December 2013
VOLUME 10 • ISSUE 1
Debate on
Gun Control
In light of recent tragedies
OBAMACARE
10
AS WELL AS: Gunn Bulletin, 4-5 Syria, 6-8 Foreign Affairs, 14-15
THE CHARIOT EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Drew Bent Eric Noh SENIOR EDITORS Charles Liu Cooper Aspegren COPY EDITORS Sidd Karamcheti Sabrina Lui FUNDRAISING Sidd Karamcheti CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Gabriel Alon Kathleen DeCoste Stephen Lee Joseph Nicolls David Schwartzman Ben Sorensen Maggie Wang Kathleen Xue Katina Yong Dave Zhu The Chariot would like to thank the following sponsors and patrons:
DEAR READERS, For sixteen days in October, the entire United States government came to a halt. 800,000 federal employees were furloughed, 6,300 children were thrown out of Head Start, and $4 billion in tax refunds were delayed. Even with the cutbacks, the government suffered a loss of billions that the White House is only now revealing. Most tragically, the damage was largely self-inflicted. A debt limit standoff in Congress stalled the government and left us feeling powerless. Even after a temporary compromise, the divide between the two parties appears to be widening. As 535 people in Washington D.C. struggle to reach an agreement, so too do the 300 million Americans find much to debate. In this issue of The Chariot, we cover a variety of issues that have taken the nation by storm. From the perennial debate on gun control to the dire issue of U.S. involvement in Syria, our writers expose both sides to these decisive issues. In many cases, there is no one right answer. An important part of being an informed individual means understanding all the various facets to an issue. Even in topics closer to home, there are a number of perspectives, each carrying its own truth. In this issue, we have introduced a new section called The Gunn Bulletin in which we focus on these stories directly affecting our lives. With college applications and testing at their peaks, this first installment focuses on stress in high school. Today is a rocky time for the U.S. government. In addition to the shutdown, the government has been slammed by the public for its leaked surveillance program and is now suffering further backlash for its broken HealthCare.gov website. Although it may be tempting to find someone to blame, it is important to keep in mind that a scapegoat may not always exist. In fact, if there’s one thing you take from The Chariot, it’s that there is more than one side to every story. While reading through this issue, we encourage you to open up your mind to the myriad of opinions you’ll find inside. You may just be surprised.
Sincerely,
FOUNDATION/GROUP SPONSORS Adobe Systems • Daughters of the American Revolution • Palo Alto Lions Club
Drew Bent & Eric Noh
Editors-In-Chief Front cover artwork is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution. ABOUT US
PATRONS ($100+) Lauren Michals and Vinod Bharadwaj • Patricia Bruegger • Steven Guggenheim • Yajun Liu and Shirley Zeng
The Chariot would also like to thank Advisor Marc Igler for his support.
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, 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’d like to make a donation or subscribe, please send checks to: Marc Igler 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.
2
December 2013
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
IN THE NEWS Twitter Soars After IPO, Then Falls
Twitter’s stock soared in value as investors scrambled to buy shares from what they hope will become the next big social media company like Facebook. Although Twitter and its bankers priced its IPO at $25 a share on late Wednesday, November 6th, shares opened at $45.10 on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock rose as high as $50.09 and closed at $44.90 on November 7th, a 73% increase in value. After its first day on the stock market, Twitter was valued at more than $31 billion, which is comparable to the valuations of other major social media companies, such as Linkedin ($26 billion) and Facebook ($120 billion). However, in recent weeks, Twitter’s stock has dropped below $40, and many investors are expressing concerns. With the company never having turned a profit, investors are betting on its ability to monetize the platform.
North Korea Detains Palo Alto War Veteran At the time of this writing, Palo Alto resident Merrill Newman, 85, has remained detained in North Korea ever since his planned departure on October 26th. Newman, a Korean war veteran, was visiting the nation as a tourist. North Korean officials claimed that Newman “committed hostile acts” against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea during his tour. Although family say his intentions were innocent, the central news agency in North Korea released an email in which he apparently wrote that he planned to deliver special messages to individuals on his trip. The emails, however, have not been
verified, and the United States is still urging North Korea to release Newman.
FDA Halts Sales of 23andMe’s DNA test kits 23andMe, the Mountain View-based company started by Gunn alumnus Anne Wojcicki, has been ordered to halt the sales of its widely popular DNA saliva home-testing kit. Since their inception, 23andMe’s kits have been used by over 500,000 Americans to test their DNA. On November 22nd, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent 23andMe a letter outlining its lack of approval to distribute and market the kits. 23andMe has said they are now working with the FDA to resolve their concerns..
Tesla Under Scrutiny Tesla Motors, the company renowned for its electric vehicles, has been under fire in recent weeks. In almost rapid succession, there have been three separate reports from Model S owners of their cars catching on fire. Despite one of those owners defending Tesla on the company blog, Tesla’s stocks took a huge hit, falling a staggering 30 percent over the past few weeks. CEO Elon Musk has repeatedly told reporters that he is not concerned with the recent string of incidents, pointing out the comparison with gasoline vehicles. He noted that Tesla cars perform better than gasoline ones historically have, and that no one has been hurt in any of the three fires. However, Tesla is still making changes amidst the controversy, including amending its warranty policy and rolling out an over-the-air update to all vehicles. December 2013
THROUGH TWEETS Why does a Tesla fire w[ith] no injury get more media headlines than 100,000 gas car fires that kill 100s of people per year? -Elon Musk @elonmusk November 19
Thai protesters move on ministries, offices in antigovernment push -Reuters Top News @Reuters November 27
#Ring! -Twitter @twitter November 7
I can’t believe it’s 50 years since people started using the word “knoll” #JFK -David Schneiders @davidschneider November 22 3
THE CHARIOT
The Gunn Bulletin
Creative Commons License
Stress at Gunn Kathleen Xue Contributing Writer
A
t Gunn, stress is a prevalent issue for all grades. As the school year is just beginning to accelerate in workload as well as extracurricular activities, different people are developing different viewpoints on the increase in rigorousness, and the pressure is affecting disparate age groups at contrasting intensities. Sarah Lee, a current sophomore, finds her life at Gunn challenging but manageable. “I would say the range [for school] is from moderate to little stress,” she said. “[But] if I have to deal with a stressful week with overloaded things, I have to set realistic goals, and I do my best to get through everything.” Not everyone is as lucky as Lee. Many high school students suffer from stresscausing habits, such as procrastination.
4
An unnamed senior feels that academic stress is a myth. “High schoolers get stressed out because they don’t manage their time effectively,” he said. “There is less work than students make it seem like there is—wasting time on stupid stuff like Facebook is what makes us stay up late and struggle to handle the workload.”
One senior felt that academic stress is a myth. “Wasting time on stupid stuff like Facebook is what makes us stay up late.” As for social pressure, however, the two students have differing opinions yet again. Lee finds a palpable competition within her friend group regarding academic performance. “I think high schoolers, especially at Gunn, get stressed out mainly when they compare themselves to December 2013
their peers,” she said. “Since everybody is talented and hardworking, people easily lose confidence in themselves when they start to compare.” The senior, on the other hand, believes differently. “[There is pressure], but I think I impose it on myself,” he said. “It’s not really peer or parental pressure.” Social pressure, however, is more important. “Although this doesn’t apply to me personally, kids do stuff they don’t want to in order to fit in,” he said. As for advice on how to deal with stress, both students agree that the only way to combat it is to be active when it comes to assignments, as well as find activities one is passionate about. “In the long run, [forced] activities just end up feeling burdensome, and will add on to enough stress that [students] already deal with,” Lee said. According to both students, though stress is critical, it is a problem that can easily be resolved, and is even easier to prevent.
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
Hybrid Classes Dave Zhu Contributing Writer
I
t’s Wednesday. The bell rings, signalling the end of brunch and the beginning of my A period English class. I head to the library with some friends and check out a laptop. One of us starts up a smooth playlist on Pandora, and the six or so of us spend the period chilling in a study room. For Wednesdays, this routine is hardly out of the norm. How did my English class get to be like this? Have I tampered with the attendance sheets? Nope! Because my philosophy class is a hybrid course, I only need to show up for A period class on Tuesdays and Thursdays. As for Monday mornings and after brunch on Wednesdays, I get to kick back and spend the period however I like. The new hybrid courses offered this year, just like my hybrid philosophy course, require students only to show up two or three out of the four class periods each week, letting students have more freedom and independence in time management. What that means to me and many other students taking hybrid courses is the freedom to sleep in one day of the week and to spend one class period on another day with friends. But taking a hybrid course does have its drawbacks. Just because we meet two out of four days a week doesn’t mean that my hybrid philosophy course has a reduced workload. In fact, students taking a hybrid course are in for more homework
Creative Commons License
than a regular course. Because we are given two preps a week, we are expected to pay back the time spent out of class with a substantial amount of online homework as collateral. For me, this usually means a good hour of work every Monday night, consisting of a thoughtful and well-written analysis of works by great philosophers. Though this amount of work sounds reasonable and easy to handle, without a teacher to instruct me every day to turn in homework the following day, and instead having an online deadline at 10:00 PM to submit my homework entry, turning in my philosophy homework on time is a task I often have trouble with. In fact, after a month of hybrid philosophy, I have managed to miss four online assignments, and many times the homework becomes a last-minute struggle. However, after learn-
ing how to manage my time better, I have been able to turn in my homework in a more timely manner and with greater consistency. Taking a hybrid course gives students a greater degree of freedom while letting them feel the pressure of doing work independently. While shouldering the extra responsibility may be at first difficult for some, the effects of learning to handle one’s time can only benefit one’s future. The increased workload and decreased instructor involvement prepares students for college life and beyond. Plus, having a halfprep can give anyone a breather from regular school life. Ultimately, I highly recommend that all students take a hybrid course sometime in their high school careers.
HYBRID CLASSES OFFERED Programming Basic College The Cold War for Mobile Skills Senior Projects
AP Computer School Service Science December 2013
Focus On Success Philosophy
Living Skills AP Economy
5
THE CHARIOT
DEBATE: U.S. Interve
Making the case for U.S. invovement
I
Gabriel Alon Contributing Writer
’ve been to the Syrian border on one of my many trips to Israel. My own grandmother was raised in Aleppo. Today, Aleppo is in ruins. America should be more actively involved in Syria. Currently we are helping to provide small arms to the opposition and trying to pursue the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons in the United Nations Security Council. This is not enough. At the heart of the issue is the importance of Syria to the values of the United States. Syria is not a distant Middle Eastern Country where both the rebels and the government are the bad guys—it is a country where the people have aspirations for democracy because of the way their horrid government acts. We should stand up for democracy and stand against warfare carried out against civilians. The Syrian government, along with its ally Iran, is actively involved in propping
6
up Hezbollah, a terrorist group in Lebanon that has been carrying out attacks on Israel for years. Bashar Al-Assad, the president of Syria, opened up his country to the possibility of reform when he took over after his father’s death several years ago but quickly reverted to the policies of torturing and executing people who criticized the government. His government is controlled by the Alawites, a minority religious sect in Syria that denies promotion to those who are not Alawite in both the government and private sectors. It is critical that a new government be designed with limited powers and with no favoritism towards a single ethnic group. This is not impossible in Syria. Israel and Turkey, both largely secular democracies, one of which is America’s closest ally and the other a member of NATO, both border Syria and have been involved in treating the refugee crisis. A basis for a future government could be found in the Free Syrian Army, the core members of which include Alawites and defected military personnel. America must provide guidance. In addition, the United States must do more because tens of thousands of Syrian civilians are being massacred. Bullets and bombshells may not reach the moral magnitude of chemical weapons with December 2013
their use, but they also mean a brutal death. The current government is rotten to the core and should be attacked by the United States to the point that the Syrian military will have no reason to arbitrarily choose civilians to kill in order to save it. Advanced American weaponry could put an end to this bloodshed.
Advanced American weaponry could put an end to this bloodshed. Assad has no intention of stepping down as shown by his desperate tactics and his denial of killing civilians in interviews. The agreement between Russia and the United States for Russia to help pass the Security Council resolution in exchange for America agreeing to not carry out a limited punitive strike against Syria played right into Assad’s hands. Now our administration feels compelled to do nothing until Congress passes a declaration of war, and Congress has been known to take its time. It is critical that the US government acts to directly intervene in the Syrian conflict, thereby ending the death of thousands of innocent civilians.
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
ntion in Syria
FROM
BOTH SIDES PRO
Creative Commons License
An ill-advised gamble Eric Noh Co-Editor-in-Chief
I
t is an undisputed fact that Syrian government has used sarin gas on its own population. Despite the terrible war crimes committed in the Middle Eastern country, the United States government has been in a fierce debate over a potential U.S. military intervention in the Syrian Civil War; some politicians have expressed vehement support over such action while other politicians have expressed vehement opposition to it. Although there are pros and cons to boths sides of this debate, it is apparent that keeping the United States military out of the conflict is the wiser decision. Because of a strong opposition to military intervention shown by members of Congress and the public, and the potential costs, making the decision to send the U.S. military to Syria would be an ill-advised gamble. Even though President Barack Obama and important leaders in Congress such
as Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senator John McCain have expressed public support for a United States military strike on Syria, opposition to the proposition has been strong from both the Republican and Democratic parties. This fact is confirmed by the comprehensive survey of senators and representatives published by USA TODAY on September 9, 2013. According to the survey, only 22 senators and 22 House members out of the 533 lawmakers that comprise the Senate and the House of Representatives responded that they supported the use of force in retaliation to the Syrian government’s use of prohibited chemical weapons. The opposition to the use of force was significantly stronger, with 19 senators and 130 House members responding that they would not support such an action. In addition, President Obama is not even receiving any significant support from his own party while the vast majority of Republicans who replied to the survey were against the use of force. In a time where Congress is unable to make timely and important decisions due to the longstanding division between the Republican and Democratic party, it would be a terrible mistake for the United States to militarily intervene in Syria. Making this decision would widen the divide between December 2013
“I wish I could see the recent agreement between Russia and the United States to rid the Assad regime of its chemical weapons as major breakthrough. Unfortunately, I cannot.” John McCain,U.S. Senator (R-Ariz.)
“When America ignores these problems, these problems don’t ignore us.” Marco Rubio,U.S. Senator (R-Fl.)
CON “In a civil war, where communities think that it’s existential, that if they surrender they will be murdered, we have to build a political set of agreements between communities.”
Robert Ford, U.S. Ambassador to Syria
7
THE CHARIOT
the two parties. In addition, there is a strong possibility that the use of the military force in Syria will snowball into another War in Iraq or War in Afghanistan for the United States. Because the Syrian military is significantly stronger than that of the Taliban in 2001 or the Iraqi military under Saddam Hussein in 2003, it will take much greater resources for the United States military to significantly punish the Syrian government for its usage of chemical weapons. In a hypothetical situation this snowball is realized, the U.S. will be forced to spend millions—potentially billions of dollars. This is clearly not the situation the United States will want to be in, considering the deep unpopularity of previous price tags in involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American public is unwilling to see its government engaged in another war overseas, with the economy still recovering from the Great Recession. The American public will react badly to American involvement in Syria and the U.S. government should realize that the economic recovery now holds a greater priority in today’s world. With much public and government opposition to the use of force in Syria, President Barack Obama must look for better options in dealing with the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. With Russia involved in successful
Looking Back March 2011
First major protests Syrians protest in the streets of Damascus and Daraa while demanding the release of prisoners. Several are shot dead by security forces.
negotiations with Syria over its chemical weapon arsenal, the United States should wait to see if these negotiations will be successful. The use of force should be an action taken by the U.S. only in the most drastic situations; right now is not the right time for the United States military to be involved.
The Bottom Line Sidd Karamcheti Copy Editor In warfare, like in many things, there exists a bottom line; a point of no return, that no one should cross. With the growing Syrian conflict, and the pending United States intervention, however, this line has been called into question. In excess of 100,000 people have been killed as a result of the Syrian civil war over the last three years, yet only now, after a chemical attack on a village resulting in 1,429 deaths, is the United States preparing to enter the conflict. If one looks at just the numbers, there is a disconnect in the decision to enter the conflict; after all, the total casualties is orders of magnitude larger than the deaths from the chemical weapons. So what exactly makes chemical weapons worse than conventional ones?
The common opinion is that chemical weapons represent an unpredictable, uncontrollable threat, and one that is more likely to affect the innocent civilian population. Unlike conventional weapons, which have are fairly accurate and contained in nature, chemical weapons represent an unmitigated risk. Not only are they incredibly destructive (Sarin gas kills in seconds), but they are also more prone to dissemination. Chemical weapons, especially Sarin gas, have the potential to contaminate water supplies and poison crops, leading to the unwitting death of innocent people. Furthermore, there is a hidden terror aspect to chemical weapons, which is one of the key reasons to the US’s involvement in the Syrian conflict. Chemical weapons are often invisible, scentless, but work incredibly quickly, with devastating effects. Use of weapons like these on the warfare creates large amounts of fear and panic, resulting in chaos and pandemonium throughout the battlefield. Chemical weapons are no more physical weapons than weapons of terror. The United States realizes that they pose a massive risk to the Syrian populace, and have decided to intervene. By condemning the use of chemical weapons, not only are we preventing the deaths of innocent people, but we are upholding the bottom line.
February 2012
August 2012
April 2013
U.S. embassy shut down
Accused of war crimes by U.N.
Accused of using chemical weapons
Amidst growing concerns, U.S. shuts down embassy in Damascus.
U.N. accuses Syria military of murdering more than 100 civilians, half of whom are kids.
Britain and France notify the U.N. of Syria’s chemical weapons. The U.S. confirms these reports in June of 2013. SOURCE: The Washington Post
8
December 2013
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
Shedding Light on PRISM Katina Yong Contributing Writer On June 6th, the Washington Post and the Guardian published numerous articles regarding a mass electronic surveillance mining program called PRISM, based off of confidential files leaked by Edward Snowden, a military contractor. While the general public previously had a vague idea about government surveillance, none were prepared for the scope of the data collected. People were shocked, with many slamming the Obama administration for the lack of transparency in the government policies. Although Edward Snowden has left the international spotlight and now remains in exile after accepting asylum from the Russian government, the greater issue remains: Did the government overstep its boundaries? After the news broke out, there was a flurry of head scratching with many people wondering if they were the ones being observed. The federal security agencies claimed the monitoring is limited to information that is a threat to national security, with official representatives stating that America is not interested in spying on ordinary people. This raises the question: What process is used to determine who is a threat without first collecting information. Unless a predetermined process outside of the online world is used, data is simply collected indiscriminately. The legality of data collection is also called into question, since many laws are antiquated and do not account for such sophisticated tracking methods. However, there is no question that what the government has done with wiretapping is illegal. Unfortunately, even with lawyers decrying its illegality, close to no action has been undertaken. Large companies with swaths of personal data, such as Apple, Google, and Facebook, admitted to collaborating with the government. They shared data
Creative Commons License
from people considered of interest by the government. These companies hold a moral responsibility to people to inform them any data that is turned over, unless a proper court order is given. While they readily admitted to the surveillance after the fact, all blame was given to the government without any thought of the good neighbour mentality of conducting business. To address these problems, we need to consider the issues of transparency and accountability. The government must keep its processes transparent over the long run, even if it can not keep the public informed about processes such as covert operations that temporarily require secrecy. The government can, and should, maintain a significant degree of public knowledge. Furthermore, companies and the government need to hold themselves accountable for their actions. Currently, by not directly communicating with the general public, they are forced to make excuses for their actions later on. The public needs to hold these companies and the government to a higher standard and not accept the presented excuses. Overall, the government monitoring is unethical and needs proper transparency. Although the government is to blame, other parties also need to accept responDecember 2013
sibility and strive to right wrongs. Finally, the people themselves hold a responsibility to call into question government practices that they find violate their privacy.potentially billions of dollars. This is clearly not the situation the United States will want to be in, considering the deep unpopularity of previous price tags in involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American public is unwilling to see its government engaged in another war overseas, with the economy still recovering from the Great Recession. The American public will react badly to American involvement in Syria and the U.S. government should realize that the economic recovery now holds a greater priority in today’s world. With much public and government opposition to the use of force in Syria, President Barack Obama must look for better options in dealing with the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons. With Russia involved in successful negotiations with Syria over its chemical weapon arsenal, the United States should wait to see if these negotiations will be successful. The use of force should be an action taken by the U.S. only in the most drastic situations; right now is not the right time for the United States military to be involved.
9
THE CHARIOT
Implementation OF T
Creative Commons License
10
December 2013
Kathleen Xue and Maggie Wang Contributing Writers
he date Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare or ACA) becomes effective is January 1, 2014. Though still a month away, the date is closer than it seems to be. This 2,700-page act may seem esoteric on the surface, but its concept is simple. In short, the purpose of this act is to grant all U.S. citizens affordable health care. Although this seems like a valid cause, it may not live up to its desired goal when funneled down to its bare bones. Affordable healthcare for all may not even be remotely feasible at the present day for several reasons, and currently, due to the effects of the legislation, the act is receiving little to almost no support because of both the way our government is constructed and the ramifications it has on various age and socioeconomic groups. First of all, the ACA calls for twenty new or higher sets of taxes specifically for healthcare, thus overall increasing the average amount of taxes citizens will pay. These taxes include the Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will limit the cap of FSA (tax-advantaged account for the benefit of the employee) to $2500. This will greatly impact the families of special needs children who use the FSA to pay for their children’s highly expensive educations. Another tax will raise costs on medical devices to 2.3%, and yet another will increase taxes on health insurers. Once the ACA reaches the citizens, we will face several other issues, among which comes from distribution of cost for different groups of people. The ACA states that it will be lowering the premium cost for seniors to no more than three times that for the younger, but the money has to come from somewhere. Thus, the ACA places the expenses on the adults at the prime of their lives, who do not necessarily require
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
HEALTH CARE Coming quality healthcare because they are not as prone to illness. In fact, calculations show that once the ACA becomes effective, the 25-year-old non-smoking male’s premium would at least double in price. Now that President Barack Obama has won the election for his second term, he can breathe a sigh of relief and have the peace of mind to reinforce the agenda that he believes will direct our country in the right direction—without worrying too much about whether he will get to serve the second term or not. However, even more research indicates that though younger adults will be taxed heavily at the price of the seniors, the elderly may not even receive any of the sub-
at discount, but not be able to discount family members anymore. The families who have already been worrying about the $3,000 - $5,000 per person per year will begin worrying about a premium much higher without a discount. Another factor about the ACA is that Obama is trying to milk the premiums paid by the capable to benefit the 44 million people who go uninsured, as well as those with pre-existing conditions (ie. Type II Diabetes, AIDS). On paper, the ACA makes healthcare accessible to everyone no matter how poor or sick they are. However, simply taxing those who are able to pay for it is not nearly enough. Not only will the tax money not suffice to insure all citizens of America, but it will also put a burden on the Affordable healthcare for all already mistreated may not even be remotely middle class. feasible at the present day for But the problem several reasons, and currently, due does not end there. Because of its atto the effects of the legislation, the tempt to spread act is receiving little to almost no a limited budget support because of both the way over all citizens, it likely would result our government is constructed and in fewer physicians the ramifications it has on various and access to lowage and socioeconomic groups. er quality doctors. This would lower sidies. In fact, many seniors may see their the overall quality of healthcare altogethown premiums increase as well. Many of er–another reason why the ACA cannot the extra taxes paid by the younger go into offer perfect healthcare in and of itself. government subsidies provided for certain Small businesses and Spanish-language medications offered by Medicare. In addi- health insurances planned their opening tion, medical services for seniors will be on October 1, 2013. However, the date has more costly as new taxes are implemented been pushed back. Other efforts such as on drug companies and medical device a 21-hour quasi-filibuster made by Repubmakers--a $47 billion increase overall. lican Senator Ted Cruz and various proFor families, the ACA dictates that in- tests have been made to derail the ACA, dividuals purchasing insurance at discount and further action is to be noted. As of from companies or organizations would now, however, January 1 continues to be not be able to use this discount to insure the date of implementation. family members any longer–essentially, the individual would buy his or her share December 2013
OBAMACARE AND THE “HOPE” POSTER The image on page 10 is an homage to the “Hope” poster designed by Shepard Fairey. The original poster, released in 2008 during then-senator Obama’s first campaign for the office of president, intended to symbolize the sense of hope supporters of Obama felt with regards to his historic candidacy. After his first inauguration, feelings about Obama and his policies for the most part changed on a national scale, and artists as a result began to take liberties with the original hope poster design. For example, the “Obamacare” poster to the left can be interpreted as a sign that the Affordable Care Act will be inextricably linked to the president’s legacy years after he leaves office. The “Hope” poster has also served as the inspirational source for posters promoting other political ventures. For example, Fairey himself released a “Hope” poster with Guy Fawkes substituted for Obama as an effort intended to support the Occupy Wall Street movement. The original poster is now a part of the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C.
11
THE CHARIOT
FROM
BOTH SIDES PRO
“The stronger our gun control laws are, the fewer acts of violence including mass violence that will happen in our society.”
Joe Lieberman, U.S. Senator (D-Conn.)
“Words alone cannot heal our nation. Only action can do that. Gun violence is a national epidemic.”
Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City
CON
“I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire... she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands.”
Louie Gohmert, U.S. Representative (R-Tex.), in reference to Sandy Hook
“We did have a ban on assault weapons. When we put the ban in place, these incidents did not really decline in a measurable way.”
George Will, Washington Post Columnist
12
Right to Bear Gun control necessary in light of gun accidents
C
Joseph Nicolls Contributing Writer
hange is necessary. The fact that something has always been should never be justification for why it continues to exist, and just because something is constitutional does not mean it is wise or moral. Restrictions need to be placed on guns because they are an instrument solely meant to harm, even if that harm is dealt with in self-defense. Restrictions need to be placed on guns because, according to a recent study by the New York Times, over 259 children died as a result of gun accidents since 1999 in just five states alone, with one child only nine months old. Restrictions need to be placed on guns because of children such as Alex Whitfield, Cassie Culuper, and Lucas Heagren, who all had dreams that they will never realize due to accidental gun deaths. Even without armed psychopaths shooting up elementary schools and navy yards, even without all the gang and crime related deaths, even without the monumental privacy forfeitures we’ve all had to suffer as direct consequences of gun-related events, these children should be reason enough to aspire to great change in our society’s gun control laws. December 2013
It may be a constitutional right. It may be one of the oldest foundations of American society. It may be one of our oldest traditions. However, our constitution was created with a rule counting black people as only three fifths of a person; laws against labor organization were part of our foundation; and racial and economic prejudice are among our oldest traditions. Old does not denote better, and right now, the old ways not working. Some argue that more good people need guns to stop the bad people with guns. But there are already 89 guns out there for every 100 people, according to the Small Arms Survey. We are the most well-armed nation in the world, and we act surprised when gun violence becomes epidemic. The answer is not more guns, but fewer. The perfect way forward is not clear. Several popular theories for gun control might not work. However, inertia is the worst possible option of them all. Massive tragedy after massive tragedy will continue, and the rate of shootings will only continue to increase until something is done. We are in dire straits and we should demand change— demand that something at least be tried. We all know, if nothing else, that change is necessary. Creative Commons License
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
Arms: U.S. Gun Control Arms freedoms ensure security for all
T
David Schwartzman Contributing Writer
here are five movie theaters in Aurora, Colorado. James Holmes went to one of them. It was not the one closest to his apartment or the one with the largest audience. Holmes went to the only one that banned permit holders from carrying concealed weapons, the only one that was a “gun-free zone”. It certainly wasn’t a gun-free zone for James Holmes or his seventy victims. Many believe that the recent uptick in mass shootings is caused by insufficient gun control measures and that restricting gun rights would lessen violent crime rates. However, while law-abiding citizens would obey the law, they are not the ones committing the crimes. Someone who has no qualms killing innocent people will certainly have no qualms about buying a gun illegally or concealing it illegally. Gun control laws would only remove deterrents to gun crime by denying citizens the right to protect themselves while keeping guns in the hands of criminals. As tragic cases like the Aurora theater shooting and Sandy Hook illustrate, murderers are drawn to “gun-free zones”. Meanwhile, statistics show the positive effect of concealed carry permits for combatting crime. While there were only 23 total instances of permit holders committing gun murder between 1990 and 2008, there were 10 instances of permit holders stopping a violent crime between December 14, 2008 and January 11, 2009. Gun crimes would decrease if concealed carry permits were honored everywhere—including schools. Honoring the
concealed carry permits of teachers of staff would deter criminals from attacking schools. Recent mass shootings have occurred in gun-free zones because criminals try to avoid being around law-abiding citizens with guns while committing their crimes. Giving staff the right to carry firearms would also scare away potential criminals even if no teachers had guns because of the possibility of a gun presence. Many are concerned about the presence of guns in schools because of the potential for some staff then committing violent crimes, but honoring concealed carry permits everywhere would in no way increase the likelihood of such events. Staff could just as well bring guns to school illegally if they planned to commit a crime, and the presence of others with guns would deter them from committing their crimes. Gun control advocates often point to Western Europe’s gun bans and the low gun crime rates in those countries as signs that gun control reduces crime. However, there is no positive correlation between gun control and lower crime rates. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, with 29% of households containing firearms. Yet it has a rate of only
0.52 gun deaths per 100,000 people, far lower than those of the United Kingdom, France, and other countries with tighter gun control laws that gun control advocates point to when advocating tighter gun laws. Meanwhile, North Korea has incredibly strict gun laws, yet its homicide rate is more than triple that of the United States. Gun control advocates may pick and choose statistics as they please, but it is inaccurate to pin higher violent crime rates on the availability of guns in the United States as compared to their availability in Europe. Our sheltered Palo Alto existence distorts our perception of guns. With Palo Alto’s almost non-existent violent crime rate, we simply cannot comprehend why anyone would possibly want a gun. We cannot possibly understand the security that gun ownership provides. Most areas of the United States are not nearly as fortunate. There are many places where crime is an everyday occurrence and where the only method for families to protect themselves, their property, and their loved ones is with their legally-owned firearms. Guns are an effective counter to crime; increasing control on them would only serve to increase crime rates. Creative Commons License
December 2013
13
THE CHARIOT
Putin 2018: A Czardom?
Creative Creative Commons License
Benjamin Sorenson Contributing Writer In 1999, the Russian Federation was on the verge of closing a tumultuous decade of transition that saw the collapse of an empire, a devastating economic depression and an unprecedented change in governance. It was then that the ailing president Boris Yeltsin appointed Vladimir Putin as Prime Minister, an act which would set the stage for Putin to take the presidency when Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned mere months later. Since then, the fledgling democracy of Russia has regressed into a pseudo-democratic, near autocratic state. At the head of this regression is Putin; over the past thirteen years of his rule, corruption has become an entrenched feature of governance, the media has faced pervasive intimidation and frequent silencing, and both the institutions of democracy and the rights of the Russian people have gradually been eroded. With Putin set to hold the presidency until 2018 as well as the possibility of his re-election for a second consecutive (fourth overall) term, he could very well be in power in Russia for a quarter of a century. Russian democracy will continue to suffer under Putin, as the
14
undemocratic patterns of his rule are likely to continue throughout his reign, however long it may be. Recently, Putin has suggested what many have feared yet expected: he is considering a fourth term as president. When asked by former French Prime Minister Francois Fillon about the prospect of a 2018 re-election, Putin said that he “can’t rule it out”, but avoided offering a firm answer. Putin has already served a total of ten years as president and four as prime minister. All along, he has maintained a firm grasp on power, with his longtime ally Dmitry Medvedev holding the presidency during his stint as prime minister. Analysts have dubbed their partnership a “tandem rule”, suggesting that Putin never truly relinquished power over Russia. Even during his constitutionally mandated hiatus from the presidency, Putin was working to extend his influence. With Putin eligible for re-election in 2012, Medvedev advocated and then signed into law a bill that extended the presidential term from four to six years, effectively setting the stage for another lengthy Putin reign. In fact, upon endorsing Putin for the presidency in 2011, Medvedev acknowledged the existence of an agreement between the two that alDecember 2013
lowed Putin to return in 2012. This agreement suggests not only that Medvedev was somewhat of a placeholder for Putin, but that he was subservient during his time in office, as well. Since taking office, Putin has masterminded the steady consolidation of power within his own hands, and as his power grows, the power of the people is rendered weaker and weaker. Under Putin’s rule, Russia has suffered a painful deterioration of democratic principles. Plurality in the Duma has become an illusion. Putin has molded Russia into a democracy by name only and has assured the dominance of his United Russia party. The rights of expression are also subject to the Kremlin’s will, as demonstrated by the arrest of hundreds of peaceful protestors in the wake of the 2012 presidential election. Several independent election monitors have criticized the electoral process, which they see as fraught with fraud and corruption. Elections are controlled through more obvious means as well, with the federal government clearly favoring Putin with state-controlled media attention and campaign funding. The spurious competition of recent elections is cause for concern, especially considering the apparent discontent of the Russian people.
WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM
The spurious competition of recent elections is cause for concern, especially considering the apparent discontent of the Russian people. Furthermore, government suppression of the media and of citizens continues at reprehensible levels. From the controversial and ongoing detention of the members of Pussy Riot to the now infamous homophobic legislation passed by the Duma and signed into law by Putin, the rights of the Russian citizen are frequently breached by the power-hungry Kremlin. The media is subject to government supremacy as well, as Freedom House reports that “Journalists and media owners that are critical of the Putin regime often come under intense scrutiny and Commons are License subject to specious audits, complicated legal battles, and even beatings and arrests.” The independent non-profit Reporters Without Borders ranks Russia as 142nd out of 179 nations in terms of overall press freedom, and Russia is considered one of the most dangerous countries in the world for reporters. Through media intimidation and civilian oppression, Putin has established a level of political dominance that is unheard of in a functioning democracy. For all of these reasons and more, the notion of Putin ruling through 2024 should be of grave concern to the Russian people. If Putin remains in power--an aim which he has the means and apparent willingness to achieve--the potential cost to Russian democracy will be incalculable, but all signs point to the continued consolidation of power in the Kremlin and the further erosion of democratic ideals and human rights in Russia. It will take a massive civilian movement to undo the damages to democracy caused by Putin’s regime, and with each passing day, the task of unseating Putin grows increasingly difficult.
Snowden and U.S. Relations
Creative Commons License fled the States for Hong Kong, and shortly after, Moscow. Snowden in currently residing the former Soviet t is June of 2013. School is out, Union under protection of asylum the sun is shining, and high from the Russian president Vladischool teenagers are swarmmir Putin. Now the question rises: ing Reddit, 9gag, and other Internet Should Snowden be punished for news hosts. As a matter of fact, the mentioned charges? almost anyone who is anyone is Since his leaks to The Guardian glued to the articles of The Guardin May and June of 2013, Snowden ian, a British daily newspaper. has been called many things, from Why? An American citizen a national patriot, to whistleblower, gave the paper copious amounts all the way down the political barrel of classified information about to public enemy. His leaks have trigAmerican and English surveilgered debates all around the nation lance programs. Namely, the NSA, about the rights to privacy and sePrism, XKeyscore, and Tempora. curity of the American people, verThe person responsible is Edward sus the need for the United States Snowden, a 30 year-old former government to have access to as computer specialist for Booz Allen much information as possible to Hamilton, who had CIA contracts. stop potential terrorist threats, such Shortly after being charged by the as the recent shooting in D.C. United States of theft of governTo stop such events from ocment property, unauthorized comcurring again, the government munication of national defense should have the right to maintain information, and willful commuthese surveillance programs in the nication of classified intelligence to United States. It is much better to an unauthorized person, Snowden have information about everybody December 2013
Stephen Lee Contributing Writer
I
and everything they do than to risk the possibility of another terrorist attack that kills countless citizens. Although some may say that this is a violation of their personal rights and freedoms, it is a necessity of the modern world that such measures must be taken to ensure the nation’s security. Now, this is not to say that the United States government is completely off the hook either; prior to Snowden’s leaks, the general public did not know the degree of which they were being monitored. Without the information from Snowden, the public would still be in the dark about the degree of surveillance it is under. Thanks to his effort though, the public is aware of the extent of government surveillance, and can take the necessary steps to ensure their privacy. Therefore, Snowden should not be punished for his actions, he is merely a man who thought that the public had a right to know what was going on.
15
THE CHARIOT
New Movies Cooper Aspegren Senior Editor
agent (Bradley Cooper) to investigate governmental corruption in New Jersey in the 1970’s. Also starring Jennifer Lawrence, Jeremy Renner and Robert De Niro, the film is one of the most hotly anticipated winter releases. Sure, the film will likely pick up more than its fair share of awards. But “American Hustle” will truly transcend normal awards season fare for being a sheer fun ride.
Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues
The Monuments Men
“Monuments Men,” directed by George Clooney, is even more clearly intended than “Hustle” as Oscar bait. Starring Clooney and Matt Damon, the film focuses on the efforts of the Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives program toward preserving cultural artifacts threatened by the Axis Powers during World War II. The film will probably be standard ensemble drama awards fare, not particularly distinguishable from any of Clooney’s previous directorial efforts like “Good Night and Good Luck” and “The Ides of March.” That said, given the talent of the actors involved, “Monuments Men” looks to be at least somewhat decent.
American Hustle
David O. Russell’s “American Hustle” basically combines the director’s casts from his previous awards film hits “The Fighter” and “Silver Linings Playbook.” It features Christian Bale and Amy Adams as two con artists forced by an FBI
16
Adam McKay’s “Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues” is definitely less awards-centric than “American Hustle” and “Monuments Men,” but it should prove an effective distraction from the stress of finals and college apps. The film focuses on San Diego news anchor Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) and his news team as they join a 24-hour news channel stationed in New York. “Anchorman 2” is probably the highest profile comedy to be released in the latter portion of 2013. Based off the trailers, if you enjoyed the original 2004 film, there is a good chance you will enjoy its sequel.
New Fantasy Katina Yong Contributing Writer
fans have eagerly anticipated the next in the series (as evidenced by over a thousand holds at Palo Alto libraries). A week after its release, Gunn students will be the owners of discounted copies from Costco or Amazon. Even with the shift in style and point of view, this work is sure to fulfill expectations.
Allegiant
At long last, Roth will release this latest and last book in her much-hyped series. It will be necessary that all plot lines tie together -- not that there are many to begin with. With Tris and Four’s startling new revelation that there is a world outside that the Divergents must enter, many outside unknowns will be discovered. Perhaps it will satisfy a legion of fans or spawn oodles of fan-fiction rewrites.
Dangerous Women
Debatably less well-known than his “Song of Ice and Fire” series currently being turned into television are George R.R. Martin’s many anthologies. Always culling from the crème de la crème of Fantasy’s best talents such as Jim Butcher (“Harry Dresden”) and Lev Grossman (“The Magicians”), the anthology will either sink or float, depending on the success of these talents transferring their gifts to a shorter format.
The Rithmatist
Brandon Sanderson’s trademark magical realm appears again in this fresh look at supernatural phenomena, this time based upon chalk drawings that come to life. Perhaps most surprising is the system of countries with the United States paralleled by United Isles and the Joseun Empire (based upon Korea), the domineering force. Though pared-down in length by over two-thirds compared to Sanderson’s previous novels, “The Rithmatist” provides a nonetheless enjoyable experience for readers.
The House of Hades
After Rick Riordan’s “Percy Jackson” attracted readers across all ages in 2006, December 2013
Images taken from Sony Pictures and HarperCollins Publishers