June 2016
VOLUME 12 • ISSUE 3
2016 Presidential Elections
Zika Virus
11
AS WELL AS:
Executive Orders on Gun Control, 6 Social Media Deepens Divisions, 8
Health Improvement Apps, 12
THE CHARIOT
EDITOR-IN-CHIEFS Isha Gupta (‘17) Maggie Wang (‘17) SENIOR EDITOR Nicholas Chung (‘17) FUNDRAISING DIRECTOR Joanna Huang (‘16) SOCIAL MEDIA DIRECTOR Jackie Cherry (‘17) CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Advait Arun (‘18) Elinor Aspegren (‘16) Emily Cao (‘16) Stina Chang (‘17) Ellaine Chou (‘16) Nicholas Chung (‘17) Alex Dersh (‘16) Claire Hu (‘17) Dhruv Rajan (‘16) Katie Russell (‘16) Karunya Sethuraman (‘16) Shannon Yang (‘17) Dana Zhao (‘17)
DEAR READERS,
Throughout the past six months, conversations have been dominated with news of the
2016 US presidential race. On one side, businessman Donald Trump, who has been labeled as a racist fraud by some and a trustworthy winner by others, has clenched the primaries to run on the Republican party ticket in the general election. On the other side, a battle between ideology and pragmatism has been waged by Secretary Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders. While the developments in the presidential race have seemed to mask media coverage of the continual ebb and flow of global current events, watershed events such as Britain’s exit from the European Union and tragedies such as the Orlando shooting have served as litmus tests to determine the candidates most prepared for the presidency in the public view. The state of the presidential race as well as these momentous events have forced this country and its voters to assess and reevaluate their values to determine the future they want to see for the United States and around the world. In conjunction with the contentious race of the presidency in the United States, controversy has surrounded the media’s role in informing the public. Is it the media’s job to maintain neutrality despite the inherent biases of writing, or should it condemn those who seem to go against public morality? Here at The Chariot, we have struggled with this question as much as other media news outlets have over the past six months. As a result, enclosed in this issue are articles that do both: news articles that attempt to inform readers of the facts and opinion pieces that reflect the heated views of our writers. Like the voters in the current presidential race, it is your job as readers to determine your values and assess your views on the messages from this issue. As always, thank you for your continued readership. Sincerely, Isha Gupta & Maggie Wang
E DITORS - I N - C HIEF 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.
2
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.
JUNE 2016
CULTURE
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
Creative Commons License
Parks and Recreation: a commentary on the US government
A
Emily Cao Contributing Writer
lthough NBC mockumentary “Parks and Recreation” is frequently praised as the workplace sitcom featuring standup queen Amy Poehler, it actually contains a subtle subtext to the political struggles of American government. The television show is set in the parks and recreation department of fictional Midwest town, of Pawnee, Indiana. A point of political criticism in the series heavily revolves around the miscommunication between officers in government. While councilwoman Leslie Knope, the protagonist of the franchise, is exceptionally dedicated to her work, not everyone in the office shares the same enthusiastic attitude. On March 18th at the Dolby Theatre in Hollywood, “Parks and Recreation” co-creator Michael Schur explained the rationale behind the development of Leslie Knope and Ron Swanson as foil characters: “In very broad strokes, Republicans and Democrats in this country simply don’t talk to each other and they
don’t try to fix problems. The sort of cynicism of government . . . is worse than it’s ever been. And we just wanted to say one guy could have a set of extremely fervent beliefs that run completely counter to the beliefs of his coworker and they can still just get along and respect each other and admire each other and find things in common and they can sit down and have a glass of whiskey together at the end of a long night.” For instance, Ron Swanson’s statement that “My idea of a perfect government is one guy who sits in a small room at a desk and the only thing he is allowed to decide is who to nuke” whereas Leslie Knope wants the implementation of “parks and community programs”. Not only is “Parks and Recreation” critically acclaimed for its interesting storyline and character dynamic, it is also distinguishable from other television shows for its “jump cut” edits of each character having multiple reactions toward a specific situation. The ability of the show to display the emotions of every individual involved in an event of the comedy show accentuates the differing political viewpoints of Pawnee’s political office. Whether it is Ron Swanson’s anarchocapitalist tendencies versus Leslie Knope’s assertion that government can and should solve problems to improve the lives of citizens, “Parks and Recreation” never fails to singlehandedly entertain its viewers and make important political statements. The show’s technique was adopted when JUNE 2016
editor Dean Holland experimented with some of Poehler’s improvised responses to previously written jokes. “I feel like our episodes are all about frequency,” said Chris Pratt, the actor for goofy klutz Andy Dwyer. “Twenty one and a half minutes for a comedy is not a lot of time, especially when we have not only an A story, not only a B story, but sometimes a C story. We have a lot of story to be told, which means you have to get in and out with our jokes.” Furthermore, the show features a multitude of hilarious guest star appearances, such as Megan Mullally -- Offerman’s wife, who plays his character, Ron Swanson’s ex. “So where did Lea go? She is not gone, but we will find out --” his character rambled until he was cut off by Leslie Knope: “The female part is a little underwritten here, sir, I’d like to point that out!” Comedian Patton Oswalt’s improvisation of an almost 10-minute speech on the next “Star Wars” film highlights the unproductive quality of prolonged filibusters that progress in legislative assemblies while not technically contravening the required procedures, Knope’s interruption also underscores the much-needed female representation in political leadership. Ultimately, “Parks and Recreation” should not be dismissed as an above average situational comedy, as it contains a lot of meaningful commentary on the political temperature of US government.
3
2016 P RESIDENT
THE CHARIOT
Creative Commons License
NY Democratic Debates Advait Arun Contributing Writer
T
he Brooklyn Democratic Debate? More like a Brooklyn bar brawl. But if anyone has fears of the democratic party collapsing because of this altercation, worry not. However, on the other side of the aisle, that is entirely possible. Let’s start this analysis off with a fun (and relieving) fact: emails went unmentioned in this debate. You all know what I mean by “emails.” Thank goodness. On the other hand, the debate was not without its spectacular bombshells and question dodging. No matter who you support, if you are a liberal with an opinion on the race, you probably came out of the debate liking your candidate a lot more and feeling a lot more confident about
4
their chances. First, let’s analyze Sanders: he spoke effectively and managed to land good hits on Clinton every once in a while. Most of the time, he looked and sounded Presidential. It took him a while to warm up though — in the first part of the debate, he was struggling to catch up to Clinton in terms of policy acumen. I felt he was getting more and more radical about what he said as the debate wore on. Months ago, he had promised to never run a negative campaign; tonight, he definitely broke that promise through his negative statements and sass towards Clinton. No matter your opinion of our former Secretary of State, it’s near truth that she looked and sounded Presidential. Almost every answer of hers was well thought-out and had evidence to back her up. She managed to hit Sanders multiple times, and eclipsed him in terms of policy breadth in a lot of issues. If asked a question, however, she never answered it with a straight “yes” or “no” — extremely frustrating JUNE 2016
to those who just want a straight answer first and explanation after. That and her equivocation on releasing her speech transcripts was what many found to be her greatest weakness. But overall, she projected great strength and defended her decisions. The debate had four main categories, which I take the liberty of labeling as money, climate, guns, and foreign policy. It went quite smoothly between them and I think the moderators did a fantastic job of keeping the candidates moving. Sanders started off with the same “break Wall Street” rhetoric, and went back to that again and again as the debate went on. In the beginning of the debate, he struggled to land any hits against Clinton, all while he dodged questions like nobody’s business. The only thing he had on Clinton was her paid closed-doors speeches, but even then, he wasn’t able to prove the allegation that Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street, which was probably his biggest personal let-down of the night. When that didn’t work, Sanders said that Clinton voted pro-Iraq, a point that he has made again and again to justify why she should not be chosen. In truth, the argument goes both ways. Clinton successfully defended herself against Sanders during this first part and consistently got the upper hand in their arguments. Her largest gaffe of the night was her not-an-answer regarding her speech transcripts. She did, on the other hand, get Sanders to promise to release his tax returns (which were released Friday, as promised!). On taxes, PolitiFact stated after the debate that Bernie Sanders’ claim that Wall Street taxes would pay for his healthcare plan is mostly false. There’s a lot on the internet about this issue, and research supports both sides.
TIAL E LECTION
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
In the next two thirds of the debate, Sanders got back on his feet. In the clean energy debate, Sanders was slamming Clinton for her fracking record. While Clinton justified herself well, Sanders hit home with his point that fracking isn’t good for the environment and Clinton is, at the core, okay with it. Clinton retorted by promising to regulate fracking within an inch of its life as president, a politically moderate proposal that defends her stance but doesn’t prove Sanders wrong. Bernie made a mistake by also saying he wanted to “phase nuclear” (get rid of nuclear power). This is where he unraveled — getting rid of nuclear power, as the moderator correctly pointed out, would cause people to go back to using fossil fuels and not solar and wind. Clinton rightly attacked back that this was unreasonable, but what Bernie said after this was his first bombshell. Sanders doesn’t support the Paris Climate Agreement made in December that was signed by 195 countries because he thinks it’s not strong enough. While he is technically correct (the deal could have been much stronger), it is a ridiculous thought to voice. Clinton smartly shot back that bringing 195 nations (almost the entire world) to a table means you’re going to have to concede certain points in order to get consensus. Now, the debate waded into the topic of gun control. Sanders still doesn’t want to bring suits against the gun manufacturers in most cases. His argument has its legal basis and it mostly makes sense. Clinton is on the other side of the debate. On the issue, Clinton sounded much more presidential about it than Bernie. (Except for when she wrongly called out Vermont as the state where guns
in New York come from. That was false.) Because of recent news lately and the fact that Clinton is the wife of a former President, the actions of Bill Clinton came into question during the debate. In previous weeks, Bill Clinton’s 1994 crime bill, which had had extremely controversial effects, had been discussed extensively. Hillary Clinton apologized for the unintended effects of her husband’s bill, which was a good move, but Sanders isn’t letting us forget about the use of the term “superpredator” to describe a consistent criminal without any morals, which he labels as a racist term. Finally, onto foreign policy, the issue that takes up most of a President’s time. Clinton swoops the win. Sanders defended himself admirably but Clinton’s personal experiences trump (pun intended, mostly) Sanders’ idealism on issues. One thing that Clinton never did was properly recognize the rights of Palestinians. That was
another major gaffe that Sanders will probably exploit. Innocent Palestinian citizens have rights, too, and the fact that Clinton wasn’t willing to admit that was a big mistake. Finally, the biggest bombshell: If Bernie was elected in November, he wouldn’t support Merrick Garland — he would ask Obama to choose someone else (an ultraliberal). That’s radical, and with the current state of Congress, any ultraliberal nominee would never get through. In terms of closing speeches, Bernie’s was the same as usual. He called for the breaking down of Wall Street and the taking back of America from corporate greed. Clinton’s felt more heartfelt and actually addressed the New Yorkers in a way that inspired confidence in her ability and in America as a nation. See it how you will, but the upcoming primaries, and finally the DNC in Philadelphia, will tell all.
The Economist JUNE 2016
5
THE CHARIOT
New executive actions to reduce gun violence, as outlined by the Obama administration: 1. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks * You must get a licence and conduct background checks * Make background check system more efficient and effective
2. Make our communities safer from gun violence * Ensure smart and effective enforcement of gun laws * Ensure that dealers notify law enforcement about the theft or loss of their guns
3. Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system * Dedicate significant new resources to increase access to mental health care
4. Shape the future of gun safety technology. * Increase research and development efforts * Promote the use and acquisition of new technology 6
NATIONAL President Obama issues gun control orders Nicholas Chung Senior Editor
O
n January 5th, 2016, President Obama issued executive orders concerning gun control, sparking new controversy over the government’s gun control policies. Critics have promptly derided Obama’s actions. Both Marco Rubio and Donald Trump bemoaned his plan as one that would “take away our guns.” Alabama Senator Richard Shelby and Mike Huckabee claimed that Obama was “acting like a dictator.” However, when looking closely at Obama’s plan, one can see that the real debate should be whether Obama’s gun control executive order will have any impact at all and not whether people’s guns should be confiscated. No guns would be seized under Obama’s plan. The plan does not include any new regulations; instead, Obama has merely told the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to “clarify existing laws” and that anyone “engaged in the business” of selling firearms, whether on the Internet or at a gun show, must get a license and conduct background checks. To enforce this, Obama’s 2017 budget proposal would include funding for 200 ATF agents and 230 FBI staff members to help perform background checks. On a separate note, $500 million will be spent to improve mental health services. The efficacy and scope of Obama’s new measures, however, is questionJUNE 2016
able. Obama’s executive order touches upon only a small subset of all gun sales. First, the executive order only covers some firearms dealers. Federally licensed firearm dealers, no matter where they operate, are already required to perform background checks on the gun purchaser. Obama’s executive order was mainly referring to “private” sellers, who, according to current law, are exempted from obtaining background checks. Essentially, Obama is acting on the belief that too many sellers engaged in the business of selling firearms are claiming to be private sellers in order to avoid the need to be licensed and in turn be required to obtain background checks. To this end, he is cracking down on Internet sales. The number of guns sold via the Internet using private sellers, however, is extremely small. In a December Quinnipiac poll, just 3 percent of gun owners said they obtained a gun from an online seller. Obama’s gun control order, however, will have some concrete impacts. There is an online market for private, background check-free gun sales. According to a 2013 study by Third Way which focused on a website called Armslist.com, it found 2,000 ads from individuals looking to purchase guns from private sellers specifically in 10 states. In 2013, the New York Times found that these sites “function as unregulated bazaars, where the essential anonymity of the Internet allows unlicensed sellers to advertise scores of weapons and people legally barred from gun ownership to buy them” and identified several individuals with criminal backgrounds buying and selling firearms over the Internet. Obama’s executive order would indirectly regulate these online sales and potentially reduce the number of illicit gun sales conducted online.
LEGISLATION
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
Replacing the Supreme Court Justice Dana Zhao Contributing Writer
A
ntonin Scalia’s death on February 13, 2016 sparked the beginning of a heated bipartisan controversy over who the empty seat in the Supreme Court will go to. Scalia was the court’s conservative heavyweight, making it so that currently, the Supreme Court is balanced between its conservative and liberal wings. This results in the Senate and President Barack Obama taking their sides as to who decides the next supreme court justice. The US Constitution states that dent.” McConnell implies that Senate the President has the power to appoint will reject any nominee that Obama justices, with the advice and consent of chooses, no matter who it is, until the the Senate. This “advice and consent next president is sworn in. The Repubof the Senate” has developed to take lican-dominated Senate wants a conserthe form of nominees going through vative justice to replace Scalia, which a multitude of public hearings, and will not happen under the Obama adeven then, facing the possibility of being rejected by Senate. Obama wishes ministration. The two sides are bitterly to nominate and replace Scalia within opposed and refuse to budge from their this year, saying that he “plan[s] to ful- decisions. Although this is not the first time fill my constitutional responsibilities to bipartisan tensions have caused D.C. nominate a succesto come to a stalesor in due time,” and that “there ... this ninth justice will hold mate, the question of who the next will be plenty of immense power over the justice will be is time for me to do so.” If Obama gets future of American policies one of great importance. With the his way, he will and social changes. current panel of most likely nomijustices balanced nate a liberal jusbetween its left tice. However, Senate Majority Leader and right wings, the ninth justice will Mitch McConnell swiftly turned his be the one who determines the swing head to this, saying that “The American people should have a voice in the vote. A more liberal justice will uphold selection of their next Supreme Court democratic opinions, and a more conJustice. Therefore, this vacancy should servative justice will uphold republican not be filled until we have a new presi- opinions. Since a Supreme Court ruling JUNE 2016
Creative Commons License
acts as the final ruling until overturned by another Supreme Court ruling, this ninth justice will hold immense power over the future of American policies and social changes. The Senate and Obama know this, which is why they are adamantly refusing to compromise. With ten months left in his presidency, Obama will be nominating many justices, and Senate will probably be rejecting many of his nominations. This bipartisan fight once again stresses the need for the public to be aware that senator elections, held every two years for one-third of Senate positions, are just as important as presidential elections; if the Senate majority and the President are opposing parties, it will be hard to get anything done because they will very rarely agree. While time can only tell who the next Supreme Court justice will be, those who are of voting age should remember to not only to educate themselves on presidential nominees, but also on senator and house nominees for this coming year.
7
THE CHARIOT
How social media deepens political polarization
parties, and a divided society. But what role does social media play in this extreme partisanship, if any? According to a study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, despite having complete control over the vast amount of information we consume digitally, users Maggie Wang of social media “tend to aggregate in Editor-in-Chief communities of interest, which causes he internet has given us com- reinforcement and fosters confirmation plete control over the infor- bias, segregation, and polarization.” Differences in information exposed mation we consume digitally. to users on social media is displayed But while information on the internet by the “Blue Feed, Red Feed” graphics has broadened in scope, personalized tool, a side-by-side comparison of the social media algorithms and the content news feeds of liberal and conservative we choose to expose ourselves make it users published by The Wall Street Journal easier for us to disappear into “filter bubusing data from bles” in which It is no wonder that we have a Facebook we let in only study. These become increasingly polarized. information that Facebook feeds hold viewpoints When we receive contrasting information are generated similar to our own. These fil- on the same issue, how can the opinions by recent news from ter bubbles shift we form converge into compromises coming different sourcour viewpoints that benefit our nation? es that align towards increaswith liberal and ingly extremist opinions, deepening the conservative values. As social media sites political divide and creating uncomprolike Facebook and Twitter use complex mising ideological differences. personalized algorithms to ensure that As Pew Research has confirmed, the people see content that they agree with “values and basic beliefs [of Americans] are more polarized along partisan lines on their feeds, people are exposed to than at any point in the past 25 years.” information that reinforce rather than This polarization has led to legislative broaden their beliefs. It is no wonder gridlocks, increased hostility between that politics has become increasingly
T
Courtesy of The Wall Street Journal
8
JUNE 2016
Courtesy of the Pew Research Center
polarized, and our ideological differences more uncompromising. When we receive and intake contrasting information on the same issue, how can our opinions converge into compromises that benefit our nation? Not only can social media deepen partisan divisions between political groups, but it can also play a role in deepening the generational political divide. According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2014, over 60% of American millennials rely on social media as their primary source of political news, as opposed to less than 40% of Baby Boomers who do so. This survey also found a wide gap in political ideologies between the generations that reflects their differences in informational acquisition. Polarization has always existed within the human race, but social media sites and increased options on the internet allow us to congregate with those who share our viewpoints and neglect opposing opinions with more ease. In a world increasingly divided by socioeconomic status and political ideologies, we must become more aware of our own biases while seeking to understand opposing viewpoints. Only through compromise and decreased polarization can we move the country forward. We each hold immense responsibility in altering the political landscape, and it is our role as current and future voters to increase our awareness of how the information around us, particularly on social media, shapes our views.
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
The myths of Chinese currency manipulation Nicholas Chung Senior Editor
C
hina has long been accused of currency manipulation. Namely, critics suspect that China deliberately devalues its currency in order to export cheaper goods while making imports more expensive, thereby encouraging the consumption of Chinese goods abroad. With a 1.5 percent depreciation in the yuan since the start of 2016, following a 4.7 percent weakening of the currency in 2015, many are seeing this as clear cut evidence that China is actively trying to “rig global trade”. China, however, is not only justified in its actions but is actually actively working to raise, not lower, the value of the yuan relative to other currencies such as the dollar. First, the term” currency manipulation” implies that China should not be meddling with the yuan. The US and other countries, however, achieve the same result with different tools. While China chooses to fix a nominal exchange rate, the US Federal Reserve controls dollar supply using the federal-funds rate, the interest rate at which banks charge each other for overnight loans. Calling China a currency manipulator is like calling the US an interest rate manipulator; using the term “manipulation” to describe the actions of central bankers underlies a misperception of the goals they try to achieve. Central banks have the a legal monopoly power to fix one nominal price—whether an exchange rate or an interest rate—to achieve policy goals such as price stability or full employment.
Courtesy of Bloomberg
By changing the nominal yuan exchange the depreciation of the yuan. Even then, rate, China’s central bank. the People’s the yuan was considered fairly priced. In Bank of China (PBoC), is merely adher- May 2015, the International Monetary ing to the role for which it was created in Fund declared that it no longer considered the first place, much like the US Federal the yuan to be undervalued. In fact, in the Reserve. Even if China’s modification of past two decades, the yuan has risen by the nominal exchange rate is not justified, over 30% against the dollar. however, does not validate China’s critics. Instead, market forces have been the Looking closely at events, it is clear that a main drivers behind the yuan’s fall. As devaluation of the yuan would harm the China relaxed its many capital controls in Chinese economy and in fact the PBoC is 2015, the value of the yuan decreased. For actively working to prevent a depreciation example, Chinese households have had of the yuan. little access to global assets. Relaxing conChina’s exchange rate is neither strictly trols on outward capital flows expanded fixed nor freely floating, making currency Chinese demand for non-Chinese assets manipulation harder to discern. China’s and consequently increased demand for central bank fixes the yuan price relative non-Chinese currencies, weakening the to a basket of 13 currenyuan. cies in which significant China is actively working A depreciation of the weight is given to the to raise, not lower, the yuan would actually harm US dollar. The yuan is the Chinese economy, which controlled through the value of the yuan relative explains why the PBoC is PBoC’s buying and sell- to other currencies such fighting to bolster the yuan. ing of currencies in order After years of developing to keep the yuan within a as the dollar. an export-led economy, certain range of the value China has been seeking to of the basket. Therefore, changes in the bolster domestic consumption. A strong exchange rate are determined partly by currency, not a weak currency, promotes policy and partly by market forces. Simply domestic consumption. In addition, Chibecause the currency is weakening does nese domestic companies own $1 trillion not mean the PBoC is intervening. in foreign debt. A devaluation would make To assess whether currency manipulation is occurring, look at the behavior it much harder for those companies to reof China’s foreign exchange reserves. If pay their obligations. China evidently has not been deliberthe currency needs to weaken, the PBoC ately devaluing its currency. Still, critics would intervene by buying foreign curcharge that a weaker yuan has allowed Chirency and paying with domestic currency. nese goods to flood US markets, causing The increased demand for foreign currenthe US to incur large trade deficits. Even in cy and increased supply of domestic curthis point, however, their accusations fall rency would drive the exchange rate down, devaluing the domestic currency. In the short. Movements in nominal exchange process, foreign exchange reserves would rates, however, have almost no long-term rise. If an appreciation of the currency is impact on global trade flows of exports desired, however, the PBoC would do the and imports. For example, the dollar steadily depreciopposite, causing reserves to fall. Over the ated against the Japanese yen from 1971 to course of 2015, as 1995 due to the dissolution of the Bretton the yuan moved Woods system (the gold standard). One lower against the would expect that as US goods became dollar, reserves fell relatively cheaper, more Japanese would by a record $507 buy US goods and the US would see a billion, capped trade surplus with Japan. This was not by a loss of more the case; the U.S. trade deficit with Japan than $100 billion in rose by a factor of 50 to $59.1 billion in December alone. 1995 from $1.2 billion in 1971. Similarly, Although a fall in from 2004 to 2014 the dollar depreciated reserves should against the yuan by about 25%. Over that signal an apprecia- decade the U.S. trade deficit with China intion of the yuan, creased from $161.9 billion to $342.6 bilthe yuan depreci- lion. Therefore, it is clear that not only are ated, showing that critics wrong on China’s goals and current the PBoC was actions but also on the effects of a deprenot the cause of ciating yuan. JUNE 2016
9
WORLD NEWS
THE CHARIOT
ISIS enslaves and abuses Yazidi women
sion” mentioned in the fatwa. For example, when one ISIS fighter was asked about whether or not she was his wife, he said, “This is not my wife, she is my sabia, she is my slave”. She spoke at the United Nations Security Emily Cao Council in New York City Contributing Writer to request a rescue team for enslaved Yazidi women he Islamic State, a militant group and liberate their land from that follows an Islamic funda- the militants. “They gave us mentalist, Wahhabi doctrine of to them,” Nadia said. She Sunni Islam has targeted the Yezidi popu- was currently recalling a lation of approximately 230,000 individu- moment in which women als due to the fact that they consider them would mess up their hair and “kafir” or “non-believers” because they smear battery acid on their do not practice Islam -- a lifestyle widely faces in order to look less believed to be a crime. Over 5,200 Yazidis appealing to the soldiers. “It were forced out of their own homes and did not help because in the kidnapped in 2014, with 3,400 remaining mornings they would ask us in ISIS captivity to this day. A disturbingly again to wash our face and high proportion of these abductees are look pretty.” Nadia’s niece was also abwomen. Additionally, ISIS has recently revived the institutional practice of slavery ducted and tortured by ISIS. within its self-proclaimed caliphate, and She recalled the details of actively encourages the systematic rape being kept in a building in and sexual enslavement of non-Muslim Mosul, with heavy evidence women. They justify their actions through of physical abuse and suftheir belief that if a non-Muslim woman is fering. “There were blood raped by ten Muslim men, she will become and there were fingerprints of hands with converted. These women are purchased, the blood on the walls,” she recounted. sold, and traded among ISIS fighters as “Two women had killed themselves there.” “I did not want to kill myself — but I “commodities” or “rewards”. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria wanted them to kill me,” Nadia said. (ISIS) has released a fatwa (a ruling on Every morning in Mosul, the women a point of Islamic law given by a recog- were mandated to wash themselves and nized authority) on female sex slaves in “look presentable” for the soldiers. They an attempt to justify their abduction, en- would have their photographs taken and slavement, and rape of thousands of Ya- printed with the contact information of zidi women. The fatwa is a document that the soldier that owned them so they could contains fifteen rultrade women among ings, going into explic- These women are purchased, sold, themselves. it detail about the sex and traded among ISIS fighters as She described her slavery system. One of owner as tall and thin “commodities” or “rewards”. such injunctions even with an “ugly mouth” states that “The owner and “teeth coming of a female captive should show compas- out of his lips.” “Then he one day forced sion towards her, be kind to her, not hu- me to dress for him and put make-up, I miliate her and not assign her work she is did, and in that black night, he did it,” unable to perform”. she claimed. “That night, he beat me up, However, Nadia Murad Basee Taha, forced me to undress, and put me in a a survivor of ISIS’s brutal sexual abuse’s room with six militants. They continued to recount of her experiences as a sex slave commit crimes to my body until I became of ISIS starkly contrast with the “compas- unconscious.”
T
10
JUNE 2016
Cao with Ms. Taha at the United Nations
Nadia was finally able to escape from her enslavement in November 2014 when her captor left his house unlocked. She was transported to a refugee camp and is now living in Stuttgart, Germany. “I left everyone, all the family members who are still in the camps, I left them,” she testified. “But it’s better than the poverty and suffering that the people endure in the camps.” In the March of this year, I had the privilege of attending the 60th Commission on the Status of Women at the United Nations in New York City. Nadia was actually featured on the panel of a conference that revealed ISIS’s brutality and sexual enslavement of women. I had the privilege of introducing myself, speaking about my activism with my school’s feminist organization, and taking a picture together. Nadia’s story of survival and resilience also reveals the brutality behind the Islamic state’s inhumane practice of institutionalized sex slavery.
WORLD NEWS
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
The rise of the Zika virus reveals treatment of women in Central and South American countries
L
Isha Gupta Editor-in-Chief
ike the Ebola virus in previous years, the Zika virus has been making headlines and in the global and scientific community in recent months. While the Zika virus was first identified in 1947 in primates, it has recently gained attention for being the most likely cause of microcephaly in the Americas, a neurological condition in which an infant’s head and brain are unusually small as the result of abnormal brain development or growth. The first reported human case of the Zika virus was in Nigeria in 1954, and there have been sporadic outbreaks since then in Africa, Asia, and the islands in the Pacific Ocean. The spread of the virus gained recent global attention in May 2015, when the Pan American Health Organization (WHO) recognized the first confirmed reporting of the infetion in Brazil. Since then, outbreaks of the virus have been reported in more than a dozen countries, mostly located in central and South America, causing the World Health Organization to issue a statement declaring the Zika virus a “global public health emergency.� The Zika virus itself is spread through mosquito bites; approximately twenty percent of people bitten by Aedes aegypti mosquitoes become ill. Those infected experience a range of symptoms, including fever, rashes, conjunctivitis (a condition where the eyes get red and swollen), and headaches. The virus can lead to mi-
Creative Commons License
crocephaly and Guillain-Barre syndrome, which is a sometimes fatal disorder that allows the immune system to attack the nerves. Furthermore, many sources claim that the virus can be spread through sexual transmission and exchange of bodily fluids, though researchers are still trying to verify these claims. Countries and nongovernmental organizations are particularly concerned about this virus because there is no vaccine or drug treatment and there are no cures for the disorders linked to the virus. The WHO estimates that around four million people could potentially be infected by the end of the year, prompting countries with infected populations to scramble for solutions while maintaining order. Due to the lack of a specific treatment or cure for the Zika virus and its associated disorders, countries have issued reommendations for its citizens to curb their chances of getting the Zika virus and (more importantly) preventing their newborns from having microcephaly. For example, Brazil warned expecting mothers of the link between the Zika virus and microcephaly, and deployed 22,000 troops to disseminate information on the virus. Additionally, many central and South American governments have advised women not to get pregnant until more is learned about the virus. These JUNE 2016
statements have proved to be controversial, especially with the deep tradition of Catholicism in many of these countries. Countries crying foul on getting pregnant were immediately criticized by citizens and observers alike for not providing easy access to contraception and discouraging its use when having sexual intercourse. Indeed, many local bishops still discouraged the use of contraceptives, even with the outbreak of the virus. While Pope Francis counteracted those statements and gave permission for those in Zika-infested areas to use contraceptives, it is well established that those who fall on the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder in all of these countries are both the ones cannot obtain access to reproductive health care and the ones getting infected with the Zika virus. Additionally, many of the countries that are recommending abstinence also have strict abortion laws, making it hard for a woman to abort a baby that potentially has microcephaly. The Zika virus has shed light on conditions and treatment for women in many central and South American countries, especially those concentrated in the poorer-ends of society.
11
THE CHARIOT
HEALTH & LIFESTYLE
Health improvement apps help high school students develop healthier habits Dana Zhao Contributing Writer
Apps that train your brain Lumosity
Allows users to play games that are tailored to their goals. There are five categories of focus: memory, attention, problem solving, processing speed or flexibility of thinking. The app is designed so that users will play a set of games during one session a day in order to develop sharper mental skills.
Elevate
Similar to Lumosity, but more personalized. The user plays three games a day, based on areas of focus that are chosen by the user. Immediately after each game, detailed progress tracking charts are shown. Based on how well you do on each game, level of difficulty is raised or lowered.
A
s high school students, our health is often overlooked or taken for granted. However, now is arguably the best time to develop healthier habits that will carry with us into the future. Recent technological innovations and the booming popularity of smartphones have brought with them a great increase in the usage of health improvement apps. These apps specifically target those who are trying to develop a better lifestyle and provide assistance to them. Here are a few apps worth exploring:
Happify
Helps users train their minds to think more positively and thus, lead happier lives. Uses fundamentals of positive psychology to design quizzes, questions, polls, and gratitude journals to help users focus on strengths and virtues that allow them to lead more fulfilling lives.
Apps that improve physical health Charity Miles
Argus
Creative Commons License
12
JUNE 2016
Every time you run, walk, or go on a bicycle ride, corporate sponsors will donate a few cents for every mile completed. The app supports many charities that you can browse through and choose. Provides motivation and fulfillment in exercising.
Tracks your exercise, sleep, and nutrition, allowing you to set goals and see progress, all in a simplistic manner. Argus provides workout plans based on your health inputs, allows you to compete with friends, and tracks your performance over time.