hide the fact that he could ignore other factors. The massed increase in unemployment due to the global recession is waved away as part of a ‘cultural divergence’. I lived in a town similar to what Murray holds up as a caricature of the poor. Although I lived a more comfortable existence than most of my neighbors, I still recognized that something was wrong. Many of my friends’ parents were laid off for no good reason. Many who owned businesses worried about how sales were slow because so many workers in the auto plants lost their jobs. Was it the fault of the laborers that they lost their jobs? Yes, says, Charles Murray, because they were lazy and immoral. I say no. In this case, Murray recognizes a valid problem, but is mistaken on its causes or what should be done to fix it. Yes, the growing gap between rich and poor is important. Yes, education and environmental factors in raising children are important. Yes, it is important that those of us who do have the privilege of wealth, health, good education, and loving families should recognize, like Nick Carraway in the beginning of The Great Gatsby, that there are people who do not have such advantages. However, his answer does little to address the actual causes of the problem. Instead he blames the poor for being poor without asking why or offering any concrete policy suggestions. He has shifted away from making claims about scientific racism, but that is setting the bar very low indeed. PP
9
Volume XIV, Issue X
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013
U.S. MUST END PAKISTAN DRONE STRIKES by George Gelashvili ‘16, Contributing Writer
T
he past few years have seen much public discourse on the lethal use of drones by the United States, particularly in Pakistan. The most recent publicized incident—which occurred on November 1st—interestingly coincided with Ron Paul’s presence on Homewood Campus. The former Congressman outlined his entirely predictable platform, including a focus on a strict Constitutional interpretation of war powers. Earlier that day, Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, was killed alongside two aides by an American drone strike in North Waziristan. Ron Paul characterized current drone warfare as part of an American foreign policy that is unconstitutional by virtue of being an undeclared act of war. He claims that this sort of action abroad is undesirable because it is ultimately makes us more enemies rather than promoting positive cooperation among the nations that are involved. He continued by positing that, “No matter what your opinion on foreign policy, we can’t afford [this level of military involvement abroad] anymore.” It is here that I disagree with Mr. Paul’s argument as it pertains to American strikes in Pakistan; the problem with using drones is that we can afford to. Large, expensive projects such as the development of the F-35 are often cited as an example of the military-industrial complex’s unnecessary level of superior-force spending given the nature of combat against insurgent groups with which the US is currently or prospectively engaged. The financial cost is entirely justifiable if one believes that aerial strikes, that polarize civilians in a tepidlyallied nation, are an effective way to combat and prevent terrorism. The issue is the lack of political fallout when those killed fall under the category of suspected (or known) terrorist, with no loss of American service members. In the event that the PTSD of drone pilots leads to an incident on American soil, the Pentagon would address this mental-health concern given enough public criticism. However, as seen in the multiple shootings at U.S. bases in the last few years, any incident not caused by enemy combatants is unlikely to meaningfully alter public opinion.
As a consequence, we are in a state of complacency with regards to this particular use of extralegal force. This is in sharp contrast with Americans’ disapproval of the Vietnam War, or of our intervention in Somalia after sustaining American casualties in the battle of Mogadishu. By killing Mehsud, the U.S. may have succeeded in eliminating an entry on a terror watch list, but its ultimate goals must be called into question. The Pakistani government was to commence peace talks with the Taliban in the country, which have as a result been postponed, perhaps indefinitely. It is almostcertainly true that Pakistan collaborated with the CIA or other American agencies armed with drones in the past, but this doesn’t change the impact of the latest US strike which is most likely negative. Besides possible retribution against American or allied targets, the effect of continued undeclared drone warfare will be prolonging pertinent conflicts such as the one faced by Pakistan in North Waziristan. I do not believe that drones (or supporting research at various institutions) should be prohibited; in this sense I disagree with such voices as the Human Rights Working Group. However, our strikes in Pakistan—as undeclared acts of war that violate the sovereignty of other nations and the dignity of their people—must be stopped for the sake of all involved. Friday’s killing illustrates the unproductive outcomes of this undeclared war which harms civilians, the prospects for regional peace, and the interests of involved nations like those of the U.S. PP
10
Volume XIV, Issue X
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013
“MOVEMBER” PUTS SPOTLIGHT ON PROSTATE CANCER by Victoria Scordato ‘14, Creative Director
T
he Johns Hopkins University chapter of the American Marketing Association (JHU AMA), in conjunction with the organization Movember, has been hosting a series of events such as fundraising activities, competitions, and raffles throughout this month to raise awareness of and money for prostate cancer, testicular cancer, and men’s mental health. Students, faculty, and community members are encouraged to grow mustaches as part of a monthlong fundraising competition that will transform every participant into a symbol of men’s health awareness. Participants can compete as a team or individually in a competition to raise the most money for the cause. The month kicked off with Shave the Date, where local barbers offered discounted grooming services on campus, with all tips going to the cause. The month continued with a booth at the senior football game, where JHU AMA members sold mustache-themed memorabilia and raffled off prizes. The competition will culminate with the ‘Stache Bash on November 22nd, where participants can win prizes in an expert-judged competition. It will also include the Moscars, where contest participants will be judged by local barbers on the style, shape, and substance of their mustache, with winners receiving a highly coveted mustache-shaped trophy. This is a particularly important cause because prostate cancer is the second most common cancer among men in the U.S., with 1 out of every 6 men developing the disease at some point in their lifetime. It is also the second leading cause of cancer death of white, African American, and Hispanic men. In 2010, 196,038 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States; 28,560 of them died. According to the American Cancer Society, as of March 2013 there were 82 grants totaling more than $40 million devoted to prostate cancer research. This money has lead to recent scientific breakthroughs regarding the origins the disease, including the discovery that the same gene that predisposes women to breast cancer can also predispose men to prostate cancer. This is significant because there are well-established screening methods for this gene. This research has also led to breakthroughs in fighting the disease like targeted radiation therapy and the discovery of immunization techniques that could be repurposed to combat cancer cells.
While research funding is always important, the main motivation behind Movember is to raise awareness. Men are 24% less likely to go to the doctor than women, and the nature of prostate cancer in particular makes it difficult for many men to talk about. By “changing the face of men’s health” with their effort to encourage facial hair growth among patients, survivors, and supporters worldwide, the organization aims to foster a global dialogue about the nature of men’s health. According to their website, Movember attributes the poor state of men’s health to a lack of awareness and understanding of the health issues men face, men’s apprehension toward discussing how they feel both physically and mentally, and the stigmas surrounding men’s health issues. The purpose behind Movember is to infuse the discussion of men’s health with a sense of humor and openness. These are admirable but lofty goals—changing a society’s attitude is no easy feat. However, Movember has managed to make headway by employing humor, compassion, and creativity. As a direct result of Movember initiatives, 69% of participants had a general checkup with their doctor, 79% discussed health with their friends, family, or co-workers, and 67% recommended someone else see a doctor. While the public conversation about cancer and other health-related issues can turn morbid quickly, Movember is trying to inspire action and discussion in a new and creative way. Their efforts are hip, fun, and popular among younger demographics, a notoriously difficult demographic to engage in discussions of health and healthcare. If more organizations took a page out of Movember’s book, the result could be truly inspiring. PP
11
Volume XIV, Issue X
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013
12
Volume XIV, Issue X
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 18th, 2013
WRITE FOR thePOLITIK PRESS
Photo Courtesy: United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs Division
The Politik Press, originally founded in 2008 as JHU Politik, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We proudly seek to provide the Johns Hopkins campus with student voices and perspectives about important issues of our time. Rather than hide within a cloistered academic bubble, we know we must critically engage with the world that surrounds us. That, we believe, is at the heart of what it means to be learning. We’re lucky to be situated in the city of Baltimore, a city with a rich history and an ever-changing politics. We aim to look at the politics of the Homewood campus, of the city of Baltimore, of the domestic landscape of the United States, and then of the international community as well. While we publish the Politik Press weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues which come out once per semester. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. We have run issues covering topics like the political nature of research, the Arab Spring, and our city Baltimore.
If interested e-mail us at
JHUPOLITIK@gmail.com Or find us online at
jhupolitik.org 13