August 2014

August 2014 VOLUME 11 • ISSUE 1

11 AS WELL AS:Common Core, 4-5 Illegal Immigration, 10#BringBackOurGirls, 13

2014 FIFAWorld Cup

The effect on Brazil and future tournaments

ISrAEl V.

GAZA

THE CHARIOT

August 20142

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Kathleen Xue

SENIOR EDITOR

Gabriel Alon

COPY EDITOR

Maggie Wang

FUNDRAISING DIRECTOR

Katina Yong

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS

Isha GuptaStephen Lee

Xavier LoinazGrace Park

Daniel RutenburgRicky Shin

Shannon YangDave Zhu

The Chariot would like to thank the following sponsors

and patrons:

FOUNDATION/GROUP SPONSORS

Adobe Systems • Daughters of the American Revolution •

Palo Alto Lions Club

PATRONS ($100+)

Lauren Michals and Vinod Bharadwaj • Patricia Bruegger • Steven Guggenheim • Yajun

Liu and Shirley Zeng

The Chariot would also like to thank Advisor Marc Igler for

his support.

ABOUT USThe 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 publi-cation, 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.issuu.com/thechariot if you wish to view any issues from previous years or for more information about us. Any questions, comments, suggestions, or requests to

join can be sent to [email protected].

If you’d like to make a donation or subscribe, please send checks to:Marc Igler

Re: The Gunn Chariot780 Arastradero RoadPalo Alto, CA 94306

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

DEAR READERS,

Over the summer thirty-two nations around the world congregated in Brazil to con-tend over the World Cup. Tensions leading up to and taking place during the event now bring yet another interesting perception to what seems on the surface as a

cooperative sporting competition. Meanwhile, in Gaza, sectarian violence has risen to such an extreme that it has called the

attention of surrounding countries and has induced attempts of facilitated peace talks ending only in indecision. The nature of this issue is so convoluted that there is no black or white; heroes and villains are both obliterated and it is necessary but almost impossible to view the situation from the standpoint of an objective third party.

But we must not forget the problems plaguing our very own country. The recent surge of illegal immigrants and the state of which our citizens now view our president are among the most worrisome, spurring lively debate and more polarized statements and beliefs than ever before.

Taking all of this into consideration, The Chariot has dedicated this issue to addressing as many pressing topics as possible and answering politically delicate questions presented by the general populace. This year especially, The Chariot will focus on current events happening on the national and international levels. We will continue to cover local and cultural topics of interest, but that will not be the spotlight of our publication. Moreover, it is essential for us to provide both accurate information as well as our own stances on certain facets of current events, in the hope that you, the readers, may take from these articles both a newfound knowledge on matters of utmost concern as well as your own belief on such controversial subjects. Our purpose is to open your eyes to the various affairs all around you that may not be observed otherwise, and possibly, even stimulate some of the bright minds within this campus to begin to think not only on the national level, but on the global level as well.

Sincerely,Kathleen Xue

Editor-In-Chief

Front cover artwork is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution.

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

August 2014 3

BOOKS

Colorless Tsukuru Tazaki and His Years of PilgrimageWritten by Haruki Murakami, translated by Philip GabrielPublished Aug 12, 2014 by Alfred A. Knopf

After Murakami’s release of 1Q84 in the English markets, he shot to new levels of literary stardom-now a new Murakami work is available for English readers com-plete with his heavy peppering with Easter eggs from his previous books. When first published in Japan more than a million copies were sold during the first week, a number equal to roughly 1% of the popu-lation. All in all, the story looks to be one about the journey from youth to adult-hood.

Hard ChoicesWritten by Hillary Rodham ClintonPublished June 10, 2014 by Simon & Schuster

Hillary Clinton recounts various foreign policy situations as difficult choices dur-ing her time as Secretary of State, focus-ing on events in the Middle East and the Arab Spring, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Russia as well as the Egyptian Revo-lution of 2011. Special attention is paid to describing the 2012 Benghazi attack in which several Americans as well as the US ambassador were killed. Beyond her pro-fessional career, Clinton also describes her personal life as well as her thoughts during the 2008 elections against Barack Obama. Though a long read (635 pages), Hard Choices proves to be both informative and riveting, giving the reader a better idea of what seemed to be complex issues during a time of turmoil.

MUSIC

UltraviolenceWritten by Lana Del Rey and Dan AuerbachReleased June 13, 2014

Lana Del Rey follows her debut album with a more mellow and somber release illustrating in melodic imagery the vicissi-tudes of abusive relationships, revealing a much deeper and darker side to love. Del Rey thoroughly bewitches the listener with her rich and heart-rending voice coupled with poetic lyrics and backed by simple yet haunting harmony.

XWritten by Ed SheeranReleased June 20, 2014

Ed Sheeran’s sophomore album con-tains as much innocent sweetness as +, but with a few more daring singles pushing the edges of his previously dulcet signature. Sheeran successfully uses his abilities to create catchy yet pertinent tunes.

NEW CULTURE THROUGH TWEETS

Erdogan’s victory will have a profound impact on the future of Turkey’s shaky

democracy

–The Economist@TheEconomist

August 11

$7.25 an hour just isn’t enough. It’s time to #RaisetheWage

– Barack Obama@BarackObama

August 6

WHO Director-General, Dr Margaret Chan: #Ebola in West #Africa is a Public Health Emergency of Intl Concern #alert

–WHO@WHOAugust 7

Russia sending aid convoy to Ukraine despite Western warnings of invasion

pretext

–Reuters Top News@ReutersAugust 11

Why was #ISIS (ISI) so effective in #Mosul? Its networks were already there

–WikiLeaks@WikiLeaks

August 9

“We just want to be together and not be afraid.” (Erbil, Iraq)

–Brandon Stanton@HumansofNY

August 11

Image taken from Rolling Stone

Image taken from Billboard

THE CHARIOT

August 20144

Long-term ben-efits outweigh

short-term risksMaggie Wang

Copy Editor

Launched in 2009 by the Na-tional Governors Association Center (NGA Center) and the

Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), the Common Core State Stan-dards Initiative was created with the vi-sion of bringing America up to the level of other countries, standardizing educa-tion throughout the various states, and preparing students for higher education and the job market. Since its implemen-tation, there have been many positive results from schools nationwide. As the first state to adopt the Common Core standards, Kentucky high school gradua-tion rates rose from 80 percent in 2010 to 86 percent in 2013. Extensive research has been done in the decade leading up to this case study to minimize detrimental effects.

One of the biggest concerns for those who oppose the Common Core Stan-

dards is that it does not allow for teach-ers to cater their teaching habits to the student’s needs. However, the Common Core Standards have been designed to leave room for tailoring to specific state

populations (states must adopt at least 85% of the standards, leaving 15% to tweak), giving schools flexibility in their courses. Schools can add on subjects that are not a part of these standards, and modify areas of study that they feel could be improved upon. In this way, the Com-mon Core Standards is merely a guideline but not a means for restriction. The Com-mon Core does not tell teachers what to teach and merely outlines what the stu-dents should know and is not limited to other knowledge such as creative writing. The Common Core Standards is a set of standards, not a curriculum intended for teachers to follow.

Common Core has been developed with the input of various teachers, re-searchers, and leading education experts

across the country. Although there no doubt is still room for the standards to develop, they were developed with careful research and practice over a dozen years. While the English standards draw on the NAEP frameworks in reading and writ-ing, the mathematics standards are based on studies of high-performing countries.

Countrywide academic standardiza-tion is highly beneficial for those who move from school to school or state to state. Instead of having to constantly re-view topics they have already learned or skipping topics they have not yet covered, these students can now move to differ-ent schools with less disruption of their academic flow.

A single set of standards is also useful to compare the quality of education from state to state and therefore help out the states that are having trouble. Contrary to popular belief, Common Core will not need to lower standards of high achieving states,

As with many new systems, the imple-mentation of the Common Core will take time, and energy, and is sure to be a long and rocky road. However, after students, teachers, administrators, and parents properly adjust to these standards, they will lead to ultimate academic success for all areas in the United States.

DEBATE: BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF COMMON CORE

Creative Commons License

The Common Core Standards have been designed to leave room for tailoring to specific

state populations.

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

August 2014 5

Too early to implement

Kathleen XueEditor-in-Chief

Though Common Core State Standards seem only beneficial on paper, closer scrutiny sug-

gests that there are certain flaws it does not address and that there is even a whole topic of traditional education that is cut off in favor of preparing students solely for the career world.

Certainly the new Common Core ini-tiative has been shown to increase high school graduation rates of previously low-education states such as Kentucky (which has increased its graduation rate

from 80% to 86% within three years), but as it is a set framework to be gradually implemented by all the states of America, originally high-education states would need to lower their standards to fit the new education system as well, which is in essence a reversal in educational progress. This is extremely unfair for the already es-tablished education institutions that have been successfully instructing students to be amply ready for adulthood and career paths with more effective methods than those that Common Core offers. More-over, schools with originally lower stan-dards are seen to be struggling with the new heightened standards and rushing to fit one year’s worth of content into the grade below, further skewing the students’ grasp of the various disciplines. Though the graduation percentage in Kentucky has increased in piloting Common Core, at the same time the proficiency levels dropped by 30-40%. This is an effect of a completely foreign curriculum being tested on live subjects, which, considering the stakes being placed, is an extremely unwise decision.

Though the Common Core State Stan-dards Initiative first began in 2009 before the Obama administration came into of-fice, it worked with the government to expand its influ-ence and with the help of Pres-ident Obama it created the gov-ernment-funded Race to the Top (RTT) grants on July 24, 2009 to incentivize states to adopt the standards in a timely manner. This may seem ad-vantageous, but it actually takes the focus off of education and instead places it on improving test scores in order for states to obtain funding from RTT. Doing so would make preparing students for higher education and careers ineffective because these projected goals require compre-hensive education, and high standardized

test scores may not necessarily be able to gauge students’ readiness.

The most troubling issue with the Common Core State Standards Initiative is the fact that it almost completely oblit-erates creative writing from its curricu-lum. According to the official website, “the standards’ focus on evidence-based writing along with the ability to inform and persuade is a significant shift from current practice”, but it does not add any details about a creative writing section to the program whereas it outlines an ex-tensive nonfiction and persuasive writing structure. This may be helpful for a future of technical employment, but having a complete lack of creative writing not only limits students’ thinking capacities but also decreases their freedom to explore in school, which in turn would produce a magnitude of diligent but unimaginative minds. The Common Core standard that comes closest to describing creative writ-ing is its narrative writing section, which is still focused on career and college read-iness and decreases as the grade levels advance, thus discouraging the innovative thinking that has driven America for the past several centuries.

There are many admirable aspects of the Common Core State Standards Initia-

tive that may possibly bring about academ-ic success in America within the next five to ten years. Howev-er, when dealing with the development of the next generation, even the smallest

miscalculations could cause a widespread failure. Not only is testing this curricu-lum live on current American citizens a huge risk, but the setup of the system is flawed in its focus and there are areas that it does not cover at all. Therefore, it is in the NGA and CCSSO’s best interest to reconsider the details of their new initia-tive to limit its deleterious short-term and long-term effects.

DEBATE: BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF COMMON CORE

When dealing with the next generation, even the smallest miscalculations could cause a

widespread failure.

COMMON CORE TIMELINE

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Nov: Common Core stan-dards first discussed in CC-SSO’s Annual Policy Forum

Dec: Governors and state education chiefs release report

encouraging Common Core

Apr: Common Core Stan-dards development officially

begins

Jun: K-12 college and career readiness final stan-

dards released to public

States and territories in-dividually review and dis-

cuss adopting standards

Dec: 45 states adopt Com-mon Core State Stan-

dards

Jun: 43 states adopt Common Core State Standards

SOURCE: Common Core State Standards

THE CHARIOT

August 20146

Vergara v. Cali-fornia effect on teacher tenure

Shannon YangContributing Writer

On June 10 a Superior Court judge in Los Angeles ruled in Vergara v. California that the

laws governing tenure, seniority, and firing for K-12 public school teachers all across the state are unconstitutional. This lawsuit was filed in 2012 by Students Matter, a nonprofit organization, on behalf of nine public school students. The state is obli-gated to provide access to a good educa-tion; however, these students claim that teacher tenure stands in the way, d i spropor t ion-ately harming underprivileged students, such as minorities or the poor.

Several Gunn students support the judge’s decision to side with the plaintiffs. Sophomore Marc de Lecea believes that because Palo Alto is very isolated, the change will not impact Gunn. “Our dis-trict for sure [would not be impacted], but in other, more segregated and poor com-munities, it will probably help the stu-dents by making teaching a more compet-itive profession, at first raising classroom sizes, but eventually making teaching much more profitable and worth doing,” he said. “It encourages people to go into teaching because it’s good for skilled, new teachers.”

Sophomore Lucy Fan agreed, believ-ing that effective education should be en-titled to students. “Students should have the right to a good education,” she said.

“The quality of teachers affected my edu-cation a lot, despite using the same cur-riculums.”

On the other hand, not everyone thinks the that harm in tenure outweighs the benefits. Teachers’ unions, like the California Teachers Association and the

California Federa-tion of Teachers, have challenged the judge’s decision, making the Vergara v. California ruling tentative. The case is pending an ap-

peal, which may take anywhere from a few months to a several years.

Junior Brian Hill assesses the effect of job security. “You need something to get smart people to teach, otherwise you have constantly changing, inconsistent teachers, which can be damaging to the school,” he said.. “The benefit of tenure is that teachers feel safe in their jobs and will want to continue teaching. It would be hard to attract people to a job without that promise of consistency.”

“I’d be surprised if many teachers would say that they would want to elimi-nate tenure. I think that’s something that is a valuable part of your job,” says Spe-cial Education and Living Skills teacher Joanna Hubenthal. Hubenthal, who is tenured, says that tenure is important but

that the system has flaws. According to Hubenthal, Gunn has let go of tenured teachers in the past, therefore it is not completely impossible in situations where a grossly ineffective teacher is hired and tenured.

Because hiring and firing will be based on quality instead of time if tenure is ul-timately eliminated, districts may need to improve their assessment methods. Ac-cording to de Lecea, who believes there will not be huge shifts, “A teacher can’t pretend to teach well an entire year, and the administration would get complaints if the teacher was really doing something wrong.” Hubenthal has a similar perspec-tive on assessment. “Teachers are con-tinually assessed, so I think they would just continue to do that,” she said. “They might take it a little more seriously.” As-sessments are based off classroom obser-vation, such as environment and lesson planning, rather than test scores.

Some believe similar cases as Vergara v. California could spread to other states and revolutionize the education systems there. “If it really makes a big change in the quality of the job and of the attrac-tiveness of having better teachers, then it will slowly spread, but not quickly,” de Lecea said. For now, however, teacher tenure continues to be a system with areas of needed improvement.

NATIONAL CONCERNS

“It will probably help the stu-dents by making teaching a

more competitive profession.”


WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

August 2014 7

President Obama least popular since

WWIIKathleen XueEditor-in-Chief

On July 30 President Barack Obama was authorized to ap-pear in federal court by the

GOP-led House for making several unlaw-ful executive orders, bypassing Congress to pass legislation such as the Affordable Care Act. It is not only the GOP that is discontented with President Obama’s poli-cies, but there has been a general trend of decline in his favor among the citizens of America.

Now within the last two years of his term in office, President Obama is the least popular American presi-dent since the sec-ond World War, seeing higher dis-approval rates than both George W. Bush and Rich-ard Nixon. There is a plethora of reasons for this drastic decline in favor, but to find the root of this disaster one must observe President Obama’s govern-ing stance over the course of his past six years in the Oval Office. Though it is true that Obama has inherited the nation at a time of economic crisis and brutal parti-san conflict, it was possible to overcome these obstacles—but he failed to prove this promised competence.

The most controversial policy made during Obama’s reign has been his Af-

fordable Care Act, in which he not only wrote an esoteric thousand-page volume impacting the entire nation, but which also did not gain bipartisan sup-p o r t — c r e a t i n g further dissatis-faction over the already conten-tious act. The ACA, though in the long term did bring a little but visible improvement on the American economy, was not effec-tively implemented and proved detrimen-tal to many middle-class citizens’ health care. What was more offensive, however, was the multiple lies President Obama spread in order to gain support for the ACA—stating that previous healthcare plans bailed out on pre-existing condi-tions, and that citizens content with their current plans would be allowed to keep these plans until 2015—when neither of these proclamations were true, thus fur-

ther discounting his integrity.

Next comes the discovery that President Obama’s policies have made him the least business-friendly president in the

history of America. Considering the na-tion’s traditional value of laissez-faire and capitalism, this goes completely against the founding principles that initially dis-tinguished our country. President Obama has made several attempts to control and stimulate the economy through govern-mental efforts, beginning with his Stimu-lus Plan (American Recovery and Rein-vestment Act) in 2009. He has shown a tendency to use government funding to create jobs, to increase wages and to revi-talize the market when this could only be

a short term solution at best, and at worst may instead outsource jobs and decrease the quality of the average employee.

Though President Obama publicly advocated helping the middle class, his business poli-cies have only en-couraged increased unemployment and dependency on

government benefits. His overall failure to level the trading platform and invigo-rate diligence has caused widespread un-rest among the citizens.

Several other concerning aspects of President Obama’s term only continues to bring to light the foundering of his presidency. The same leader who actively promoted transparency of intelligence took President Bush’s PRISM and ex-panded it without our knowing until Ed-ward Snowden leaked the extent of this domestic surveillance program. More-over, resentment over Obama’s flamboy-ant speeches but stark lack of action in situations of international crises has not helped his case. Though these flaws can easily be attributed to President Obama’s idealist disposition, as head of the execu-tive branch of the United States, such rash decisions cannot be tolerated as they affect not only the current nation, but also generations after.

In an era of tenuous international re-lationships and a nation on the brink of collapse, when the leader fails to provide this promised support, he is criticized. In President Obama’s case, though it was un-fortunate that he entered office at a time of a national low, he did not improve the situation of our country, and has disap-pointed the 300 million people he vowed to serve—thus there is good reason that he is now seen as the least popular presi-dent since the second World War.

NATIONAL CONCERNS

President Obama’s policies have made him the least business-

friendly president in the history of America.

Such rash actions cannot be tol-erated as they affect not only the current nation, but also genera-

tions after.

THE CHARIOT

August 20148

Donald SterlingXavier Loinaz

Contributing Writer

Initially, former Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s lifetime ban from the NBA due to allegedly

making racist comments against Afri-can-Americans and Latinos in late April seemed overly harsh. In what was possi-bly one of the most brutal punishments in professional sports history, Sterling was fined $2.5 million, stripped of any sort of control he previously had over the Clippers, and also prohibited from attending any future NBA games. All of this merely stemmed from a few racist comments Sterling had made in (what he had thought to be) a private setting with his close friend V. Stiviano.

But upon further analysis, one actu-ally realizes that the NBA could have been even more severe on Sterling. By being forced to sell the team, Sterling ended up making a massive profit, as he netted near-ly $2 billion, thus completely obliterating the $2.5 million NBA maximum fine. And as for having to give up his ownership and ability to attend games, it is not as harsh

as meets the eye. Whenever bans like this take place in professional sports, it always seems devastating because often that per-son’s life centers around that particular sport. Documentaries like Eight Men Out (which is about the 1919 White Sox fixing the World Series) have portrayed lifetime bans as relentless and extremely unfair to the victims of the ban who lived and breathed their respective sports. However, in Sterling’s case, his life did not necessar-ily revolve as much around basketball as it did around money. Practically swimming in wealth, he was only made richer follow-ing his sale of the team. As past owner of the Clippers for thirty-three years, Sterling did not necessarily form a personal bond with the team that he may have had he been an actual team player or coach. In-stead, he was only responsible for owning this franchise of the NBA, not actually experiencing a career on the team—thus a lifetime ban from the NBA would not truly have as profound an effect as it may seem. On the other hand, Sterling’s cutting remarks did in fact affect a large portion of the predominantly African-American NBA personally.

So how could Sterling’s ban be made even more severe? It is difficult for a league to issue much more than a hefty fine and

a lifetime ban. Although this may be com-pletely illegal, the league should have re-ceived all the money Sterling obtained from selling the Clippers, and in addition should have issued not a $2.5 million fine, but a $100 million fine. This may seem exceedingly extreme, but firstly, the origi-nal disciplining of Sterling, as explained before, probably did not affect Sterling negatively all that much. Also, it is impor-tant that all public racism and discrimina-tion among NBA executives, coaches, and players is terminated once and for all. By banning Sterling in extreme fashion, it would almost certainly eliminate all future discrimination in the NBA out of fear of being caught. That is exactly what the harsh ban in Eight Men Out did—no sort of gambling or fixing of games took place in the following 50-plus years. There is no room for racism in a game where many of the biggest fans are merely children.

In the end, although Sterling’s ban seemed brutal at first, it actually really was not, and should have been more relentless. And by possibly making the punishment for Sterling more severe, it could poten-tially create a future era in which racism and discrimination would not be a part of the NBA.

NATIONAL CONCERNS


WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

August 2014 9

King of the taxisGabriel AlonSenior Editor

It will soon be possible to com-pletely avoid cab drivers. The same app that allows the everyday man

to become a part-time taxi driver, also al-lows him to get rides when and where taxis aren’t available. Uber is the San Francisco firm competing with the likes of Lyft, Sidecar and Hailo to disrupt the taxicab industry. The economic benefits of these companies have already taken effect, as drivers can make from 35 to 50 USD per hour, and DUIs in the City of Philadelphia have plummeted by 11 percent per year.

Uber stands out from its competi-tion because it has raised over 1.5 billion USD from investors, in contrast to Lyft’s 300 million USD. These investors include Google Ventures and Goldman Sachs, who are betting that Uber’s value is going to skyrocket. Google Ventures invested 86 percent of their annual budget, or 260 million USD, into the startup. But skeptics such as NYU Finance Professor Aswath Damodaran, value the company at 6 bil-lion USD instead of the current 17 billion

USD. According to Damodaran’s analysis, the entire global taxicab market adjusted for growth could not possibly justify the company’s current value. But, according to an Uber investor on Business Insider, “You have to take into account shorter pick-up times, larger coverage areas, and ease of payment…all of those factors lead to people using Uber in ways they hadn’t with taxis and black cars”.

The excessive investment in the com-pany could be justified if Uber continues to grow at a rate of 18% per month, from it current level of servicing 800,000 rides each week. The cash is currently being used by Uber to snuff out its competition. Uber has been stealing drivers and riders from competing services using financial incen-tives. Both Uber and Lyft keep a quarter of the revenue from each transaction.

Because of the widespread adoption of GPS devices, taxi drivers no longer have a competitive advantage over other drivers in offering their services. Yet, taxi cab driv-ers in London still have to pass an archaic test known as ‘The Knowledge’ which re-quires an encyclopedic memory of Lon-don’s streets. Now, such effort is vestigial, as Uber drivers do not have endure that nonsense. Also, the livelihoods of the taxi drivers are at stake because part-time driv-

ers could take over the market. Moreover, cab drivers are being affected by regula-tions that do not cover Uber drivers. In Palo Alto, taxi drivers cannot use parking spots to wait for customers, since they are regulated under municipal codes, while ride sharing apps are protected under the California Public Utilities Commision. Thus a leader of a cab driver protest in Palo Alto cited “higher insurance costs, the background check process, random drug and alcohol tests, yearly inspections and other costs associated with operating under the city’s purview” as being unfair in comparison to the laxity on Uber drivers.

Legitimate concerns are being raised about the safety of Uber rides. In Califor-nia, convicted felons were able to sign up as drivers, and the company exempted its drivers from having their own insurance; which wreaked havoc when an Uber driver in San Francisco ran over an entire family between rides. Regulation and reform to increase safety needs to take place to im-prove the Uber. For now, though, taxi cab drivers themselves have started to migrate to the app as a result of the demand, there-by ensuring that customer satisfaction with the driver will take an ever increasing pre-cedence on any driver’s future revenue.

NATIONAL CONCERNS


THE CHARIOT

August 201410

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRSInflux of illegal immigrants due to flawed system

Grace ParkContributing Writer

The average Mexican makes about $4.15 an hour in Mexico. To put that in perspective, Cali-

fornia’s minimum wage is more than two times that amount, at $9.00 per hour. For the 53.5 million Mexicans entrenched in poverty, the chance to earn more money is a motivation powerful enough for them to uproot their entire lives and travel—some-times hundreds of miles—to a different country. For others, it’s the drug-related gang violence that drives them to the US. Caught between the largest producers in the world (countries like Bolivia and Co-lombia) and the largest consumer in the world (the US), Central America has some of the world’s highest murder rates. Weak and corrupt governments offer little re-sistance to organized crime, frequent civil war (Guatemala) creates a flood loosely regulated guns, and high poverty rates en-sure plenty of recruits. The truth is that most people crossing the US border do so

for better wages or to flee violence. But illegal immigration is nothing new.

The new focus is on the surge of more than 52,000 predominantly Central Ameri-can children that have crossed the border in the last nine months.

The question politicians (and we, as a society) face is: why the US, and why now?

There may seem to be many factors acting upon this, but the chief reason is that the US’s delayed and inefficient sys-tem of dealing with trafficked children and Central American migrants facilitated this massive influx of illegal immigrants. In the case of Mexican child migrants, US law allows for them to be efficiently returned to their families back in Mexico. Child mi-grants from Central America, however, must be given a court hearing before they are either deported or allowed to stay in the US. In either case, the backlog ensures that children will wait years for a hearing. But even this isn’t a new law; the Traffick-ing Victims Protection Reauthorization Act was passed in 2008.

In 2014, the number of illegal immi-grants taken into custody over less than a year nearly doubled 2013’s total and was ten times 2009’s.

The Obama administration cites a re-cent spike in gang violence as the reason, which corresponds to a UN High Com-missioner for Refugees study showing that 60% of these children are fleeing from

gang violence spurred by the illegal drug trade. However, the Border Patrol dis-agreed in an internal intelligence memo saying that illegal immigrants are crossing the border in response to the rumor of ‘permisos’. These legal documents, which place the receiver on deportation proceed-ings, are supposedly given to non-Mexican illegal immigrants, at which point they can disappear into the populace while waiting for a court date.

The Senate Judiciary Committee dis-cussed ‘permisos’ in a hearing on June 9. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has refuted the claim that permisos or the Obama administration’s immigration pol-icy are the main reason for the influx of child migrants, going so far as to write a letter to the Spanish media, claiming that these free passes don’t exist.

Secretary Johnson went on to detail the humanitarian risk migrant children face, including death, rape and human traffick-ing, for an uncertain goal.

While the idea of permisos are certain-ly a factor in the increase of immigrants, the fact that these are mostly children in-dicates that gang violence is the primary factor.

There is a simple way to find out. According to the Border Patrol’s memo, migrants were being urged to cross the border before the end of June 2014, which was supposedly when the US government would stop issuing permisos. If the flow of illegal immigrants decreases consider-ably in the next few months, it is likely that permisos were the cause of the influx. For now, however, it is clear that the issue at hand must be solved not by letting civil-ians cross with measures of sending them back, but rather solving the problem at its root and preventing civilians from illegally immigrating in the first place. Either way, the current administration’s policy on il-legal immigration is flawed in many areas and requires a considerable amount of re-vision.


WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

August 2014 11

Bombing Gaza is Israel’s defense

Daniel RutenburgContributing Writer

We all know how it goes. Hamas fires a rocket into Israel. Israel retaliates. Ci-

vilians on both sides die. Within minutes, every major news network is covering the appalling actions of the evil apartheid state called Israel. There is no investigation, no international inquiry. When Gazans die, Israel seems to always be to blame. This double standard is unfair to Israel for sev-eral reasons.

First, some background. Ever since Jews were expelled from the ancient king-dom of Israel 2000 years ago, they have aspired to return to their homeland. The modern state of Israel was founded in 1948 with UN approval on land that the UK willingly gave up to fulfill this goal. At the time, roughly 30% of the population of that area was Jewish. The rest was Mus-lim Arabs.

Israel’s founders wanted to create a na-tion that included both Jews and Arabs. The constitution of the new state made sure that anyone, including non-Jews, who lived in the new Israel would have equal rights and freedoms. Many Arabs accepted this with open arms. However, an even greater number flat-out rejected the state of Israel, starting war after war in an ef-fort to destroy the new nation. Since then, the country has fractured into the state of Israel as we know it, and into the disputed regions of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, both of which have Arab majorities. In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza, leav-ing it up to its residents to govern them-selves. In 2007, those residents democrati-cally elected an organization called Hamas as their leader.

Hamas is not a govern-ment; it is a terrorist or-ganization. Its stated goal is to destroy Israel. Since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, Hamas has fired over 11,000 rockets out of Gaza into Israel, and was responsible for countless bombings, kid-nappings, and murders.

Israel has the right to defend itself against ter-rorism, especially when its only purpose is to kill Is-raeli civilians. If this were taken into the context of America, imagine if Mexico fired multiple rockets into the US daily. These rockets, just like the ones fired from Gaza, would be capable of reaching almost anywhere in America, including Washington DC with only a sixty-second warning time to notify citizens of these attacks. Of course the US would do everything it could to protect its citizens, the first of which would be invad-ing Mexico as they are the perpetrators. Thus, the same idea can be applied to Is-rael.

Many people point to the high death toll in Gaza as a sign of Israel abusing its power and unnecessarily killing civilians in its effort to put a stop to Hamas’ ter-rorism. This is simply untrue. The Israeli army goes way beyond any other army when it comes to protecting enemy civil-ians. Before every bombing, Israel showers the area with leaflets, warning the people of the area way ahead of time to evacuate. The government sends the civilians text messages, and uses loudspeakers to get it across to the people that their area is going to be bombed and that they need to leave. And yet, civilians die. Why is that?

Civilians die because Hamas uses its own people as human shields. Hamas is notorious for placing its rocket launch-ing sites in places where the highest num-

ber of civilians would be killed if Israel bombed them. When the inevitable hap-pens, it uses images of the dead children that the Hamas itself indirectly caused in order to drum up sympathy from the inter-national community. Often, Hamas rocket launch sites are found in everything from hospitals to schools to children’s bed-rooms. Thus, though it is a tragedy when Palestinians die, but Israel is not at fault.

Every government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. By targeting known terrorists and rocket launching sites, the Is-raeli government is fulfilling that commit-ment. By placing those sites in the homes of their citizens and in hospitals, Hamas is doing the exact opposite. This total dis-regard for human life accurately illustrates whom Israel is dealing with.

When discussing the Arab-Israeli con-flict, people often ask, “why can’t they just get along?”, or, “all I want is peace in the Middle East”. Peace is a two-way street, and the truth is that Israel does not have a partner for peace. Hamas has made count-less peace treaties with Israel, but has bro-ken the majority of them. The recent es-calation of violence is a perfect example. As the people of Gaza keep electing gov-ernments like Hamas, peace in the Middle East is highly unlikely in the near future.


INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

THE CHARIOT

August 201412

2014 World Cup effect on

BrazilGabriel AlonSenior Editor

Germany won its fourth FIFA World Cup trophy in Brazil this summer in a tournament

that ended brutally for some of the best historical performers. Host country Brazil, which has five World Cup trophies, was scored on by Germany 4 times in a span of 6 minutes, and ultimately lost 7-1 in the semi-final match. The last time that Bra-zil lost by that margin was in 1920, not to mention that it had not lost a match on its home turf in the last forty years. The match was Germany’s fourth semifinal appearance in a row, while Brazil had not reached the semifinal stage since it won the tournament in 2002. Brazil had prayed that the $11.3 billion spent on infrastruc-ture to host the tourna-ment would end in a vic-tory. However, Brazilian rioters who protested against the govern-ment’s spending in the World Cup would have been right all along even if Brazil had won the World Cup. Four of the arenas were built in cities without club teams to make them profitable in the future, and half of the proposed public spending projects that were intended to be investments in Brazil’s future were not completed. It would cer-tainly have been more graceful if Brazil’s defensive line had not given up around the twentieth minute of the match after letting in their second goal to Germany and be-ing scored on three times more in quick succession.

Much of the discontent over Brazil’s

flamboyant spending stems from the dis-proportion of allotment as compared to that of other major departments and sects essential to societal functions. For example, while the overall cost of hosting the World Cup was $11.3 billion, it was a sizeable portion as compared with Brazil’s annual expenditures on public education, which was $19.3 billion. Education, which will yield much more benefits in the long run than one sports event held every four years, should be taken much more serious-ly than the World Cup, and seeing the gov-ernment overspends on such occasions has angered the citizens especially when taking into account the wide rift between rich and poor that is currently plaguing the Brazilian economy.

Though the total event made FIFA $4 billion in revenue, in a survey of Brazil-ian business owners, only 47 percent of them believed that the overall profit of the World Cup would benefit the Brazil-ian economy, and only one third of the 47 percent believed the profit would benefit them directly. The main point for many of the citizens isn’t about the net gain out

of the World Cup, but the ridiculous amount of emphasis put on such an event when there are many other pressing issues

Brazil is highest spender on the FIFA World Cup in his-tory, and this trend will most likely con-tinue; the host of the 2018 World Cup would have a high probability of out-spending Brazil, and the following World Cup would spend even more. It may be inflation that is causing this increase, or it may be the pride of each nation to host the most elaborate event yet that causes each World Cup to be costlier than the previous. Either way, as seen in Brazil, fu-ture World Cups may also cause conten-tion over its detrimental economic effects and disproportionate emphasis.

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRST O T A L W O R L D

CUPEXPENSES

COMPLEMENTARY WORK FOR CONFEDERATIONS CUP

$88 million

STADIUM CONSTRUCTION$3.4 billion

World Cup: 11.3 billion USD v.

Education: 19.3 billion USD

URBAN MOBILITY PROJECTS$3.4 billion

AIRPORT UPGRADES$2.6 billion

PUBLIC SECURITY AND MILITARY DEFENSE FORCES

$797 million

PORT INFRASTRUCTURE$249 million

TELECOMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS AND SERVICES

$171 million

TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE$76 million

SOURCE: Statista

WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

August 2014 13

#BringBack-OurGirls

Isha GuptaContributing Writer

Celebrities and politicians all over the world, from Justin Timber-lake to Michelle Obama, have

shared #BringBackOurGirls on their Facebook and Twitter accounts. On May 7, 2014, #BringBackOurGirls passed one million tweets on Twitter. The frenzy is over the two hundred Nigerian school-girls kidnapped by terrorist organization Boko Haram on April 14th. This incident has highlighted the growing incompe-tence of the Nigerian government, and served as yet another example of the lu-nacy of radical Islamists.

In English, Boko Haram translates roughly into “Western education is a sin”. The formal Arabic name for the group is Jama’atu Alis Sunna Lidda’awati Wal-Jihad or “People committed to the propagation of the Prophet’s teachings and jihad”. Based on its nickname, it is apparent that Boko Haram’s true purpose is to spread an extreme interpretation of Islam through attacking western institutions. The State Department classified it as a terrorist group in 2013, simply stating: “Boko Haram is a Nigeria-based militant group…in the Is-lamic Maghreb that is responsible for thousands of deaths in north-east and central Nigeria over the last several years including targeted killings of civilians”. Boko Haram has ties to several other terrorist groups, including Kenya-based al-Shabbab and Al Qaeda, and aims to create its own Islamic state. Ni-geria, located in Western Africa, is half Muslim and half Christian.

Parents and girls from a school in Chibok, located in the Nigerian north-eastern state of Borno, reported the abduction of at least 200 girls on the April 15th, 2014. Escapees also recount the same story. The first government response came from local officials, who put the missing count as about one hun-dred girls. The number of missing girls, according to government figures, has in-explicably fluctuated over time, which in turn has deepened resentment against the government.

Nigeria’s state of turmoil has been outrageous before the rise of Boko Haram. According to the Human Rights Watch, the Nigerian military has a record of human rights violations; including child abuse during wartime, and failing to conduct justice through courts of law. The Kibaku Area Development Associa-tion in Nigeria, reported that there was advanced notice of the kidnapping. De-spite the warning, the military took no action to stop the terrorists. A supposed obstacle for the Nigerian military is its lack of weapons. Nigerian soldiers claim they are unequipped despite having a se-curity budget of more than $6 billion.

The first tweet came on April 23, 2014, when lawyer and former Federal Minister of Justice for Nigeria, Ibrahim Abdul-lahi, echoed the sentiments of concerned Nigerian citizens and posted a tweet us-ing #BringBackOurGirls. A week later, protests erupt in Abuja with hundreds marching on the street to demand a more effective solution to the pending crisis. While Nigeria has reluctantly accepted military support and aid from the United States, still nobody is convinced that the Nigerian military has tried hard enough to locate or fight the girls’ captors.

Boko Haram has made several on-line statements regarding the kidnapping taunting the west. On May 5, Boko Ha-ram leader Abubakar Shekau uploaded a video threatening to “sell” the abducted girls as “slaves”. In more recent weeks, Boko Haram has considering the release of the girls in exchange for fighters held by the government. However, President Jonathan refused the offer. One week af-ter Abubakar Shekau’s video was released, new footage was uploaded of 130 of the missing girls at an undisclosed location wearing traditional Muslim hijabs.



THE CHARIOT

August 201414

Space explo-ration shift to

privatized com-panies

Maggie WangCopy Editor

As funding for NASA has de-clined, private corporations have tried to fill up the gap

created by the lack of federal funding for space exploration. These private compa-nies, including SpaceX, Sierra Nevada Cor-poration, and Boeing, plan to send people to Mars, commercialize space flight, carry cargo and people to the International Space Station (ISS), and develop reusable rockets—ultimately shifting space explo-ration from a government-funded institu-

tion to privately owned companies.These companies take such risks be-

cause their leaders believe in the signifi-cance of space exploration for knowledge, and the future of humanity. Inevitably, we will have to rely on space for resources to survive as a species. Rare but essential ma-terials seldom found on Earth but boun-tiful in outer space will be mined for the benefit of humanity. Investment in space research has proven extremely cost-effec-tive in the past in that it not only brought about a plethora of resource discoveries, but also increased awareness on medicine, health, information technology, communi-cations, the environment, transportation and public safety.

However, many Americans do not feel the need for space exploration. Only 50% of Americans believe that space explora-tion is important, the other 50% feeling it unnecessary to continue funding space research. Since Congress determines the distribution of funds for all federal public works, the public must be made aware of

the significance space exploration has in our lives in the past, present, and future. Without the support of the public, NASA is unable to progress as quickly and as smoothly as it could.

However, the dwindling government-allocated funds for NASA may not be a bad thing. Due to a lack of federal support for space exploration, there is a shift from NASA to privatized companies in space exploration. On August 6 SpaceX launched AsiaSat 8, a telecommunications satellite, to a geosyn-chronous transfer orbit. This was done on a private basis, as many companies have real-ized that in order to lead space exploration it is no longer enough to rely on federal fund-ing. At first, NASA was the “missionary”. Now, the initial idea is being spearheaded by capitalist ventures and improving technology at an unprecedented speed. Separating space initiatives from the government may not be detrimental, but may actually be advanta-geous in the long run.



WWW.GUNNCHARIOT.COM

August 2014 15

Chinese compa-nies in the US

marketKatina Yong

Fundraising Director

Alibaba, one of the largest e-commerce companies in the world, services small suppliers

in China looking to ship to foreign mar-kets, money transfers through Alipay, and consumer-consumer markets through Taobao. The value of the transactions going through Alibaba is worth over 1.1 trillion yuan (170 billion USD). What is interesting is that Alibaba’s transaction value exceeds its next two global com-petitors, Amazon and Ebay, combined. Alibaba is currently seeking to IPO in the United States after failing to reach a deal with Hong Kong regulators over creating a share structure that would enable the CEO, Jack Ma, and his cohorts to main-tain control of the company.

Alibaba’s IPO is set to become one of the largest in US markets with estimates of the company’s value hovering between 130-150 billion USD. For the company to list on US markets it must skirt around regulations prohibiting foreign ownership of Chinese assets. To do so, it plans on setting up a variable interest entity. Profits from Alibaba will be transferred to a Cay-man Islands holding titled Alibaba Group Holding Limited. Investors will merely be purchasing a stake in the holding compa-ny rather than Alibaba China.

Like the controversial structure sug-gests, there are numerous risks involved in investing in an Alibaba IPO. Although Chinese companies have long used the V.I.E. structure to circumvent restric-tions, Chinese courts have previously ruled against the structure. Such a large

initial public offering will likely provoke Chinese regulators to take action against Alibaba. Other companies have used Cay-man Islands Holdings before and have dodged attempts by investors to take over company through majority stakes. As the executive of the company, Ma will retain

most of the control and could shift the company around if displeased by share-holder action. In addition, Chinese courts have previously ruled against Western shareholders, making it difficult for Americans to hold Alibaba’s leadership accountable for earnings and losses.

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRSCHINA VS

USA

China7.7%

GDP growth 2013

USA1.9%

Government budget 2013

China193 bn

USD

USA-440 bn

USD

Market capitalization (% of GDP) 2011

China46.3%

USA104.3%

GDP per capita 2012

USA49,800

USD

China9 , 1 0 0

USD

SOURCES: World Bank, The Guardian

THE CHARIOT

August 201416

No longer net neutrality

Gabriel AlonSenior Editor

“Usain Bolt or Usain bolted to an anchor” is HBO Last Week To-night host John Oliver’s take on

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s new rules on net neutrality. Inter-net service providers such as Comcast and Time Warner are now allowed to treat ev-ery demand for Internet access unequally. If one watches a video on an extremely popular Internet video website such as Netflix, rather than on one’s home-made videos web-site, Netflix’s speeds will be far slower if it doesn’t pay each service provider extra to fix the conges-tion. Innovation is also being threatened, since startup companies may not be able to afford the new costs for large amounts of Internet traffic. Large corporations like Google, Netflix, Facebook and Amazon have all signed a letter to the FCC support-ing net neutrality, though they have since

backed down from contributing to the le-gal battle.

John Oliver’s thirteen-minute tirade on his show and on You-tube ridicules the FCC, and pleads to viewers to complain on the FCC’s website. For the first time in the FCC’s his-tory, its servers crashed from comment over-load. Over 600,000 comments were made on net neutrality, but this spirit of reform did not amount to anything substantial. The comments section was intended for suggestions for how the FCC could improve within its le-

gal bounds. This was fulfilled by the Internet ser-vice providers, who each sub-mitted several hundred pages of legal arguments.

Oliver failed to point out to his viewers that it was not the FCC’s choice to end net neutrality, but rather a Federal Court that ruled against them regulating Internet providers in the same manner as telephone providers. Congress would have to amend the law, which is unlikely because of lob-bying and the House’s hostility to Presi-

dent Barack Obama’s campaign pledges. Comcast spent over $18 million last year to lobby Congress; second only to military

contractor Northrop Grumman. President Barack Obama recently remarked how much time he had spent as a guest at the house of Comcast’s CEO: “The only thing I haven’t done in this house is

have seder dinner”. Broader Internet concerns are Com-

cast’s questionable tactics during negotia-tions with Netflix, and its proposed merg-er with competitor Time Warner Cable has yet to be approved. On Comcast gouging Netflix during payment negotiations while net neutrality is still in place for them until 2018, Consumerist made a notable analo-gy: “Imagine a restaurant has an incredibly popular dish that everyone wants to order. The kitchen has no problem meeting that demand, but orders aren’t getting to diners’ tables in time. If that slowdown is because the waiters decide customers shouldn’t get that particular menu item, or that there are other menu items that should be delivered in a more timely manner — that’s a net neutrality issue. But if that awesome food is slow to the table because there simply aren’t enough waiters…[it’s not]”.

MARKETPLACE


Innovation is also being threatened, since startup companies may not be able to afford the new costs for large

amounts of Internet traffic.

For the first time in FCC’s history, its servers crashed from comment

overload.

August 2014

Documents

Transcript of August 2014