January 2020
CHARIOT OPINION INBOX: 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS SURVEY
15
VOLUME 16 • ISSUE 1
AS WELL AS: The Trap of Impeachment, 3 How U.S. Contractors Won Big Under Trump, 5 America's Issue with Culture, 11 How #MeToo Died with Jeffrey Epstein, 13
THE CHARIOT
DEAR READERS, EDITORSINCHIEF Edgar Hsieh ('20) Aanand Joshi ('20)
LAYOUT EDITORS
Quinn Arbolante ('20) Boris Bukchin ('21) Charlie Bush ('20) Claire Cheng ('20) Aditya Dhir ('20) Edgar Hsieh ('20) Aanand Joshi ('20)
COPY EDITING Senior Editor: Boris Bukchin ('21) Aditya Dhir ('20) Edgar Hsieh ('20) Aanand Joshi ('20) Neha Muthiah ('22)
TREASURER
H
appy new year! The Chariot Volume 16 Issue 1 is here. 2019 was a turbulent year. Within our nation, we saw deeper antagonisms. We experienced an impeachment and the cutthroat trimming of the Democratic Presidential Primary field. Internationally, 2019 was a year of popular anger; protests blaze across Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Africa. During our first semester, we involved more of our members in our copy editing and layouts editing progress. The following pages you read will be the handiwork of many collaborating students. We hope you enjoy this joint effort of the Chariot team. In this first issue of the school year, The Chariot Opinion Inbox took a different approach; we conducted a survey for the 2020 Presidential Elections for Gunn students. For any of those who are curious about how the political atmosphere looks like at Gunn, it is worth a look. And for those new to our magazine—The Chariot is a highly inclusive publication. If you have any opinions on social, cultural, and political issues you want to express, send us an email at gunnchariot@gmail.com. Feel free to drop by our meetings during lunch on Mondays in Room N106. Help us promote political awareness at Gunn High School.
Scott Hwang ('22)
Sincerely, Edgar Hsieh EditorinChief
SECRETARY
Jared Shirts ('22)
PUBLICITY DIRECTOR Neha Muthiah ('22)
CONTRIBUTORS
Edgar Hsieh ('20) Malek Jaziri ('21) David Lurie ('20) Neha Muthiah ('22) Yara Samad ('22) William Xuan ('21)
Cover by Edgar Hsieh
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 issuu.com/thechariot 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
The Chariot would like to thank Advisor Justin Brown for his support.
gunnchariot@gmail.com. If you’d like to make a donation or subscribe, please send checks to: Justin Brown 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.
1
JANUARY 2020
WWW.ISSUU.COM/THECHARIOT
QUICK NEWS LIST Contributors: Claire Cheng, Edgar Hsieh
National
International
1. Death of alBaghdadi (ISIS Leader), Oct. 26 In a successful raid, the U.S. military kills ISIS leader Abu Bakr alBaghdadi.
2. Senate Passes Hong Kong Bill, Nov. 19 The U.S. Senate unanimously passes the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act in response to escalating violence between HK police and protestors that led to 2 deaths.
3. Vaping Death Toll Rises, Ongoing. On Nov. 21, the death toll of vapingrelated deaths rises to 47.
Protestor dressed as Joker in Lebanon, (Source: Alain El Khoury via Twitter)
6. Protests in the Middle East, Feb. Ongoing
4. Kamala Harris Drops Out of Primary, Dec. 3 Citing a lack of campaign funds, California Senator Kamala Harris drops out of the Democratic presidential primary race. Former Texas Representative Beto O'Rourke also dropped out on Nov. 1st.
Led by the youth, mass demonstrations—called by some the New Arab Spring—erupt across Algeria, Iraq, Sudan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Iran against corruption, unemployment, and fuel prices.
7. Military Coup in Bolivia, Nov. 10 Amid massive demonstrations across Latin America, leftwing Bolivian President Evo Morales is forced by the military to resign in a coup.
8. UK Elections, Dec. 12 U.K. elections result in a major victory for Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party as the nation demonstrates its demand for Brexit.
9. Australia Bushfires, June 2019 Ongoing Senator Kamala Harris (Source: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
5. President Trump Impeached, Dec. 18th The U.S. House of Representatives votes to pass two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. Trump becomes the third President in U.S. history to be impeached.
Bushfires spread across Australia, burning over 8.4 million hectares of land and killing over half a billion animals. The New South Wales government declares a state of emergency on Jan. 2nd.
10. U.S. Assassinates Soleimani, Jan. 3 Iranian IRGC major general Qasem Soleimani is killed in Baghdad by orders of President Trump, escalating tensions between Iran and U.S. Layouts: Edgar Hsieh, Claire Cheng
JANUARY 2020
2
THE CHARIOT
DOMESTIC The Trap of Impeachment How the Democrats are Dooming Themselves Through Impeachment
Edgar Hsieh Editor-In-Chief
Pelosi on impeachment inquiry (Source: Andrew Harnik/AP/Shutterstock)
O
n December 18th, the House of Representatives passed two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. Trump became the third U.S. president in history to face impeachment. From a cursory evaluation of this news, it seems like a major victory for the Democrats; whatever corruption that Trump had embroiled himself with may finally drag him out of the White House. But due to two key reasons, this impeachment vote would turn out to be a deadly mistake for the Democrats. For one, the willingness of Pelosi as well as other establishment Democrats to call for an impeachment inquiry came very late. Initially, Pelosi stood firmly against impeachment:
“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.” ‐Nancy Pelosi, March 2019 3
To waver on the impeachment issue for such a long time
exposes the weakness of the Democratic Party leadership. Now that Pelosi suddenly flipped her opinion, Trump and his supporters can easily use her own words against the Democrats, accusing them of creating “divisiveness”. One should ask, why did Pelosi change her mind? It turns out that the answer to this question is also the second reason as to why the Democrats are setting a trap for themselves. The impeachment inquiry into Trump came in response to a call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which he requested an investigation into presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. To put it bluntly, this is one of the worst reasons that could have been picked for a case of impeachment against Trump. Just practically speaking, the reason stands on brittle legal foundation. Article I of impeachment against Trump is abuse of power. The Democrats allege that Trump used his position as president to obtain information from Ukraine, which constitutes as “property” or “a thing of value”. This means he could be charged with asking a foreign entity to give his campaign something of value—a violation of campaign finance law. But the Department of Justice has already announced that the information Trump requested from Zelensky was not something with a quantifiable value. Furthermore, this approach is hypocritical, because the Democrats did the exact same thing in the past. In January of 2016, the Obama administration pressured Ukrainian prosecutors to look into Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s criminal case in Ukraine. Another legal approach is to charge Trump with bribery or extortion. It is very likely that Trump threatened to withhold U.S. aid to Ukraine unless Zelensky agreed to investigate Biden. But Trump is not stupid; he made no explicit threat of doing so. As a result, proving this in order to convince a Republicancontrolled Senate is impossible. Article II of impeachment against Trump is obstruction of justice. This charge is made against Trump’s various attempts at defying subpoenas. However, Republicans argue that such moves are part of the usual antagonisms between the legislative and executive branches of government. Article II arguably stands on
JANUARY 2020
WWW.ISSUU.COM/THECHARIOT
even weaker ground than Article I. But let’s forget about the legal perspective; look at the political perspective. The Democrats’ belated venture into impeachment seems suspiciously like an act to protect Joe Biden. To make things worse, top Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren had stated that impeachment was to be solely focused on the TrumpBiden-Ukraine case. This foolish decision not only cements the perception that the Democrats are trying to cover up for Joe Biden but also eliminates the possibility of impeaching Trump for numerous other things he had done since he became president. And make no mistake about it: former Vice President Joe Biden’s involvement in Ukraine is also extremely suspicious. While he was advising in Ukraine in response to Russia’s invasion of the Crimea in 2014, his son Hunter Biden was given a board position on Ukrainian gas company Burisma. Hunter received as much as $50,000 per month from the job. Joe Biden later admitted that he threatened to withhold a $1 billion loan guarantee from Ukraine if the prosecutor investigating Burisma was not fired. The prosecutor was fired. Of course, the official explanation given was that the prosecutor was fired for other reasons. But let’s be real here: Hunter Biden should have never gotten his position while Joe was the Vice President working with the Ukrainian government at that time. He had no prior experience or expertise in the gas industry. Given Joe Biden’s long history of nepotism and
Joe Biden (right) and son Hunter (left) in 2009 (Source: Associated Press)
Trump reacts to impeachment proceedings (Source: EPA)
suspected corruption, there is a very real chance that his threat toward the prosecutor was done partially to protect his son. Regardless of whether Joe Biden conducted criminal activity in Ukraine, his image is tarnished in the popular consciousness of Americans. Like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden is inextricably linked to the Democratic establishment, which is perceived as corrupt. Protecting Joe Biden is the last thing the Democrats should do, especially when Trump has always portrayed himself as the anti-corruption candidate who would “drain the swamp”. Trump is also clearly confident that the impeachment inquiry would fail; he openly requested that China and Ukraine investigate Biden during a press conference. Trump is attempting to escalate the situation so that when the Democrats completely fail to find any evidence of wrongdoing, he can bite back with full force. Now that the Democrats have already embarked stupidly on the path of impeachment, they cannot turn back. The impeachment articles will eventually get sent to the Senate, where the Republicans will strike it down in full force. Trump will then declare victory, proclaiming that he is “FULLY EXONERATED” from this “WITCH HUNT”. So the current focus of impeachment is not compelling, overwhelming, or bipartisan. And it is, in fact, no less divisive than any other focus. What the Democrats should have done was to expand the investigation of Trump to focus on other areas as well. For example, Trump had reportedly used his diplomatic powers to boost traffic and revenue to his failing Trump hotels. There were also allegations of Saudi-funded lobbyists making lucrative deals with Trump’s hotels in Washington D.C. Regardless, there is no shortage of suspicious Trump activity that can come under scrutiny. But Pelosi and the Democratic establishment seem to be permanently married to the path of defeat. Copy Editing: Edgar Hsieh, Layouts: Charlie Bush
JANUARY 2020
4
THE CHARIOT
How U.S. Defense Contractors Won Big Under Trump William Xuan Contributing Writer
B
illion dollar deals. Deadly weapons. Politics. This is the industry of defense, which is most assuredly on the offensive. A report from Deloitte indicates that the defense industry is poised to grow significantly in 2019, buffeted by increasing global geopolitical tensions. It certainly doesn’t hurt that Trump is in office. According to data collected from the Defense Cooperation Security Agency (DSCA), the Trump administration is on target to outsell the Obama administration—which sold a record breaking 278 billion dollars worth of defense equipment during his eight years in office, more than twice that of Bush—in half of the time. There have been a few large factors in driving this growth. Underscoring all of these increases in arms sales is a mindset change. After the Vietnam war, Congress decided that it would be better for allied nations to arm themselves rather than waiting for the US to come in and help them. As a result, a multibillion dollar industry dedicated to selling weapons to our allies was born. This has been the dogma for administrations since then: arms sales
were primarily a tool for bolstering the military capabilities of allies. Any economic benefits were swept under the rug. However, since Trump took office, his administration has taken a decidedly more economic stance on weapons since then, somewhat disregarding the focus on arming allies. This is clearest in the messaging coming from Trump, claiming 1 million jobs (a figure that has been discredited) being created as a result of weapons sales. A big reason as to why so many more deals have gone through is because there are several paperwork changes that the White House has pushed through. In the normal system, deals involving weapons on the US Munitions List (the USML, which includes small arms, missiles, aircraft) have to be brokered by the Department of Defense (DoD), and notified about in Congress, where it can be stopped with a vote. Due to lobbying and the veto power of the president, Congress has almost always rubber stamped any arms deals. This time however, due to Democratic stalling, Congress hasn’t been formally ‘notified’ and certain deals haven’t gone through. As a result, the Trump administration
Trump and Muhammed Bin Salman celebrates the signing of a new deal. (Source: AP News)
5
JANUARY 2020
is pushing for many of these weapons on this list to be pushed onto another list, the Commerce Control List (the CCL, which includes computers, lasers, GPS), which has much less scrutiny than the USML. Under the CCL, other nations can directly reach out to US private companies to procure items under it with no Congressional approval needed.
Lockheed Missile (Source: Lockheed Martin)
Under Obama, weapons sales to certain countries had human rights preconditions. For example, a 400 million dollar contract to Saudi Arabia was cancelled over civilian casualties in Yemen, and a weapons deal with Bahrain that almost fell through was not made due to human rights concerns. These concerns have all but disappeared in the Trump administration’s push to sell more weapons, despite empirical evidence showing that weapons kill Yemeni civilians. Thanks to lax oversight and an overly supportive Trump administration, it has never been a better time to be in the American defense industry. Stocks of weapons manufacturers like Northrop Gruman (NYSE: NOC) and Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) have reached all time highs, as investors see the juicy profits from multi-billion dollar contracts. The human costs, however, are just beginning to be revealed. Copy Editing: Neha Muthiah, Layouts: Boris Bukchin
WWW.ISSUU.COM/THECHARIOT
Green New Deal Posters (@AOC via Twitter)
Ber nie Sanders
Green New Deal Yara Samad Contributing Writer
"People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth‐how dare you!"
T
hose are the words of Greta Thunberg, a sixteen-year-old climate change activist. During her famous “How Dare You” speech at the Climate Action Summit in 2019, Thunberg highlighted some important environmental issues that need to be brought to light. The world’s ecosystem as we know it is slowly degrading, the destruction accumulating slowly. The Amazonian Rainforest is burning, Greenland’s ice shelf and the Arctic are melting, heatwaves and wildfires have been sweeping regions. The world’s water imbalance has become prominent in the form of droughts and floods. Hurricanes are upending entire communities, ecosystems, economies,
and ways of life, as well as endangering millions of lives. This is only the tip of the iceberg—pun intended. In our bubble, we are sheltered from what is happening in countries under the poverty line. While the entire world will feel the blow if we botch the 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming goal, it’s the world’s poorest people who will suffer the biggest disruptions to their local climate. This means that if we do exceed the 1.5C Paris target, the countries that will face the biggest impact are those who are least to blame for creating the problem, and least equipped to deal with the resulting problems. Fortunately, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has plans to save the climate. So how does Bernie Sanders deal work? The first issue it addresses is carbon emissions. Bernie plans to reach 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization by 2050 at the latest. The plan also helps with ending unemployment by creating 20 million jobs needed to solve the climate crisis. He also guarantees five years of a worker’s current salary, housing assistance, job training, health care, pension support, and priority job placement for any displaced worker, as well as early retirement support for those who choose it or can no longer work. Sanders has promised to make a historic $16.3 trillion public investment to help the climate, declaring climate change a national emergency. By weatherizing homes, lowering energy bills, building affordable and high-quality public transportation, deploying universal high-speed internet access, supporting small family farms, and providing justice for disadvantaged groups, the scales will slowly tip. Sanders has agreed to provide $200 billion to the Green Climate Fund, rejoin the Paris Agreement, and reduce emissions. He also proposes for massive investments in research and JANUARY 2020
development to drastically reduce the cost of energy storage. He plans on expanding the climate justice movement to prioritize young people. He intends to take on the fossil fuel industry and invest in conservation and public lands. This fifteen-year plan has been called too ambitious by many, but if there is anyone who can do it, it’s Sanders. He has dedicated his life to helping the public, starting from when he became a member of the Liberty Union Party, which originated in the anti-war movement. When he sees a public need, he immediately reacts to address it. Why do we need this now more than ever? If we don’t reduce our emissions to attain the 1.5C goal in ten years, humankind will be facing grave consequences. This means that the Earth will have reached a point where it is too late to return to the normal climate. Instead, the Earth’s climate will continue to degenerate until it is no longer habitable. By this time, the people responsible for climate change will be long gone, and the younger generation will be faced with the consequences for the actions of their predecessors. Bernie’s plan helps to prevent all of this, as he is putting the Earth’s climate first. As Greta Thunberg said, “the world is waking up. And change is coming whether you like it or not.”
Copy Editing: Aditya Dhir, Layouts: Edgar Hsieh
6
THE CHARIOT
2020 Elections Media Bias Edgar Hsieh Editor-in-Chief
A
t a campaign rally in New Hampshire in early August, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders took a shot at The Washington Post: "If you look at The Washington Post, which is owned by … Jeff Bezos, we fought with the workers at Amazon to get them 15 bucks an hour. We have pointed out over and over again that Amazon made 10 billion dollars in profit last year, you know how much they paid in taxes? You got it zero! Any wonder why The Washington Post is not one of my great supporters”. Naturally the media went berserk. The Post’s top editor Marty Baron harshly criticized Sanders: “Contrary to the conspiracy theory the senator seems to favor, Jeff Bezos allows our newsroom to operate with full independence, as our reporters and editors can attest.” Let’s get this straight: Sanders did not push a conspiracy theory. What he was pointing to is that when news is controlled by corporate power, there is an inherent conflict of interest. Also the evidence for media bias against Bernie Sander is abundant . It was present all the way back in 2016, The Post infamously released 16 negative articles about Bernie Sanders within the span of 16 hours. This show of bias is astounding; it was not as if Bernie Sanders was embroiled in a gigantic scandal.
Seems perfectly reasonable, right? Except The Post’s logicsand-facts man has a scorching take on this:
“But people in the bottom half have essentially no wealth, as debts cancel out whatever assets they might have. So the comparison is not especially meaningful.” Kessler proceeded to rate Sanders statement with “Three Pinocchios” out of four for accuracy. All because of something along the lines of “poor people have debts”. Abysmal attempts at “fact-checking” Sanders unfortunately do not stop there:
“Millions of Americans are forced to work two or three jobs just to survive.” Another Sanders statement that sounds perfectly reasonable. Except that Kessler, drowning in “facts”, released another high-temperature take:
“Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that nearly 8 million people hold more than one job. But most of those extra jobs are part time, not full time. And the “millions” of people amount to just 5 percent of Americans with jobs.” This one simply doesn’t make any sense. “Part-time” jobs are still jobs, and “millions of people” is not at odds with “8 million people”. But once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Surely, The Post’s neutral fact-checkers would not do this for the third time. Right? Wrong.
“500,000 Americans will go bankrupt this year from medical bills.”
Compilation of The Post's 16 negative articles on Bernie Sanders. The Post’s crass bias rears its head again as the 2020 elections are in full swing. There are numerous examples of negative coverage, but a few egregious ones written by The Post’s fact checkers in particular stand out. During late June, fact-checker Glenn Kessler evaluated one of Sanders’ statements:
“Three people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of America.” 7
In support of his proposal to cancel medical debt, Sanders tweeted out this statistic in August. His staff elaborated that Sanders’ statement was based on a study published by the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH). The Post’s fact checker decided to dispute not only Sanders’ statement, but the legitimacy of the study itself:
“The AJPH editorial did not undergo the same peer‐ reviewed editing process as a research article.” This “fact-check” actually angered the authors of the study. In the response they wrote, they defended their study “which The Post
JANUARY 2020
WWW.ISSUU.COM/THECHARIOT
falsely implied had not undergone peer review” by asserting that “[r]ather than checking facts, The Post has chosen one side in an ongoing and unsettled scholarly debate, and labeled those on the other side (and public figures who cite their research) ‘liars’”. To make matters even worse, The Post itself cited this study before. In an article published in February, it stated that the “study published in the American Journal of Public Health found … found 530,000 families deal with bankruptcies related to illness or medical bills”. If anything, Sanders is understating the number families that suffer medical bankruptcies through rounding. By The Post’s own fact-check, the article would be rated with “Three Pinocchios”. Of course, The Washington Post is not the only offender. MSNBC is also another news outlet that is notorious for its bias against Sanders. Here are some examples:
Biden gets 3% extra for no reason. (MSNBC, Monmouth University, Jacobin Magazine)
Apparently 7% < 5%. (MSNBC, Jacobin Magazine)
Someone missing? (MSNBC, Snopes.com) And then there are statements uttered live on MSNBC by pundit Mimi Rocah complaining about how Bernie “makes [her] skin crawl” and Democrat strategist Emily Tisch Sussman accusing everyone supporting Sanders over Elizabeth Warren as “sexist”—despite a recent analysis done by The Economist on various polls showing that Bernie Sanders has the highest support among women under 30 years of age than any other candidate. To be fair, media bias is not exclusive to Sanders.
Why is the mainstream news media displaying blatant bias against people like Bernie Sanders? The answer is simple: when the news is owned by corporations, it is only natural that they will be defensive of corporate interests. The media lives in its own bubble, an elitist safe-space where they rarely challenge their own biases and predilections against those who take on the political establishment. When asked about why he purchased The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos remarked, “It is the newspaper in the capital city of the most important country in the world. The Washington Post has an incredibly important role to play in this democracy.” And if you think about it, this makes perfect sense. If you are a multi-billionaire and you want to safeguard your own interests, what is a better decision than to purchase a major newspaper that can directly affect politics? If media outlets like The Post are so important to democracy, then ponder on this: Why are they owned by a wealthy few? Copy Editing: Neha Muthiah, Layouts: Edgar Hsieh
JANUARY 2020
8
THE CHARIOT
INTERNATIONAL Bolsonaro’s Response to Fires in the Amazon Reveals His True Nature David Lurie Contributing Writer
I
Fires in the Amazon Rainforest (Source: INPE)
n an America ruled by sensationalism, it is no wonder that the long-term issue of climate change fails to get the coverage it deserves. Currently, the topic centers around Greta Thunberg, a teenage climate change advocate from Sweden, who was recently invited to talk at a UN summit. Despite much celebrity encouragement, Thunberg’s rise to the world stage has so far done little more than foster further divisiveness over the issue. Moreover, much of the discussion has shifted to her, rather than what she speaks about. Meanwhile, those who can really affect change—namely politicians—have slowed their talks. International discussion regarding climate change has undeniably shifted since the election of Donald Trump and the U.S.’s depart from the Paris Climate accord. Instead of continuing to focus on combined continental efforts, global leaders are putting on a worrying display of blaming each other. In July, the widespread seasonal fires in the Amazon sparked French President Emmanuel Macron to criticize his Brazilain counterpart while Britain pondered withholding aid to Brazil until they act to protect the world’s largest rainforest. Compared to last year, there are 84% more fires—though this number fluctuates throughout the years. Still, 2019 is the most
9
active fire year since 2010. Many suspect that the fires were started by farmers trying to expand their land into the neighboring rainforest. Jair Bolsonaro, who ran on a laissez-faire platform, has received criticism in his ignorance of the Amazon’s increasing deforestation that helps Brazilian forestry and farming. While the government has called in the armed forces to help fight the fires, this comes in response to international pressure. After Emmanuel Macron suggested discussing the fires at the G7 summit, Bolsonaro criticized Macron of holding a “colonial mindset” unfit for the 21st century. Similarly, in response to former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s threat of tying up $39 million outlined for conservation efforts, Bolsonaro shot back: “You need it way more than we do here.” Speaking at a UN summit on September 24th, Bolsonaro echoed a belief held by his American counterpart, denouncing the “lying media” for reporting “fallac[ies]” relating to the fires. He also reiterated the government’s “commitment to the preservation of the environment and to sustainable development in benefit of Brazil and the world”. In context, these remarks fall flat. Not only has Bolosonaro rolled back Brazil’s environmental policies, but he has rebuked government agencies in charge of protecting the environment. Despite previously vowing to crack down on illegal firestarting, the Brazilian leader has conveyed anger toward the quantity and magnitude of fines levied by IBAMA, the government agency that enforces deforestation laws. On maintaining the lands of indigenous peoples, Bolsonaro has voiced a desire to cut into their designated territory, pointing out the disproportionately large territory that the 0.4% of the Brazilian population holds. Bolsonaro has also moved administrative duties of the lands to the Ministry of Agriculture in an effort to gain jurisdiction over them. For outsiders, it is easy to cast Bolsonaro as a selfish, myopic leader who would rather see his country’s economy flourish rather than protect the precious rainforest. But in a country with a stagnant economy, Bolsonaro’s pro-business thinking is understandable. Given that Agribusiness accounts for almost a quarter of Brazil’s GDP, it is no wonder that the government would look to farming and ranching for growth. Bolsonaro has little margin for error when crime rates are still among the world’s highest and poverty is still rampant. Citizens can only hope that he will fulfill his goal of economic prosperity without sacrificing his morality or the Amazon.
JANUARY 2020
Copy Editing: Edgar Hsieh, Layouts: Aditya Dhir
WWW.ISSUU.COM/THECHARIOT
Evaluating Brexit Malek Jaziri Contributing Writer
T
he United Kingdom is stuck in one of the most important constitutional and political crisises of its history. On June 23rd of 2016, after the results of the referendum, the exchange rate of the pound sterling decreased sharply compared to the Euro, becoming 1.22€ instead of 1.31€ before. It was only the beginning of the political and economic nightmare for Great Britain. More than three years later and after the major failure of the policy suggested by Theresa May (Prime Minister from 2016 to 2019), Boris Johnson is still trying to “get Brexit done”, and he has not gone further than his predecessor. All the companies have a real concern about this no-deal and some of them have already started to leave the country, especially the automotive industry. For example, Ford announced the loss of 1,700 jobs. This decision has been followed by many others, including Nissan, Honda and Jaguar-Land Rover.
The French company Airbus, which employs 14,000 people and contributes £7.8 billion in gross value-added to the UK GDP, threatened to leave the country in case of a no-deal Brexit. According to a report from the Bank of England, the GDP of Great Britain will be reduced by 7.4% from now to 2024, compared to if there was no Brexit. The GDP is only one of many economic indicators which will be affected negatively by Brexit. The unemployment rate will also rise sharply to 7.5% (compared to 3.9% today) and the price of the real estate will fall by 30% according to the Bank of England. Brexit will create a major economic crisis in Great Britain, along with the political one that the country is also in. When you
take a look at all the economic consequences, Brexit is more of a nightmare than a dream. So, why did people vote to leave ? They believed in the illusion of a more independent policy for the country and better flexibility for the country. With Brexit, the country is more likely going to become an isolated island next to Europe. The supporters of the leave EU movement presented the vote as an opportunity to become closer to the first economic power of the World, the US. As we saw before, American brands have no interest to settle in the UK and the actual president, Donald Trump, is perhaps not the best ally . Moreover, the UK lost the opportunity to build a stronger European Union, the first economic zone of the world. The country probably forgot that Europe is their first economic partner and the development of the UK is directly related to a development of Europe. Great Britain and Europe have both lost international credibility and are progressively reducing their influence. Brexit was initially a political vote against the Prime Minister David Cameron. The country has not measured all the risks and consequences of the Brexit and they are now paying the price of this irrational choice.
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. (Source: Neil Hall/EPA)
Copy Editing: Boris Bukchin, Layouts: Edgar Hsieh
JANUARY 2020
10
THE CHARIOT
CULTURE America's Issue With Culture Neha Muthiah Publicity Director
While we know about the big-picture racism that exists in the US and other western countries, we often ignore the more common passive racism, which is, fortunately, easier for us to fix, but more difficult to recognize. Of course, there are much worse forms of racism than passive racism and even worse forms of cultural appropriation than those outlined in this article. That does not mean that the “milder” forms of racism should go unignored. “You speak English so well!” is a comment that I receive at least once a month, and almost every time I tell someone that I lived in India for seven years. I look into the faces of the people who tell me this: faces with wide smiles, as if they are expecting some sort of acknowledgement or gratification for the “compliment” they just gave me. I understand that many people do not understand why this comment is so offensive that it inspired me to write this. But comments like these simply cement the foundation of racism; they often go ignored, and that is a large reason why our fight against racism
11
is going so slowly. If you’re still confused about the meaning of that comment, it’s incredibly offensive. The way I look and my name makes it easy to realize that I am ethnically Indian. The first time I recall this being said to me was when I was in fourth grade. Even then, I noticed the issues with it. First, it was the fact that "But, comments like these simply cement the foundation of racism." the comment assumed that because I looked Indian, I should speak with an Indian accent. The second is that it is predicated on the fact that only the presence of an American or European accent means that you speak English well. It uncovers the fact that people still subconsciously believe the colonial-era beliefs of Western traits being superior to the rest. Various other occurrences in society further support this theory. Take, for example, our definition of “modernization”
JANUARY 2020
WWW.ISSUU.COM/THECHARIOT
Apu from The Simpsons is an example of Americans stereotyping Indian culture.
and “development”. When I explain to people that I spoke English in the schools I went to in India, I am often met with reactions of surprise and remarks about how India was “more advanced” than they thought it was. But why should the increased use of English be a marker of modernization? We often ignore that this is not in fact modernization—it is westernization. Then there is America’s relationship with the culture of other countries. There are so many issues that have been ignored for far too long. I can’t count the number of times when people have asked me to do an Indian accent. When I refused, the person made feeble attempts to persuade me into doing it and attempting to challenge me by saying that they could do it better. Accents are not something to be made fun of. We should not view accents as a caricature of other countries. Having a different accent says nothing about your intelligence or abilities. In fact, if you are interested in understanding big-picture racism like the pay gap between white individuals and people of color, having an accent factors into that issue. I have several family members for whom only their accents have led to them being paid less. On the other hand, Americans regard British accents as “posh” and French accents as “romantic”. The disparity is clear here: the only accents that are made fun of are those of non-imperial powers. This issue goes back to the extensively discussed racism that caused slavery and genocide at the hands of the European colonialists.
ignorance. You might be reading this and agreeing with me. But chances are, especially if you’re white, you might have done this without even noticing. Take, for example, America’s obsession with yoga and meditation. When I first started noticing this trend, I was so excited that my culture was being incorporated here. However, very soon, I started to realize just how offensive a lot of parts of this were. This is not culture in its raw form; this is a whitewashing of it. The word “namaste” is plastered on t-shirts in order to sell an ancient culture to Americans that have no idea what it really means. Companies then go a step further in racism and write “nama-stay over here”. Not only is this ignorance of the actual pronunciation of the word, but it is also selling out an entire culture in order to make an unfunny joke and profit. I know that a lot of people don’t understand why these issues of passive racism are offensive. This article might not even change your mind with regards to how offensive you find a certain statement. After all, it’s just people trying to “understand other cultures”. But this is not understanding. This is an oversimplification of cultural identity. This is the whitewashing of ancient cultures to make them “relatable”. This is the exploitation of another culture for attention.
Cultural appropriation is one of the worst forms of JANUARY 2020
Copy Editing: Boris Bukchin, Layouts: Quinn Arbolante
12
THE CHARIOT
How #MeToo Died with Jeffrey Epstein Edgar Hsieh Editor-in-Chief
J effrey Epstein was found dead in his jail cell at 6:30 AM on August 10th. Initially, the death of the high-profile sex offender caused a bit of a stir. The news cycle then moved on, with the public spotlight waning on him quickly. But the attention on this case should have never faded. Jeffrey Epstein’s death should have been responded to with widespread outrage. Instead of letting this story be forgotten, it should have become the centerpiece of a revitalized #MeToo movement.
Who was Jeffrey Epstein? Epstein was a billionaire and influential financier. He was known for his confounding connections with various rich elites—politicians,
13
Mannequin Kidnapping, CC BYNCSA 2.0 by MTSOfan
celebrities, businessmen. His close associates included Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Epstein is, however, best known for his child sex trafficking ring. The full extent of what Jeffrey Epstein did for the past two decades is simply too complicated and abundant to be discussed here. As a brief summary, there are a few things you should know about Jeffrey Epstein. In 2008, Epstein was charged for the procurement of minors for prostitution. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Since 2008, there have been at least 10 civil lawsuits made against Jeffrey Epstein concerning his sex trafficking ring, many of which involve victims who accused Epstein of raping them when they were JANUARY 2020
children. Other cases involved many of those claiming that Epstein had made efforts to silence or defame them. In 2018, the Miami Herald identified 80 alleged victims of Epstein with extensive corroborating evidence. It was not until July 6th of 2019 when Epstein was arrested again. An FBI raid on his Manhattan home found a collection of incriminating photos and videotapes of underage girls. Epstein was charged for sex trafficking, and he was subsequently held in a high-security prison in Manhattan while further investigations proceeded. On July 23rd, Epstein was discovered unconscious with multiple neck injuries in his prison cell. He was promptly placed on suicide watch. He suddenly
WWW.ISSUU.COM/THECHARIOT
died three weeks later.
Why Does This Matter? Nobody knows for sure how Epstein became so rich. He ran a successful financial firm, but that alone could not explain all of his wealth. There may be a much more sinister explanation. When the FBI raided his Manhattan home, they found various CDs. Those CDs were recordings of sexual abuse of minors. They were meticulously labeled with names, of both perpetrators and victims. It turned out that Epstein installed hidden cameras around his private homes and compounds. He admitted that many of his wealthy associates were involved in his sex trafficking ring and he kept video evidence for the purpose of blackmail. Epstein’s connections to dignitaries served to be very useful. In addition to his light 18-month prison sentence, then U.S. attorney Alexander Acosta—who later became Trump’s labor secretary—reached a deal with him to grant him immunity from federal charges as well as anonymity to four other co-conspirators. The privileges he received did not end there either; according to a report by the Miami Herald, authorities did not hold Epstein in state prison but instead held him in “a private wing of the Palm Beach County stockade”. Furthermore, Epstein “was allowed to go to his downtown West Palm Beach office for work release, up to 12 hours a day, six days a week”. He was released after 13 months for a yearlong probation under house arrest—which was of course not followed as he took numerous trips on his private jet during that time. Epstein’s abuses were not subtle in elite circles. In the early 2000s, former President Bill Clinton, as well as actors Kevin Spacey and Chris Tucker all flew on his private airplane—nicknamed “Lolita Express”. It is a reference to Vladimir Nabakov’s famous novel Lolita,
detailing a fictitious middle-aged professor’s obsession with a 12-year-old girl he raped. The fact that those people willingly flew on that plane belonging to a shady billionaire who was rumored to sexually abuse minors could only mean one of two things: they turned a blind eye to Epstein’s exploitation of children or they directly participated in it. Epstein was a conduit for us to uncover the world of abuse by the wealthy and the powerful. But he died before any useful information could be attained. Six days after a sucide attempt, Epstein was for some reason taken off suicide watch. Normally, prison guards were supposed to check on Epstein every half hour. But on the exact night of Epstein’s death, this procedure was not followed; the two guards responsible claim to have fallen asleep, and they falsified the prison records to cover up their mishap. The two cameras in front of Epstein’s cell coincidentally malfunctioned during that time window. From Epstein’s autopsy, several specific neck bones were found to be broken. These bones can be broken by hanging, but studies have shown that they are found far more frequently from cases of strangulation. Nevertheless, the NYC medical examiner ruled his death as a suicide. The darkest secrets of Epstein’s sex trafficking ring thus died with him.
opportunity for many women to speak up about unspeakable abuses for the first time. When Brett Kavanaugh was about to be nominated to the Supreme Court and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified against him, there was a national movement. Millions of Americans stood with Dr. Ford. This issue was local to us; many of us here at Gunn voiced our support for her. When Jeffrey Epstein was killed, there was no movement. The elites of society had silenced Epstein to cover up their filthy tracks. They did this right in front of our eyes. In fact, the circumstances surrounding Epstein’s death are so suspicious that it almost felt like an insult to our intelligence. It was no suicide. But to that, #MeToo was silent. Why? Because #MeToo never achieved its purpose. Instead of a movement standing up for powerless women abused by rich men, #MeToo stagnated. It was confined to Hollywood—to liberal elites. Epstein’s victims were not famous actresses or well-known figures. They were mostly nameless children, often poor and desperate, imported from various countries throughout the world. And of course, the coconspirators of Epstein could very well be current or former occupants of the White House. If the #MeToo movement wants new lifeblood—if it wants to truly transform our society, it should target Epstein’s shadow. We should be furious. Ten times more infuriated than we were at Kavanaugh or Weinstein. But too bad this story has already slipped away from our memories, and we gave the rich and powerful another free pass. The #MeToo is dead, and it shall stand as a footnote in our future history textbooks.
Epstein & #MeToo When Hollywood actresses spoke up against Harvey Weinstein, there was a furor. It launched the #MeToo—an JANUARY 2020
Copy Editing: Aditya Dhir, Layouts: Edgar Hsieh
14
THE CHARIOT
The Chariot 2020 Presidential Elections Survey Copy Editing: Edgar Hsieh, Layouts: Aanand Joshi, Edgar Hsieh
For this issueâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Chariot Opinion Inbox, we present to you the Chariot 2020 Elections Survey! From October 22nd to 28th, 80 Gunn students responded to our survey shared on Schoology and on class Facebook groups. Unsurprisingly, about 41% of the survey respondents are seniorsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;students with ages closest to 18. Only 15% of survey respondents are juniors. About 21% of the respondents are sophomores and 23% are freshmen.
15
JANUARY 2020
WWW.ISSUU.COM/THECHARIOT First Choice Candidates We asked Gunn students: “Who is your first candidate of choice?” Here is how the responses add up:
There seems to be significant support for both entrepreneur Andrew Yang and Mayor Pete Buttigieg among Gunn students surveyed. Overall, what is clear is that student opinion seems to be very divided. Second Choice Candidates We asked Gunn students: “Who is your second candidate of choice?” Here is how the responses add up:
Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren stand out as second choice candidates among Gunn students surveyed. The support for Andrew Yang is very high even as a secondary choice. JANUARY 2020
16
THE CHARIOT First Choice Candidates by Race Among the respondents to the survey, about 56% identify as Asian or Pacific Islander. About 29% identify as white. 7 students identified themselves as other races.
For Asian/Pacific Islander students, Andrew Yang stands out as the top candidate. Support for Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders is significant as well.
For White students, Pete Buttigieg and Andrew Yang are reported to be top candidates. While the support for Elizabeth Warren is higher among white students, the support for Bernie Sanders is notably lower.
17
JANUARY 2020
WWW.ISSUU.COM/THECHARIOT First Choice Candidates by Gender Among the respondents of the survey, approximately 53% identify as male. About 38% identify as female.
For male Gunn students surveyed, there seems to be extensive support for Andrew Yang.
For female Gunn students surveyed, much of the support goes to Pete Buttigieg. Support for Elizabeth Warren is higher among females. The number of people favoring Yang is significantly lower among females. The support for Donald Trump is notably nonexistent.
JANUARY 2020
18
THE CHARIOT Candidate Who Will Most Likely Beat Trump We also asked our respondents which candidate currently running for president will most likely defeat Donald Trump.
Despite the low support for leading candidate Joe Biden, many Gunn students seem to believe that Joe Biden will be the strongest candidate against Donald Trump. The perception of the strongest candidate against Trump seems to align more with national polling. Conclusions The survey we conducted did not take in account of various forms of biases and is still lacking in sample size, so it is not meant to be taken as a serious poll with statistical significance. However, it does give a general map as to how Gunn High School thinks of the election so far. Even with the presence of response bias, it can give a sense of where voter enthusiasm lies. There is no question that support for Andrew Yang—especially among males—is much higher here compared to the rest of the nation. This is not too surprising considering Yang’s extensive ties with Silicon Valley. The support for Pete Buttigieg—especially among females—is much higher here as well. Leading candidate Joe Biden has very low support among the respondents, but he is seen as the strongest candidate against Donald Trump. Let’s see how this matches up with the top issues of concern for Gunn students:
19
JANUARY 2020