August 2015 by The Chariot

August 2015

VOLUME 12 â&#x20AC;˘ ISSUE 1

The Hectic 2016 ELECTION

seen from both sides

Supreme Court Decisions

AS WELL AS: Confederate Flag Removal, 7 Greek Economic Crisis, 8

THE CHARIOT

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Kathleen Xue (‘16) SENIOR EDITOR Maggie Wang (‘17) COPY EDITOR Isha Gupta (‘17) FUNDRAISING DIRECTOR Katina Yong (‘16) CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Ellaine Chou (‘16) Nicholas Chung (‘17) Alex Dersh (‘16) Dhruv Rajan (‘16) Katie Russell (‘16) Karunya Sethuraman (‘16) Eric Wang (‘17) Shannon Yang (‘17)

DEAR READERS,

hough pressing international issues persist and have escalated over the course of the summer (such as the fight against ISIS), the US is experiencing its own type of fiasco—the quadrennial presidential election. The 2016 election is especially intense yet comical; the Democratic Party is dominated by Hillary Clinton (known for her 2008 election failure and email problems as Secretary of State) and Bernie Sanders (who self-proclaims as a Communist), while the Republican Party is filled past the brim with business magnates and extreme-conservative surgeons alike. Despite this, as current Gunn students and future active members of society, it is The Chariot staff ’s hope to both be well-informed about differing political platforms as well as to inform peers of candidates’ differences and similarities. This way, we hope to help make Gunn more aware of the presidential choices we have, and that the strength of our voices is not necessarily insignificant. The reason we so heavily focus on the presidential election this early is to persuade you as readers not to be politically apathetic, for the process of choosing the next president is in essence the process of choosing the right person to represent our beliefs. The failure to stand by and choose a leader who is both competent and considerate will bring large demographics tragedies such as job loss and restriction of rights; and although many of us are not old enough to vote, we still need to prepare ourselves by being well-read on pressing international affairs and candidate stances. Thus we can begin the political conversation here, and can continue it into the larger community and beyond. In this issue, we hope that you are able to get a taste of the various presidential possibilities, and their advantages and downfalls. But we also hope to provoke discussion—who do you think is most fit for the job, and why? Our objective is to help you get interested, get informed, and above all, begin to delve deeper in the issues that make you most passionate. Thank you for your support and readership, and we can’t wait to hear the political debates to come.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Xue

Editor-In-Chief FOUNDATION/GROUP SPONSORS Adobe Systems • Daughters of the American Revolution • Palo Alto Lions Club PATRONS ($100+) Lauren Michals and Vinod Bharadwaj • Patricia Bruegger • Steven Guggenheim

The Chariot would like to thank Advisor Ethan Halter for his support.

Front cover artwork is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution. ABOUT US The Chariot is intended to create and promote political discussion at Gunn and make people aware of issues that matter. We ask that you respect all opinions which are reflected in our publication, and write letters to the editors if you wish to voice your opinion. The views expressed do not reflect that of The Chariot, but rather those of the individual writers. The Chariot was originally founded in 2001 as The Partisan Review by Gunn alumni Ilan Wurman (‘06), Channing Hancock (‘06), and Sarah McDermott (‘05). Visit our website, gunnchariot.com if you wish to view any issues from previous years or for more information about us. Any questions, comments, suggestions, or requests to join can be sent to gunnchariot@gmail.com. If you’d like to make a donation or subscribe, please send checks to: Ethan Halter Re: The Gunn Chariot 780 Arastradero Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 Checks can be made out to Gunn High School with “The Chariot” on the memo.

AUGUST 2015

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

SUMMER CULTURE

Movies: Far From the Madding Crowd

Book: Go Set a Watchman

Music: Apple Music

If you like the books you read in English class or like the movie adaptation of “Pride and Prejudice”, “Far From the Madding Crowd” is for you. With an 85 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a character named Bathsheba, this movie delights the majority who see it. Filled with suspense, sheep, and suitors, this movie ingeniously offers the right amount of heartbreak and happiness.

Inside Out

If you’re in the mood for something lighter, see “Inside Out”, a movie where Pixar has reached new heights. In “Inside Out”, Pixar has graduated from toys having emotions to emotions having emotions. Voiced by many famous actors, this tale of emotional emotions is a fun summer movie.

Image taken from Mac Rumors

Image taken from Casual Optimist

Fifty-five years after the publication of the bestselling novel “To Kill a

With special artist podcasts, a personally tailored recommended songs predictor, and a beautiful but slightly complex interface, Apple Music is definitely something to try out this summer. If you are an Apple user, just upgrade to the new iOS and sign up for a free three month trial. Image taken from Mac Rumors

Mockingbird,” Harper Lee has released a sequel to her classic novel, “Go Set a Watchman.” However, the fans of Lee’s first book should watch out, as the sequel has some unexpected twists.including the fact that Atticus, our very own upholder of justice, is an aging racist who rails against Brown v. Board and attends KKK meetings. Time can only tell whether the plot of this book will have as profound an effect as Atticus’ brave and righteous fight for justice in a prejudiced Alabama town. Get ready to be immersed in a much more contradictory landscape than that of “To Kill a Creative Commons License

Mockingbird.” —Compiled by Karunya Sethuraman AUGUST 2015

2016 PRESIDENT

THE CHARIOT

Clinton’s second act Alex Dersh Contributing Writer

illary Rodham Clinton, wife to former President Bill Clinton and runner-up to President Barack Obama for the 2008 Democratic nomination, announced her candidacy for a second bid for the White House on April 12. She has been the presumptive frontrunner for the Democratic nomination since 2013, when she stepped down as Secretary of State. She leads the field by far in en-

Bernie Sanders’ low chances helps Clinton’s platform Katina Yong Fundraising Director

hile news outlets have been championing Bernie Sanders as a valid contender in the 2016 presidential election, the reality is that he has no chance of becoming the Democratic presidential nomination. Bernie Sanders lacks popular support from dedicated Democrats who actually vote in the primaries. However, he allows Hillary Clinton to lean further left on issues and bring to front socioeconomic issues instead of the email and phone scandals that have plagued her. The primary reasons that Bernie Sanders will not win the Democratic nomination are three-fold: He has issues with popular support, recognition, and campaign financing. Firstly, the popular support Sanders does have is with

dorsements, money raised, infrastructure, and name-recognition. Clinton’s campaign is changing tactics from 2008, when large rallies and non personal appearances made her seem out-oftouch compared to Barack Obama. Clinton began her campaign with a “listening tour,” which involved sitting down with voters across Iowa and New Hampshire to talk about the issues. Her strategy of making the campaign “your campaign” also features various town-halls and an aggressive social media presence. Clinton is beginning to roll out a comprehensive agenda, with detailed policies on income inequality, climate change, voting rights, and equal pay. The progressive “Four Fights” she has outlined represents a shift by her and by the larger Democratic Party

to the left, leaving behind her husband’s Third Way neoliberalism in favor of Elizabeth Warren-esque populism. Despite Clinton’s best efforts, large media attention has been paid to controversies surrounding her campaign. Revellations that Clinton used a private email account as Secretary of State, questions about the Clinton Foundation’s donations, and lingering focus on the Benghazi attack in Libya have hurt her standing in the polls. Her ratings for honesty and trustworthiness, as well as her massive lead on Democratic opponents such as Bernie Sanders, have taken a hit. With the 2016 presidential campaign just having begun, Clinton has already attracted both positive and negative observers, and will likely continue to do so as elections advance closer.

the younger demographics, who rarely vote in the primaries. Among the established crowd, only two percent would vote for him. This is a large red flag for Sanders’ campaign. Even those who sympathise more with his views are likely to vote for Hillary Clinton because she stands a better chance of winning the presidency. A similar incident occurred in the 2000 Democratic Primary with the Green Party’s Ralph Nader in which voters voted for Al Gore simply because Gore had a greater chance of winning. Another area where Sanders falls short is recognition. Clinton has more name-recognition among voters and is the main front runner in the overall election. In addition, Clinton raised $45 million in one round compared to Sanders’ $15 million. The notable point is that Sanders’ money is largely comprised of donations from individual donors while Clinton has drawn more big names, and that Sanders does not accept super PACs while Clinton does. More campaign money means more

advertising to hook voters that are largely apathetic. Against these odds, Bernie Sanders does not represent a substantial threat to Hillary. Bernie Sanders does, however, allow Hillary Clinton to present a more left-winged opinion. In effect, Sanders serves as an extreme that Clinton can use to make herself more appealing to moderates. He helps keep news pundits focused on serious issues rather than trivial scandals. While he may have little to no chance of securing the presidency, Sanders does fill an important role for Clinton.

AUGUST 2015

Creative Commons License

TIAL ELECTION

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

2016 election breakdown

Maggie Wang Senior Editor

few Democrats and large number of Republicans have officially announced running for their party’s 2016 presidential nomination. Below are a few of the more notable candidates and their platforms. DEMOCRATS Hillary Clinton At the forefront of the Democratic party is Hillary Clinton, a former first lady, U.S. senator, and Secretary of State who has been under the public eye for the majority of her life. Clinton announced her 2016 presidential bid on April 12 in a video that emphasized the needs of middle class Americans and shows her shift from centrist values to the Democratic party’s more liberal ones. Bernie Sanders A self-professed democratic socialist, the Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders announced his bid for presidency on April 30. He has since risen up significantly in the polls with ideas on income equality, climate change, and campaign finance reform. Reflecting his ideologies on campaign finance, Bernie Sanders does not accept any money from PACs and plans only to receive money from the public. His 12 Steps Forward agenda for the US includes reversing climate change, making college affordable for all, health care as a right for all, and raising minimum wage. Although Sanders calls himself a socialist, he also claims that he is what the American people wants. Martin O’Malley Martin O’Malley launched his campaign on May 30 and aims to present himself as a fresh voice of the Democratic party by pushing the image of

vitality through his progressive ideologies (and his role as the lead singer of a Celtic rock band). O’Malley is neither as influential as Clinton nor as progressive as Sanders, leaving him with little opening to win the Democratic nomination. REPUBLICANS Jeb Bush The brother and son of former presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, Jeb Bush formally launched his campaign on June 15. Bush is a moderate conservative and plans to phase out Medicare, support the Common Core Standards, and protect the environment. Bush faces the issues of recovering from the unpopular image of his brother, George W. Bush as well as America’s hesitancy to create a three-member Bush dynasty. In addition, he has recently raised doubts when he struggled to address basic questions about George W. Bush’s decisions on the war in Iraq. Ted Cruz Texas Senator Ted Cruz was the first person to seek the Republican party’s nomination when he launched his campaign on March 23. As the first Cuban American to run for President, he aims to attract minorities. Rand Paul A staunch right-wing Libertarian, AUGUST 2015

Creative Commons License

Rand Paul announced his presidential pursuit on April 7 at an event in Louisville, Kentucky. His views on limiting the government and giving more rights to individuals are attractive to young voters. Marco Rubio Marco Rubio formally launched his campaign on April 13, the second Cuban American to run for president after Ted Cruz. Donald Trump Donald Trump, a business magnate and television personality with a massive ego, launched his 2016 presidential bid on June 16 with the slogan “Make America Great Again!”. In his presidential campaign announcement speech, Trump promised to fund Social Security, renegotiate U.S. trade agreements, oppose Common Core educational standards, and complete the Mexican border fence and make Mexico pay for it. His run is mostly regarded as a publicity stunt and controversy has spread regarding his racist remarks on illegal immigration. Scott Walker Kicking off his campaign on July 13, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is a conservative known for crushing public service unions. Adamantly against the Iran nuclear deal, Walker criticized the Obama administration’s handling of negotiations with Iran.

THE CHARIOT

NATIONAL EVENTS

Outside of King v. Burwell (which made HealthCare.gov’s subsidies legal) and Obergefell v. Hodges (which made gay marriage legal nationwide), few take note of other important Supreme Court cases through 2015 so far. Below are a selection of other Supreme Court decisions and their impacts on the US.

CASE NAME

SOURCE: Oyez.org

SUMMARY

RULING

IMPLICATIONS

Oklahoma was sued over its three-drug lethal injection procedure. A prisoner had argued that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment because the drug midazolam was not effective at anesthetizing.

5-4 in favor of Gross

Midazolam is legal to use in lethal injections. Oklahoma and other states have quickly moved ahead with executions.

Michigan v. EPA

The EPA had been challenged over its decision to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal plants because of its alleged failure to undertake a cost benefit analysis.

5-4 in favor of Michigan

The EPA will have to revise its regulations. This decision was only about considering costs of regulations, not about the EPA’s authority over limiting emissions.

Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Commission

The Arizona legislature challenged the constitutionality of an independent redistricting commission as it had been formed by voters.

5-4 in favor of Independent Commission

Alabama Black Caucus v. Alabama

Democrats challenged the Alabama redistricting plan drawn by Republicans arguing it packed minority voters into districts.

5-4 in favor of The Court voted to send the plan back to a lower Black Caucus court for further review. This case could end back up at the Supreme Court later if it is not resolved.

Texas v. Inclusive Communities Project

The Court decided whether plaintiffs suing under the Fair Housing Act must prove intentional discrimination or just a disproportionate adverse impact against any group.

This makes it easier for people to sue for more 5-4 in favor of integrated housing. Tax credits for low income Inclusive Com- housing will now be more proportional to minormunities Project ity neighborhoods. The case was returned to a lower court.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert

The town of Gilbert, Arizona was sued over its ordinance that placed different limits on political, ideological, religious, and directional signs.

9-0 in favor of Reed

6 justices ruled that all laws that restrict types of speech must withstand strict scrutiny. This does not, however, bar cities from content neutral sign regulations.

Walker v. Sons Of Confederate Veterans

Texas had been sued over its refusal to allow specialty license plates that bear the Confederate battle flag.

5-4 in favor of Walker

The specialty plates are considered government speech and therefore denying them is not a violation of the First Amendment. This means that the government can restrict specialty license plates.

EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch

Abercrombie turned away a potential employee based on her religious hijab, which violated company policy. The company did not inform her of the “look” policy.

8-1 in favor of EEOC

UPS was sued over its refusal to accommodate pregnant female workers.

6-3 in favor of Young

The Court ruled that employers have to accommodate pregnant workers when they accommodate other workers, regardless of cost or convenience. The case was sent back to a lower court.

Arkansas was sued over its no-beard policy for prisoners.

9-0 in favor of Holt

The Court ruled that prisoners can grow short beards for religious reasons as there are no security risks. —Compiled by Nicholas Chung

Glossip v. Gross

Young v. UPS

Holt v. Hobbs

SUPREME COURT RULINGS

AUGUST 2015

The Supreme Court found voters could strip lawmakers of authority to draw district lines. Independent commissions lead to less gerrymandering. This rule protects the 12 independent panel states.

Abercrombie’s actions violated civil rights laws and failed to accommodate the job applicant. The justices ruled that employers must provide reasonable accommodation without undue hardship. The case was sent back to a lower court.

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

NATIONAL EVENTS

Iran deal announced Nicholas Chung Contributing Writer

n July 14, 2015 after nearly two years of negotiations between world powers and Iran, a nuclear deal was finally struck, paving the way for Iran’s reintegration into the international community after more than three decades of isolation. National security experts have hailed this deal, with the Royal United Services Institute saying the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon in the next 25 years is now extremely remote. Others assert that the deal will merely delay the development of a nuclear bomb by Iran and that it will further destabilize the Middle East. The nuclear deal is similar to the framework that had been released in the spring. Iran will give up 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges and 97% of its enriched uranium. Iran will also destroy its Arak plutonium plant core, ship out spent nuclear fuel, and only enrich uranium to energy-grade fuel, or 3.67% enrichment (weapons-grade uranium is 90% enriched). In return, the US and other world powers have agreed to slowly roll back sanc-

Confederate flag comes down after tragedy Alex Dersh Contributing Writer

n July 17, 9 African American parishioners were shot and killed in Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Presidential candidates commented, and comedians took time off from their regular segments to pay tribute. The motivations of the shooter were clearly racist. The shooter expressed violently racist rhetoric online, posted his disturbing manifesto, and posed in photos with the Confederate Battle Flag. The flag’s appearance stirred

tions on Iran, with most economic sanctions lifted within a year while an arms embargo will be lifted in five years. In addition, Iran must comply with nuclear inspections within 24 days. The deal has engendered both strong praise and opposition domestically and internationally, with many viewing the deal with skepticism. Many Republicans immediately denounced the deal within hours despite not having read the document, calling it “a death sentence for Israel”, “a virtual declaration of war against Sunni Arabs”, and “a dark day in history.” Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, called it “a historic mistake.” Furthermore, Iranian hardliners remain opposed to any dealing with the “Great Satan.” For example, the Revolutionary Guards asserted that the deal violated red lines set by the Ayatollah Khamenei. Despite the condemnations, however, no one has provided a viable alternative to the deal. In many cases, what is being suggested is to have no deal at all. The deal has mainly received cautious optimism from Democrats, with Obama acknowledging that Iran will likely remain hostile to the US and will continue its anti-Western policies, saying “you don’t make peace with your friends.” In contrast, the public reaction in Iran has been one of jubilation, with cheering crowds thronging the streets in anticipation of relief for Iran’s struggling domestic economy. Critics and proponents differ in their

views on key points. Opponents have argued that the deal will free up $100 billion that Iran will then use to further its own agenda in the Middle East. The CIA, however, has predicted that Iran will probably spend most of the money from sanctions relief on its domestic economy. Others, such as the Brookings Institute, have pointed out that Iranian intervention in the Middle East was likely to increase regardless of a nuclear deal. Detractors have also complained that 24 days is enough time for Iran to cover up any illicit activity. However, even if Iran did cheat running at full capacity, it would take a full year before Iran would be able to produce a nuclear bomb. As a last resort, the US can demand a snap back of UN sanctions within 30 days. The UN Security Council has unanimously voted in favor of the agreement. However, there remains much work to be done. The International Atomic Energy Agency will now monitor Iran to ensure it is adhering to the initial requirements. This may take weeks or even months. In the US, Congress has until September to review the deal and vote. As Obama has promised to veto any rejection of the deal, a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate would be required to vote down the deal. In Iran, the Ayatollah still has to give his final approval, but it is likely that he will endorse it. Regardless of the merits of the deal, both opponents and proponents agree that it is a historic moment.

debate about its display on public property across the South, especially on the grounds of the South Carolina State Capitol. The flag was originally placed on the State House dome in 1961, the centennial of the Civil War, in defiance of the civil rights movement. Civil rights activists, African-American community leaders, and others fought to remove the flag. In 2000, a compromise was reached between supporters and opponents to move the flag from the State House to a separate site still located on the Capitol grounds. The recent shootings rekindled the debate,

and politicians changed their minds. Several Republican US Senators and state leaders motioned remove the flag. The South Carolina state legislature successfully voted for removal with a large majority, and the flag was taken down on July 10.

AUGUST 2015

Creative Commons License

INTERNATIONAL THE CHARIOT

Greek economic crisis Isha Gupta Copy Editor

his summer, the media has been bursting with news of Greece’s dire economy. With all the talk of bailouts and loans, much of the events come off as esoteric. Here, however, are the key pieces of information to understand the crisis. THE BEGINNINGS Greece’s financial meltdown stems from the 2008 global recession, in which Greece revealed to the world that it had been understating its deficit for years. As a result, their creditors came to collect, and when Greece could not pay it was barred from borrowing in international markets. Then in 2010, Greece announced that it was nearing bankruptcy and needed a bailout. The first bailout, worth 240 billion euros (264 billion USD), was issued jointly by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Central Bank, and the European Commission. However, the money came with caveats: creditors required Greece cut spending and enforce tax collection. Greece struggled to fulfil their end

EU and Russian sanctions extended Nicholas Chung Contributing Writer

n June 22, the European Union extended its current sanctions on Russia for another six months, citing the disputed annexation of Crimea and the current Ukrainian civil war as its reasons. Russia responded two days later with an extension of own sanctions against the EU agricultural imports for another year. In addition, Russia has now threatened to expand sanctions to target

of the bargain, which the media portrayed as an omen of a deepening crisis. ELECTIONS AND ECONOMICS January 2015 marked the end of Antonis Samaras’ term as prime minister of a center-right government and the arrival of Alexis Tsipras’s leftist Syriza party. Tsipras campaigned on the platform of

reversing cuts installed by the bailout agreement and keeping Greece in the European Union. Coming into the elections, Tsipras promised that he would renegotiate the terms of

the bailout agreement. In this climate, many economists and Greek citizens came to blame the country’s economic woes on the harsh austerity measures imposed by the IMF. In response, creditors grew frustrated at Greece’s inability to repay their debts and implement austerity measures. THE CURRENT CONUNDRUM Since the elections, Greece has spoken with international creditors and other countries in the Eurozone about bailout conditions and debt repayment. On June 5, Greece failed to repay 1.6 billion euros (1.74 billion USD) to the IMF. On that same date, Tsipras hosted a public referendum in Greece asking voters whether to accept the proposed bailout agreements set forth by creditors and prominent members of the European Union. 61.31 percent of citizens voted to reject the terms. Instead, Greece opted to fulfill all the monthly payments on June 30, 2015. Again, Greece failed to pay on that date, prompting creditors to assume that Greece had defaulted on its debt. But although that might have been the case, the IMF technically had to assume otherwise. Instead, the IMF labelled Greece as an arrear, a country that has failed to meet payment obligations. Greece is now the first developed country to miss an IMF payment, putting it with the likes of Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

other areas, such as Finland’s timber industry. In 2014, Russia had a $150 billion in net capital outflow while it is projected to lose $100 billion this year. Russia’s central bank is expecting a 3.2 percent contraction and has reduced its interest rates, while the IMF has projected a 3.8 percent contraction this year and a more than 1 percent contraction in 2016. Moody and Standard and Poor both downgraded Russia’s debt to junk status in February and have recently stated that they will most likely not upgrade its debt status in the next twelve to eighteen months. In addition, the number of Russians below the poverty line—$169 a month—has reached 23 million, or 16 percent, in March 2015, 3 million more than last year. Food prices have been driven up by 21 percent, largely because of Russia’s ban on food imports from Europe. Despite sanctions, falling oil prices, and a deteriorating outlook, however, Russia’s economy seems to be recovering slowly. Its

inflation rate has fallen to 1.1 percent from April’s high of 16.9 percent. In addition, the EU has not imposed energy sanctions on Russia due to Europe’s continuing dependence on Russian oil and gas, allowing a major part of Russia’s economy to remain intact. In fact, falling oil prices have done greater harm to Russia’s economy than European and US sanctions combined. After falling from $100 highs last year, oil has mostly stabilised as the oil rig count continues to drop. With a potential Iranian nuclear deal combined with a recent surge in Iraqi oil production, however, oil prices are set to fall again. The global market could be flooded with 7 to 35 million more barrels of oil, swelling the current global surplus by 30 percent. This would further increase the pressure on Russia’s economy, as half of Moscow’s revenue comes from energy and 68 percent of its export revenue is derived from oil.

ce Li

ons Creative Comm the budget

AUGUST 2015