October 2009 by The Chariot

Chari t T

October 2009

Delivering Gunn’s Culture and Politics

Twitter Vs. Facebook Centerfold: Factsheet Brittany Cheng Pages 8-9

Twitter and Facebook: An Introduction Scott Wey Page 10 Twitter’s for Winners Yoni Alon Pages 10-11 Facebook > Twitter Omer Zach Page 11

NASA: Keep or Kill? Keeping NASA and Public Space Exploration Ethan Yung Pages 13-14 The Show’s Over Jacob Guggenheim Pages 14-15

Volume 6 Issue 2

The Regulars What’s That? Net Neutrality Page 3 Gunn Update: Clubs are Not Extracurriculars Robert Chen Page 4 The Life: You Lie! Aaron Guggenheim Pages 5 Where We’re At: Recent Developments Andrew Liu Page 6 Xinjiang Riots Arjun Bharadwaj Page 4 Apartheid’s Legacy Stanley Yu Page 5 Our Education System: Deeply Flawed James Gupta Pages 5-7 Bailout Backfire Ian Wilkes Page 12 Review: Inglourious Basterds Ryan Lee Page 16

The Chariot

Editors-In-Chief Robert Chen Aaron Guggenheim Senior Editors Ben Bendor Andrew Liu Associate Editors TBD Copy Editors Tommy Huang Sarah Zubair Graphics/Layout Brittany Cheng Scott Wey Alexandra Yesian

Visit our website, www.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 would like to make a donation or subscribe, please send checks to:

Circulation Jacob Guggenheim

Marc Igler Re: The Gunn Chariot 780 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306

Publicity Priya Ghose

Checks can be made out to Gunn High School with “The Chariot” on the memo.

Contributing Writers Ron Ackner Yoni Alon Arjun Bharadwaj Neil Bhateja Corey Breier Naor Deleanu Andre Garrett Henry Gens Tara Golshan James Gupta Ryan Lee Alice Li Max Lipscomb Jeff Ma Sam Neff Saurabh Radhakrishnan Hina Sakazaki Yoyo Tsai Daljeet Virdi Charlie Wang Ian Wilkes Stanley Yu Ethan Yung Omer Zach Kevin Zhang Foundation/Group Sponsors Palo Alto Host Lions Club Palo Alto Roller-Masonic Lodge Patrons ($100+) Steven Guggenheim Sponsors ($50-99) TBD Contributors ($21-50) TBD

Special thanks to Advisor, Marc Igler 2

About Us The Chariot is intended to create and promote political discussion at Gunn. 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

October 2009

A Letter from the Editors For most of you, politics is seen as boring and not worth following. It is just a bunch of old men and women who speak for hours on end about mundane subjects that have no real connection to our lives. But, there is a purpose to all this talk. It is a privilege that in our country we have a representative form of government. Your vote counts. It is your vote that decides who gets to stand up and raise issues in Congress. It is your vote that decides important state propositions. You can even call your representative or senator if you feel that they are not doing what they should be. In this way, issues that are important to you are raised in Congress. Being an active citizen even works on a small scale. Say that you want a new park in Palo Alto. To do this, you can petition the city and then get a vote on it and there, your tax dollars at work, the city has a new park. So, as far off as politics may seem to you today, find issues that matter to you and make your voice count, even if this is only on a small scale. Read about what is happening in Washington and have an educated opinion on issues that are being debated. Active political participation is the cornerstone of democracy, use your voice or lose it and the right to complain about how the government affects you. Another thing to keep in mind is that this magazine is written with you in mind and we would love to hear your opinions on the articles and other content. Feel free to reply to an article by emailing us at gunnchariot@gmail.com. We want to encourage active political participation and debate on the issues raised in the magazine. Just because an opinion is published doesn’t mean that it is the right one. If you disagree or even if you agree, please respond to us. Our goal with The Chariot is merely to start the process of thinking critically about the issues that matter to you. Sincerely, Robert Chen and Aaron Guggenheim Editors-in-Chief

The World in a Blurb

The Chariot

FDA Bans Flavored Cigarettes

The FDA has now struck the flavored tobacco market, its first major move since legislation was signed by Obama, allowing it to regulate tobacco itself. The new ban is intended to end the sale of clove, vanilla, chocolate and other flavored cigarettes; these products are seen as a gateway for teenagers to move into smoking. Although the ban has the power to regulate flavored tobacco, it does not have the power to regulate regular tobacco and cigarettes. Many hope that this move will slow the growing number of teenagers who become daily smokers.

General McChrystal Requests More Troops

General Stanley A. McChrystal, top commander of American forces in Afghanistan, warns that more troops will be needed within the next year or else the war effort “will likely result in failure.” His report, formerly submitted to Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Obama, was disclosed on September 20 and arrived just as Mr. Obama is expressing doubts about sending more troops and as fellow Democrats begin to oppose the eight-year-old war.

It is disappointing that Mr. Ahmadinejad has once again chosen to espouse hateful, offensive and anti-Semitic rhetoric. –Mark Kornblau, US mission spokesman in reference to Ahmadinejad’s denouncement of Israel It is the first evidence that the development of a safe and effective [HIV] vaccine is possible. Although we don’t have all the answers now, it does have important implications for the future of HIV vaccine design –Dr. Jerome Kim, regarding the modest success of an experimental AIDS vaccine

What’s That? Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality prevents Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from discriminating against certain bandwidthhogging web applications such as peer-to-peer connections, online games, and video streaming by either blocking or slowing down the connection. On September 21, Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski announced two additions to the “Four Freedoms” policy put into effect in 2005. The first of the two is Net Neutrality, described above. The second is transparency,forcing ISPs to reveal their practices. These two principles have already been fought by major telecommunications providers such as Comcast.

The fraudulent and Taliban-inhibited election results from Afghanistan further complicates the situation, as it is still unclear which leader the US will be dealing with in the counterinsurgency and reconstruction effort. General McChrystal is expected to request between 10,000 and 45,000 more troops, in addition to the 68,000 forces already approved for Afghanistan. His report concludes with a note of wary optimism: “While the situation is serious, success is still achievable.”

October 2009

The Chariot

Gunn Update

Clubs Are Not Extracurriculars Co Editor-in-Chief Robert Chen Well, some aren’t. When you are considering which clubs to join this year (especially if you are looking for ways to beef up your college applications), keep in mind these simple rules: 1) More isn’t better. 2)Not all clubs are extracurriculars. 3) If you don’t like it, don’t do it. The first one should make sense. You want to show dedication through time committed per week, number of weeks per year, and number of years. If you overextend yourself, you disperse your available time across your activities, lessening the impact of each one. When filling out college applications, you should only write down meaningful activities, not a laundry list of all the clubs you’ve ever been a part of. The second one comes down to time commitment. Being part of a bigname club like Speech and Debate or Key Club is meaningless if you really do nothing. Likewise, you can dedicate your time to a personal interest club enough to make it extracurricular-worthy. The general rule is if you commit at least three hours a week, it counts as an extracurricular, fit for listing on your college application. When you go about choosing clubs to join, choose not those you want to list on your college application but what you are truly interested in. If you don’t care about the clubs you’re in, they are a waste of your time. Conversely, if you love what you do, your dedication will be apparent. 4

October 2009

Xinjiang Riots Contributing Writer Arjun Bharadwaj While most humanitarians look to the repression of the people of Tibet as a symbol of the Chinese government’s brutality, many people, until recently, have overlooked the instability and racial tensions plaguing Tibet’s northern neighbor, the predominately Turkic (or Uyghur) Muslim “autonomous region” of Xinjiang. Chinese occupation of Xinjiang dates back as early as 618 A.D., after the Tang Dynasty warred with the nomadic Turkic tribes and secured various parts of western Xinjiang. From then on, China would control a large but fluctuating portion of Xinjiang until the Quing Dynasty brutally clamped down on the entire region in 1755, exterminating entire indigenous tribes that did not cooperate. Since then, the successive governments of China have used racial manipulation to keep the Uyghur population under control. They have recently encouraged Han Chinese to settle in the region, sparking tension, as the Uyghur and these recent Han Chinese settlers struggle to maintain a balance. This is not helped by the vast class divisions; while many Uyghurs are poor workers, most Han Chinese are middle class. Each side, however, claims the other has more influence in the Xinjiang government. On July 5, 2009, tensions came to a head when several migrant Uyghur factory workers were killed by their Han Chinese co-workers in southeastern China. Outraged that the government did little to investigate these killings and the government’s crackdown on their protests over their deaths, thousands of Uyghurs rioted in the streets of Urumqi, the capital of Xinjiang, killing over one hundred Han Chinese citizens. The riots were brutally suppressed by the Chinese Government, who tore through homes, detaining around

100 men and boys. In an attempt to restore order, the local Han Chinese government closed local mosques on the grounds that they were centers of the unrest, which Uyghur citizens responded to by simply arriving to the traditional Friday prayer outside of the mosques, which later forced the government to reopen several larger mosques. The Chinese government later warned Han Chinese that Uyghurs were guilty of planning various “needle attacks” on Han Chinese, and later reported having detained Uyghur citizens who were planning to develop a bomb, as well as being involved in the needle attacks. The hysteria that followed these reports led to the death of over 100 Uyghurs. It is difficult to trust these claims, however, as China will not allow independent coverage of the demonstrations and has shown to blatantly lie when covering events such as these (e.g. Sichuan Earthquake). International reactions have been critical of both the protestors and the Chinese governments reaction. The U.N. reminded China to be mindful of human rights laws, something that China has questionably followed. Various Islamic groups have been quick to point out that the Chinese government has been brutal, but also hope for peace between the Han Chinese and Uyghur populace. Xinjiang’s riots are a product of the racial discrimination of China’s government as well as its authoritarian nature. Unlike Tibet, where a largely pacifist native population dwells, Xinjiang is home to a fiercely independent people who will fight to the end to secure their freedom, indicating more problems to come.

The Chariot

Apartheid’s Legacy Contributing Writer Stanley Yu In 1994, apartheid in South Africa finally came to a close. This was at a time that many believed would bridge the harsh contrast between the blacks and affluent whites and that South Africa was finally headed for better days. Skip ahead fifteen years to 2009, and while in many aspects the divide has been successfully bridged, the legacy of apartheid still continues to hold a firm grip that divides the poorer black majority in rural villages between the affluent whites and blacks in the cities. Probably one of the worst hindrances to ending the apartheid comes in the form of South Africa’s education system, where less than half of the formerly segregated “Bantu” school students make it to 12th grade. However, even those who do make it to the 12th grade find that they are unlikely to even pass the state’s Matric college entrance exam. This has created a jobless or blue-collar subgroup that some critics have titled the “lost generation.” For the most part, this persistent trend in South Africa has not solely been the result of schools, but rather the delinquent, uneducated, unmotivated, irresponsible, and overly protected teachers. Often times, most teachers in these rural schools were themselves educated during South Africa’s apartheid era under an education system that was meant to keep blacks subservient to whites, and as a result, they do not posses the necessary education that qualified teachers should have. A testing of third grade teachers, for instance, found that most scored less than 50% on a test designed for 6th graders. In addition to poorly educated teachers, many of these teachers are also extremely irresponsible. They are often absent from class for months at time. Principals are unable to punish

teachers because of their protection under the Teacher’s Union, a problem that is exacerbated by the fact that it is extremely difficult for principals to find suitable substitutes. In addition, reports have surfaced that show that teachers who do show up often neglect to teach the minimum five hours required by law, instead spending only three hours, and even that time spent “teaching” is largely occupied by excessive paperwork. President Jacob Zuba and Education Minister Angie Motshekga have both acknowledged such pitfalls in the African National Congress’s policies, but a solution has yet to be put forth. Until then, South Africa still faces a future mired in the legacy of apartheid.

Our Education System: Deeply Flawed Contributing Writer James Gupta I often think about how little I have learned considering how much time I have spent at school. You don’t need me to tell you that students spend an enormous amount of time in the classroom and doing homework. Given the amount of time they spend on academics and the importance of young adults upon the future, the stakes of

The Life You Lie! Co Editor-in-Chief Aaron Guggenheim

I feel that the most disturbing aspect of the recent campaign for healthcare reform is the hecklers. These people deface pictures of President Obama to resemble a historical villain or wear offensive T-shirts that bear nasty slogans. Even Congressman Joe Wilson has joined the ranks of hecklers with his now infamous line “You lie!” I take issue not so much with the fact that they disagree with the proposed changes in healthcare, but more with the way in which they disagree. Dissidents should respectfully express educated opinions to the people with whom they disagree. Writing articles that politely contradict, calling one’s political representatives and peacefully demonstrating outside buildings wherein healthcare discussions are being held are all respectful ways in which to disagree and raise awareness of opposing viewpoints. The politicians at whom the disagreeing rage work hard to represent all of their people’s opinions and interests; they deserve a certain degree of respect. Learn enough about the issues that you care about to express educated opinions in a rational, respectful manner. Do not use personal attacks to justify your arguments. Take reasonable, cool-headed stances on controversial issues. Please, don’t join the hecklers. Be educated, and when you disagree, be respectful. October 2009

The Chariot

Where We’re At Recent Developments Senior Editor Andrew Liu

There is growing indication and a consensus among economists that the worst of the economic downturn is over. Home sales, which earlier in this recession had been linked to foreclosures and depressed home prices, climbed to an annual purchase rate of 5.79 million in August, the largest figure in almost two years. Meanwhile, bookings for durable goods rose 0.4 percent, the fourth gain in five months. Both of these indicators are good news that housing and manufacturing, two sectors that exacerbated the slump, are in recovery. In another auspicious sign, the index of leading economic indicators rose in August for a fifth consecutive month. The Reuters/University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index rose from 65.7 in August to 70.5 in September, probably boosted by growing reports and affirmations of Fed Chair Ben Bernanke’s statement a couple of weeks ago that the recession “is very likely over.” The cautious optimism of the moment is summed up by Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group: “We are coming out of recession and we are in the early stage of a very fragile recovery.” 6

October 2009

the school system are, to put it mildly, high. Unfortunately, the system is misguided and wanting, making it not just disappointing, but also incredibly frustrating. First and foremost, the emphasis of our education is in the wrong place. American society glorifies those who do theoretical, academic work more than those who do hands-on, practical work. In other words, it venerates the Einsteins more than the Edisons. This philosophy is reflected in school, where the curriculum is generally ludicrously hypothetical. For example, the contexts of science and especially math problems are almost always unrealistically convenient and formulaic. Because they can often be solved with the mentality of a machine, time and time again I find myself having solved a problem without truly internalizing my logic. Some masquerade as application problems but more often than not prove to be impostors, adhering to a specific, theoretical process which is presented step-by-step in the problem’s textbook a few pages

back. Most evaluations come in the form of tests or quizzes which involve a model or scenario that has been analyzed repeatedly in class, and thus the student needs only to regurgitate a carefullydesigned and narrowly-focused process. And the social subjects are theoretical by nature. Rather than adhere to the current curriculum, which stresses theory, our schools ought to promote the study of honest rather than artificial application problems, something which would necessitate hands-on experience. Of course, educators are petrified to let their pupils learn through engaging the real world. Unlike textbooks, the real world is full of uncertainty. For a teacher, it must be daunting to trust students to take the initiative to identify and solve actual problems. For one thing, it is not easy to evaluate this sort of work because no rubric can be made to grade such starkly contrasting reports. It is much easier to hide behind the veil of objectivity by planting a Scantron in front of students

The Chariot

every couple of weeks and to assign busywork which can be checked against an answer key. But keep in mind that the level of studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; growth is whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s important. Emphasis should be placed not on how easily something can be evaluated by a teacher, but instead on how much a student learns. Measuring progress solely with tests is a hindrance to the progress itself because it misleads students into thinking test scores are indicators of ability to apply class material in a realistic setting. Actual experiences from applying class material in realistic settings, as opposed to the simulated experiences from taking tests, are much better indicators. As with the curriculum and evaluations, the grading system is also deeply flawed. Chiefly, why is there a cutoff every 10%? Is there some logical reason an 89.9% and an 80% are both Bs? Turning in a bathroom pass for extra credit can easily be the difference between two letter grades but is not at all a measure of learning. And why is it that almost every class seems to map a certain percentage with a certain grade? You know the standard. A 93% is the cut-off for an A, a 90% for an A-, an

87% for a B+, and so on. To achieve score consistency on this scale, test questions among different classes tend to be written at the same level, but this makes no sense. In some classes, it would be beneficial to give a set of extremely challenging problems where the average grade is 20%. In this class, a 20% would probably be about a B. But for some reason, no matter what the subject, a percentage like that is automatically deemed a serious F. Perhaps the notion of students earning high percentages gives the comforting sense that the percentages are indicators of retention or academic growth, but this is dubious, wishful thinking. A student cannot learn 103% of the material in a class. Also, if a student forgets an important assignment at home in a class that does not accept late work, his grade will likely drop significantly. But clearly this does not mean he has learned less than a counterpart who happens to be less forgetful. Another vexing thing about grades is the strangely-calculated GPA. It makes no sense that a student who gets an A in a non-weighted class may have her GPA lowered because it is above 4.0. Also, AP classes should not automati-

cally be weighted because some unduly inflate the GPA. The existence of a standardized test for the class is not necessarily a sign of difficulty. That the courses are offered at the college level does not mean they are five-fourths the difficulty of all non-weighted courses. Fortunately, Gunn offers a number of hands-on courses such as Engineering Tech, Auto, and Biotechnology that offer practical knowledge. These sorts of classes ought to be incorporated into the core curriculum. It seems the traditional subjects which compose the core classes do so because of, well, tradition. In past times, practical things were picked up outside of school on a greater scale due to necessity, but today, the luxuries we take for granted make isolation an easy, perhaps even natural option. Requiring courses that stress application would pull most people out of their academic comfort zones into the space between educational institutions and the real world. This would expand horizons in a way no textbook can do. Do not mistake my argument for a lack of appreciation for the quality education Gunn students are privileged to receive or for a disrespect of academic subjects. The eradication of all courses that are heavy in theory and opinion is not my suggestion; rather, I seek to balance a scale which is currently heavily tipped. Affording more trust to students by giving them a high level of independence in a hands-on and down-toearth curriculum is of great importance, for personal endeavors increase retention and interest. This shift in focus would help students strive not to become the detached academics our education system currently prizes, but instead, industrious, practical men and women who are conditioned for the future â&#x20AC;&#x201D; in other words, for the workforce. October 2009

The Chariot

ac sheet

KEY:

USERS

Graphics/Layout Brittany Cheng

# of Users

COMPANY INFO # of Employees

% of Global Internet Users

Company Value

Online Since...

300 MIL/MONTH 200,000/WEEK

July 2006

3.467%

900+

Average Time on Site 74

$250 mil

Feb 2004

12.73

$400,000 : $300 mil

1 : 750 TRAFFIC

7.18

which is...

Traffic Rankings

Daily Views/User

$3.7 bil

Company Income

Global

21.885%

8.0 min

Where the Traffic Comes From

28.7 min

% of Global Pageviews

Sites Linking In

389,455

40.6% USA 7.9% Germany 7.6% India 6.0% UK 3.3% Japan

29.9% USA 5.6% UK 5.4% France 5.2% Italy 3.7% Indonesia

290,529

0.33156%

3.7081%

Statistics calculated as average over three month interval

Sources: http://www.crunchbase.com/company/twitter; http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/twitter.com; http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/facebook.com; http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet

October 2009

The Chariot

Twitter Vs. Facebook Twitter and Facebook: An Introduction Graphics/Layout Scott Wey Twitter is an Internet service that is focuses completely on short blog posts, also known as microblogging. The number of characters is restricted to 140 characters per post called a “tweet,” close to the length of a standard SMS text message. Twitter gives people the ability to quickly share every aspect of their lives in real time with those who have subscribed or are “following” them. In addition to microblogging, Twitter has a system that is used to follow trends. Tweets can be tagged using the # sign followed by a tag that shows up on Twitter. By watching these, the general public can follow these trends. While Twitter has not enjoyed the same degree of widespread success as Facebook, it still has a strong following. Facebook is an online social networking tool that allows you to connect with other site users. People can view profiles, messages, photos and videos of friends. Somewhere along the line, Facebook adopted a more Twitter-esque style, opt10

October 2009

ing for a “friend feed” that is strangely similar to Twitter’s system. Could this be a sign of the decline of thoughtful posting? Only time will tell. Until then, Facebook will continue to be a web site where people can interact online on a more personal level. Facebook generates income by placing ads relevant to personal information alongside content. This service, Beacon, stirred up controversy over the possible privacy violations because it tracked purchase data from other sites and posted it on the Facebook page. Since then, the service has been shut down in favor of Nielsen BrandLift, which collects data via polls to track public opinions.

Twitter’s for Winners Contributing Writer Yoni Alon In an age of increasing brevity in contact and technological savvy, there are not many things that satiate the public’s desire for increased communication. One innovation that combines all of modern day society’s wants is Twitter. 140 characters or less is all that is necessary nowadays. (Unfortunately, all of The Chariot’s articles cannot yet be condensed to meet Twitter’s requirements.) Indeed, it seems that the buzz about Twitter has made it a staunch competitor to Facebook— and in this writer’s humble opinion— a leader in the race to develop social networking. For any first time user, Twitter is always overwhelming. Although in the beginning the massive wealth of knowledge and gossip (and some spam) are unbearable, the ability to learn so

much in such a short amount of time is strangely addicting. It is possible to become an amateur expert in nearly any field. I was on Twitter for hours a day at my job (yes, it was my job), and I became an expert in internet security. The wealth of knowledge that I accumulated through skimming updates and clicking on the occasional link was truly startling. I knew about every hacker convention, every security breakthrough and shortcoming—everything. Many have found this new addiction to knowledge, though sometimes the knowledge is not as intellectual as internet security. Society has been obsessed with celebrities ever since the 1920’s. It has bred magazines, TV shows and channels, books, you name it. Twitter has only made it easier to find out what one’s favorite celebrity is doing, whether it be walking the dog or brushing teeth. Many celebrities have gargantuan numbers of followers. Ashton Kutcher, Ellen DeGeneres, and Britney Spears each have over 3 million followers. Many other celebrities have their own Twitter accounts, including Ryan Seacrest, Kim Kardashian, and our dear President Obama. For everyone, Twitter is the perfect tool made for exactly this purpose. It would be nigh impossible to accomplish a comparable amount of communication with such a large base using Facebook. As Twitter’s popularity grows, the media and the world have caught on, all trying to adapt themselves to this Web 2.0 application. Many have become successful Twitter users— CNN has 2,749,368 followers, more than even Oprah. Most businesses and media groups have both a Facebook page and Twitter accounts. The ease of communication Twitter offers in comparison to Facebook, however, makes it much more useful and allows for

The Chariot

free marketing and communication— something publicists would trade limbs for. Such a marketing task was given to me. I was to establish social networking for a company on both Facebook and Twitter. Which one proved more useful? Twitter of course. While companies and media groups have helped Twitter define itself and expand, the massive influx of individual groups has led to the most growth. Every Joe Sixpack can now spontaneously express his observations, feelings, and actions—some as dreary as brushing teeth. This expansion of celebrity culture taps into the core of our pop culture, and it is no wonder that Twitter’s growth is 4 times that of Facebook. Not only can you tell everyone how much homework you have, but you can also do it in an instant with your cell phone! Twitter at this time has no moneymaking model and only about 30 employees. Both Facebook and Youtube have been converted into money machines with the addition of advertising, so it is possible that Twitter could do the same with its website. Regardless of what the company decides to do, Twitter’s staggering rise to the position of third most visited website in the world is bound to fetch Twitter a hefty reward for tapping into society’s spontaneity. Twitter is the epitome of increased communication, speed, technology, and pseudo-ADD; it will develop and flourish into something as pervasive as television and radio—all in 140 characters or less!

Facebook > Twitter Contributing Writer Omer Zach Facebook is an incredible community—since launching in 2004 it has amassed 300 million users and changed millions of lives. It is run by intelligent, confident people who have complete control over the service. But acquiring these hundreds of millions of diehard users is only the beginning for Facebook. The newest social service trying to capture the world, Twitter, has paved the way for Facebook to take over the world. While Twitter doesn’t even have a tenth as many users as Facebook, it has held the world’s attention for the past few months, and has become a remarkable tool for businesses to market their products and understand their users, and for people to have their voices heard. Twitter’s feature, “tweeting,” is essentially the equivalent of posting status updates to Facebook, with one defining difference—Twitterers send their “tweets” to the public world, and Facebookers post their status updates to their personal communities. This defining difference has been everything for Twitter. Thanks to this difference, a roomful of Starbucks employees devote their time to reading customers’ thoughts on the latest frappuccino flavors in the form of tweets and software developers at Google are able to reach out to and help users who tweet about issues with Google software. Of course, Facebook hasn’t been sitting quietly for these last Twitter-centric months watching Twitter’s utility grow and grow and waiting for a miracle to bring the focus back to them. They have been preparing to begin pushing their users to post status updates publicly, like Twitter users do now. Since June, Facebook has been experimenting with ways to give users the option to publish status updates outside of their network of friends. And when Facebook finally launches this challenge

to Twitter, it will succeed. Unlike Twitter, which has implemented features its users have invented for themselves, Facebook has defined Facebook ever since the service began. They are one of the few companies around who know how to make hard decisions that anger users but are vital in the long-run for Facebook and its users. (For example, users were furious when Facebook first brought around the idea of a News Feed, and even more so when Facebook was opened to high schools, businesses, and then the world.) Within the next few months, tens, if not hundreds of millions of Facebook users will be posting their thoughts publicly, and Twitter’s true defining feature will no longer be so unique. Once just ten percent of Facebook users adopt the concept of sharing their mind with the world, Facebook will have matched Twitter in the numbers game. But even better yet, a status update from Facebook will come with much more information than a tweet. For example, if Google sees that John Doe is having trouble loading Gmail, it can scan whichever personal information John decides to share with the world, find out that he is a diehard Mac user working on Firefox, and then contact him with specific information on how to fix his issues. Twitter may be today’s big thing, but Facebook is just busy preparing to swallow it whole. While Twitter’s seemingly silly idea really was genius, in the end, all it will have done is prepare the world for Facebook’s next step. October 2009

The Chariot

Bailout Backfire Contributing Writer Ian Wilkes Last winter’s bailouts in response to the collapse of the American automotive industry were a controversial attempt to bring vigor back to the failing auto companies. These bailouts, approved by President Obama and former president Bush, were meant to prolong the industry’s survival. Now, ten months later, the bailout has failed in its initial goal of keeping the Big Three American automobile manufacturers, Ford, Chrysler and General Motors (GM), out of bankruptcy. Both Chrysler and GM declared bankruptcy earlier this year. Ford, the only member of the Big Three to decline government bailout money, was better prepared for the recession than either of its American rivals and thus avoided bankruptcy. GM’s bailout has ultimately failed because the company was unable to avoid bankruptcy even after receiving over $20 billion of federal money. Since GM filed for bankruptcy in June 2009, the government has come to own 60 percent of the company and forced it to restructure. The reconstruction plan consisted of closing up to 20 factories and 2600 dealerships. These reductions were supposed to improve the company’s efficiency and long term profitability by redesigning its vehicle lineup to include more fuel efficient

October 2009

cars and fewer sport utility vehicles and trucks. In addition to the federal government’s Car Allowance Rebate System (a program to trade in cars with low mileage for new fuel efficient cars, better known as Cash for Clunkers) and the beginnings of the national economy’s recovery, the transition from gas-guzzling to fuel efficiency allowed GM sales to rise in August 2009 by 42 percent in comparison to August 2008 retail sales. Unfortunately, GM is still not fiscally safe.In 2008 alone, the company lost over $30 billion. Since 2000, approximately 70,000 hourly workers and 10,000 salaried workers have been laid off. In the first quarter of 2009, GM lost more than $2 billion and expects losses to continue for the remainder of the year. While the government bailout prevented GM’s downfall, the company still has a long way to go before becoming either profitable or out at least of debt. Like GM, Chrysler was also unable to survive through the tough economy earlier this year. Even though Chrysler received $4 billion in government bailout money in December 2008, its sales decreased by 41.9% from June 2008 to June 2009. In January 2009, Fiat announced that it would buy a 35 percent share of the company. However, this was not enough to prevent Chrysler from filing for bankruptcy in April. Since then, Fiat has been

attempting to turn Chrysler into a profitable company, but with projected losses of $4.8 billion this year, the task seems to be a daunting challenge. Earlier this year, Chrysler stated that it would not become profitable again until 2012, but shareholders hope that Fiat can play a role in making Chrysler a competitive force in the United States automotive market. But due to decreased profitability and continuing losses, Chrysler’s workforce has suffered, dropping from 82,000 workers in 2006 to only 54,000 at the end of 2008. With more job cuts expected during 2009, Chrysler has been trying to reduce its workforce in hopes of allowing the company to be more efficient and competitive in the North American automotive market. Although the government bailouts helped GM and Chrysler survive, they did not meet the goal of supporting the companies through the recession, failing to prevent either company from filing for bankruptcy. They were ineffectual due to the insufficient funds allotted for auto industry bailouts and a lack of concrete plans for the future of either company. The government attacked the problem half-heartedly and is now suffering the consequences, primarily the major job losses. In the future, the government needs to properly assess a company’s financial problems with greater care before deciding to pour billions of dollars into what is basically a lost cause.

The Chariot

NASA: Keep or Kill? Keeping NASA and Public Space Exploration Contributing Writer Ethan Yung NASA is a fundamental government program of the United States. Although NASA was born out of the Cold War, the program was not made redundant by its conclusion. It currently serves several purposes that are vital for the United States and the world. Privatization of space and aeronautic technology can never bring us the same kind of social benefits. Most of NASA’s accomplishments are not found in direct net profit gains, but in the scientific advancements and explorations that we have made as a result of its activity. That is enough reason to keep the government body in operation. There are certain aims that can only be achieved by a non-profit body. The Hubble telescope, launched 16 years ago by NASA, has provided an enormous amount of data from outer space that would have otherwise been inaccessible. From the Hubble telescope, as well as lesser telescopes, we have learned about dark matter, planets outside our solar system, the chemical makeup of these extrasolar planets (necessary for the future of planetary exploration), black holes, and the birth and death of stars. Satellite-obtained information about our own planet needs to be processed by a government-run program. Granted, commercial satellite technology is surpassing that of the government; of American satellites, 194 are commercial while 122 are government-owned. However, dangerous weather systems, changes in the ozone layer, ice sheets,

air pollution, and even large-scale agricultural production can be observed by satellites because of technologies pioneered by NASA decades ago. Furthermore, this sort of information needs to go through a government agency. NASA takes this data, interprets it, and gives relevant public recommendations. In the 1970s, it was NASA that had discovered the rise in the oceans’ temperatures and also provided crucial evidence for the existence of global warming. Commercial companies would have absolutely no motive to go through such pains. This is not the sort of information that becomes buried in astronomical academia, either. This is immediate information that influences what we do. Similarly, the International Space Station has been a fundamental tool in space discovery and research. It has provided a laboratory for microgravity research. The question is raised about whether these sorts of “science projects” are useful, and whether watching plants grow in zero gravity will really aid humanity. There is more to the ISS than this. On the station, they are determining the feasibility of long-term human space travel and colonization by observing space exposure on the human body. They are studying the effects of low-gravity on combustion, which gives insight on energy efficiency and emissions. This can aid our current energy and global warming

problems. The ISS is further used for spacecraft testing to ensure safe and successful missions. Diplomatically, the station represents a collaboration of 16 different countries in space travel. Some amount of international support in space is advisable. Space can easily become a weapon; until conditions stabilize, we should be able to see where everyone is in relation to space. This is the more political approach to our past Space Race thinking. Diplomatic relations cannot be controlled by a mostly commercial market. Mistakes can be made, for the good of profit, that endanger national safety. None of these accomplishments would ever have been initiated by private bodies. These accomplishments are obviously not profitable ventures. Even NASA, similar to most government programs, is not an efficient organization. The annual $17.6 billion price tag is for the sake of the aforementioned projects that have furt h e r e d scientific knowledge. Ta x p a y ers complain of trivial scientific investigations that do not yield immediate returns. This is the easy misconception of space, so far removed from our daily lives. We are investing in long-term outer space studies that could not possibly happen otherwise. Because of it, we have learned many nontrivial facts about our universe, our galaxy, and our own home planet. By learning as much as possible about space, October 2009

The Chariot

we can guarantee basic knowledge for our explorers, public or private. We have not yet learned so much that we can whimsically throw private institutions out into zero gravity. We cannot predict when or where our next major scientific discovery will come from, so we must continue our basic lines of research. There is also a place for capitalistic competition in outer space. It is inevitable that commercial technologies will outrun government technologies. A private spacecraft first made a successful flight in 2004 as a result of the Ansari X Prize competition, and since then, many different suborbital space14

October 2009

crafts have been in production. However, commercial aims cannot be controlled. We cannot tell a private company to explore Mars, unless there was some resource to exploit. We also cannot tell a private company not to make questionable deals with foreign countries. A strong public alternative is necessary. When the commercial space market does come, we will need some amount of caution and regulation. The purpose of private companies is to create marketable products or provide a marketable service. However, human advancement cannot be made purely by these means. Scientific learning and exploration can only be made by organizations not driven by profit. Yet, space exploration requires large amounts of initial capital. Having been well-established for several decades, NASA meets these two requirements. Private companies can be brought in and funded by the government to produce this sort of technology, but they cannot be depended on to do the research. NASA is the necessary public space exploration alternative.

The Show’s Over Circulation Jacob Guggenheim The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) glory days are in the past. Like an aging musician, NASA still goes through the act of putting on a show. And, also like an aging musician, the show is not quite as good as it used to be. During the 1960s and 1970s, NASA was producing golden record after golden record, starting with the hit “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” Yet nowadays only the die-hard fans watch NASA. At one point, it was a source of inspiration for the country, but now it only drains our pocketbooks. In short, NASA must go. I am not suggesting that we do away with space research altogether. Some truly amazing technological advances have resulted from the space race. But as other countries develop rival space programs, these technologies will be developed with or without NASA’s help. To reduce NASA’s waste of tax dollars, space research and space expeditions should become privatized. No one would have suggested this during the Clinton era because of the federal financial surplus. The government believed that because the U.S. had the most money, we should continue to dominate the rest of the world in terms of space. But those years of plenty are gone, and we are currently in the worst recession since the Great Depression. Privatized industries are more efficient and innovative because the owners have stakes in their company and are not simply taking checks from the government. With the money that we save by not funding NASA, we could spend the money on more useful things like job creation and education.

The Chariot

Privatization would not be an overnight transition. NASA employs approximately 18,000 people. They cannot simply be laid off. But their funding and payroll can be transferred to other agencies. Additionally, the government would have to end NASAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s monopoly over space in the U.S. by slowly decreasing its funding while providing incentives for entrepreneurs to start new space programs. These private firms would replace NASA as the premier space program in the U.S. And the best aspect of privatization is that it is known to work. Many other types of research such as cancer research, software development and medicine production are funded mostly through private means rather than federal. Presently, Americans do not have enough money to fund broken programs. We need to pick and choose where we want our few financial resources to go. Unfortunately for NASA, the space program is currently not a very high priority. In the past, it was worth the cost of flying NASA in for a show because we knew that we would ultimately benefit from it. This is no longer the case; only the die-hard come and watch this aging celebrityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s act. NASA should recognize that its time has passed and step down as the king of space to make way for new stars with fresh ideas.

Chari t T

October 2009

The Chariot

Inglourious Basterds Review Contributing Writer Ryan Lee In the last moments of “Inglourious Basterds,” a character looks straight into the camera, and makes the observation, “I think this just might be my masterpiece.” There is no doubt that he is speaking the mind of writer-director Quentin Tarantino. Fans of Tarantino will eagerly tell you that his unconventional storytelling, witty dialogue, and unabashed love of cinema make his films great and unique. These three traits come out with guns blazing in “Inglourious Basterds,” a fun, violent, and thrilling World War Two fantasy made with the special genre-bending flair that Tarantino has shown throughout his career. The project was first announced almost a decade ago, when Quentin Tarantino was just finishing his modern classics “Reservoir Dogs” and “Pulp Fiction.” For many movie buffs, myself included, the idea of Tarantino taking

his cinematic expertise to rejuvenate a genre then filled with depressing dramas and realistic combat films was an exciting prospect. And now, many years later, we finally see the product. It is safe to say that the film is much different from what everybody expected and what the trailers had suggested. Instead of the full-throttle, muzzle flashing, explosive good time, there is only a series of surprisingly scaled-back conversations, which do fantastic work to build tension, especially a 15-minute opening that takes place entirely in one room. The tension builds almost unbearably in scenes like these, and it is well worth the wait when the payoff does come. There is not one boring moment in “Basterds”. The acting, surprisingly, is led not by Brad Pitt (who is only in little more than half the movie), but by little-known Austrian actor Christoph Waltz, who does an incredible job in his role as Hans Landa, “The Jew Hunter”. Playing the man in charge of finding the

Jews hiding in France, Waltz easily switches from charming to hilarious to downright terrifying. He is a hard character to crack, but whenever he is on screen, “Basterds” lights up with his energy. Brad Pitt is also fine in his somewhat comedic role as Lt. Aldo Raine, the leader of the much-talked about but little-seen Basterds, a troop of eight Jewish American Soldiers who are dropped into France to carry out guerilla attacks on Nazis. The other actors are very good in their roles, and excel when allowed to speak in their native languages. The film has a great feel of authenticity and does not feel like a complete farce, even when some incredible liberties are taken with history towards the end. If you are looking for a brainless, explosion-filled thrill rush, do not go see this film. But, if you would like a witty, intelligent, and downright entertaining film, you could not do much better than to go see “Inglourious Basterds.”

Visit us on the web at www.gunnchariot.com

October 2009