Melania Trump: Out of Africa, Still in Costume

link

On Melania Trump's first solo trip abroad, she wore a white pith helmet on a safari in Kenya. With people claiming that this hat, a symbol of European exploitation of Africans and their land, is the epitome of Mrs. Trump's ignorance, it raises the question of whether what she chooses to wear is truly symbolic of her actions. In response to the controversy, Mrs. Trump said, “I wish people would focus on what I do, not what I wear.” However, I personally believe that Mrs. Trump should have been more careful in choosing her outfit, considering her role as the First Lady. Especially after her fashion controversy in June, when she wore a “I really don't care. Do U?” jacket to visit an immigrant children's shelter, I think she should have been more aware of the symbolism behind her outfits, and been proactive in avoiding to wear possibly controversial outfits. Although it was likely an unintentional mistake, simple research should (and could) have been done before deciding to wear that helmet.

Questions:

1. What do you think of Mrs. Trump's statement that people should focus on her actions, and not her outfits?

2. Are the criticisms of Mrs. Trump's wardrobe choice fair or is the media overreacting? Do you think the current polarization in American politics contributes to the public's apparent zealousness to analyze Mrs. Trump's choices? Or is this sharp criticism justified?

3. Do you believe that she meant to wear the white pith helmet as a political statement or do you think it was an innocent mistake?

Why The Tech Industry Wants Federal Control Over Data Privacy Laws

Article link:https://www.npr.org/2018/10/08/654893289/why-the-tech-industry-wants-federal-control-over-data-privacy-laws

Due to the recent enactment of laws in California and Europe, tech companies are required to protect the privacy of users and will receive huge fines if they choose not to do so.  In May, Europe enacted a law that forces companies to disclose data breaches within 72 hours of finding them. Last month, Facebook had to publicly announce that at least 50 million accounts were affected by a data breach. Due to California enacting a privacy law in June, users are permitted to  sue Facebook for the damages caused by the data breach. Tech companies are fearful that other states will follow California and enact strict privacy laws. They desire for a preemption clause to make sure that federal law trumps all state privacy laws and that the Federal Trade Commission would be the one in charge of enforcing privacy laws. This would allow companies to avoid a multitude of laws in various states. Critics, however, point out that the FTC lacks the authority to enforce new privacy rules. They say that the FTC can only track people for breaching statements they’ve made in their privacy policies.

Questions:

1. Should more states start enacting data privacy laws?
2. Should data privacy laws be enforced by the states or by the federal government?
3. What measures should tech companies take to prevent future data breaches from occurring?

Senate Moves Toward Friday Showdown Vote on Kavanaugh’s Confirmation

Senator Lindsey Graham left the room after viewing the single copy of the F.B.I. investigation into sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Article Link

The Senate, after a highly disputed past three weeks, is set to vote Friday (October 5) morning to determine if Brett Kavanaugh will reach the Supreme Court. While most senators have already confirmed their adherence to their party’s stance, there are still a few who are undecided. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia is the only Democrat left who might vote for Kavanaugh. On the Republican side, though unofficial, Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Jeff Flake of Arizona have seemed to side with Kavanaugh after seeing the report from the FBI investigation on Kavanaugh’s past conduct, which they thought was sufficiently thorough. During this process, Democrats have criticized this investigation for being too short and therefore incomplete, while Republicans have accused Democrats of delaying a Supreme Court nomination.

While Kavanaugh certainly has the credentials and experience, even disregarding his past conduct, his emotional testimony in the most recent hearing (which involved attacks directed toward Democrats) raises questions about whether he has the impartiality and judicial temperament necessary to serve on the Supreme Court. I think this is something that needs to be considered, but definitely shouldn’t be an overriding factor. Another interesting point is that while Republicans’ accusation of the Democrats’ stalling contains validity, it has a bit of irony to it, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had delayed the nomination of Obama’s nominee for Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, for almost a year.

Questions

1. Do you think Kavanaugh is qualified / deserves to be on the Supreme Court? Why or why not?
2. How would you assess both the Republican and Democratic senator’s handling of this issue as a whole?
3. Do you think a longer FBI investigation would have been necessary? Do you think it could have led to any findings that would actually be significant / relevant to the case?

1 Abortion Clinic Remains Open In Missouri, Following New State Requirements

Article Link

Currently, Missouri only has one abortion clinic in the state when it used to have five in 2008. With Missouri's new abortion restriction, abortion clinics must receive approval from a health clinic within a fifteen minute distance in order to accept patients for abortion. With this change, women may need to travel long distances to reach the clinic or search for out-of-state alternatives. In addition to Missouri, other states such as Wyoming and North Dakota only have one abortion clinic. Despite abortions becoming safer over time, some seek to restrict access because of fears of complications in the process. It is especially concerning since the decision of the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade could be overturned should Kavanaugh be confirmed as a justice.

Questions:
1. What would happen if some states started banning abortion?
2. Why might someone support banning or restricting abortion?
3. What values are associated with an abortion?

Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law

Article Link

Recently, Governor Brown approved a new law restoring net neutrality regulations that were in place before the unprecedentedly unpopular repealing of Obama-era reforms by the FCC. The law prohibits internet providers from slowing down internet traffic on competitor services and speeding it up on subsidiary services. Naturally, the Federal government is not pleased with California's direct contradiction of their repeal of net neutrality, and they have filed a lawsuit against the state. I am glad that California's lawmakers are taking bold steps in order to preserve our internet rights, but I am doubtful that their efforts be fruitful. It is simply unrealistic to believe that a state can maintain its own unique internet regulations, especially under the pressure of both the Federal government and telecommunications companies, which are also undoubtedly preparing lawsuits against California.

The issue at play here is of state's rights vs federal authority, a controversy which has dominated the American political arena since the foundation of our country. As we learned during our Federalism unit, the tricky part is to find the balance between the autonomy of states and the supremacy of the Government. In this scenario, it may be argued that California ought to institute internet regulation statutes as it pleases, and simultaneously, also that the government ought to use its power to ensure that Federal laws are heeded across the 50 states.

Questions

Should California be permitted to exercise its right to maintain its own internet regulations, even if they contradict Federal statutes?

How might different internet regulations in different states affect internet users? Internet companies? Internet providers?

Male, Female or ‘X’: The Push for a Third Choice on Official Forms

Nathan Levitt of Brooklyn will let his 20-month-old child, Zo, choose a gender when ready

Article Link

The debate on sexuality and gender has been a long and controversial debate. As younger generations are showing more signs of acceptance, it seems that there is a multitude of states that are starting to pass legislation that is validating those who don't identify with a gender. While this is a great start, there is a lack of organization in state governments that create confusion within the community. In some states, there can be an "X" on the driver's plate but not the birth certificate and in other states, it's vice versa. Some states still haven't adopted any legislation for the third ambiguous gender. For parents who are letting their children decide what gender they want to be, this is going to be a difficult and confusing process. It is very amiable that these states are trying to do something for these people, but the process needs to become more efficient and more consistent.

Questions:
How can states create this change effectively?
What are your takes on this third gender?
Why does generational ideology show such a difference in acceptance in both sexuality and gender?
How will the current administration affect laws such as this nationwide?

California Law Mandates Female Board Directors by 2019

Article Link

On September 30, a new California law was signed, requiring publicly listed companies to have at least one woman on their board of directors by the end of 2019. The number of female directors will increase proportionate to the amount of directors in the company. For example, if a company had 5 directors, they would require two female directors. Those who do not comply can face a fine of at least $100,000 and up to $300,000. Major companies such as Apple, Google, and Facebook, who have their headquarters in California, will have to add one more woman to their board of directors to fulfill the requirements by 2021.

Ultimately, although it is good that there would be equal opportunity for women to get a position in public companies, it is also important to realize that such an implementation would not be easy. Forcing a company to have female board of directors could cause internal issues. Board of Directors are appointed and nominated by boards and must be approved by a majority of executive shareholders. Directors must be able to comply with the shareholders. In my opinion, it does not matter if the board of directors in a company has a majority of male or female, it is more important that companies designate their board of directors by regarding their skill level and experience in the field of work. With a single woman on the board of directors, they can be pawns of other board executives and become a free vote. Instead of having it instituted at such a high level, it should be tried in smaller companies to see the effects.

Discussion Questions

1. How can an implementation of woman in a board of directors harmful or beneficial to a corporate company?
2. Do you agree with Senator Jackson's claim that "gender diversity on corporate boards is associated with increased profitability, performance, governance, innovation, and opportunity?"
3. How could California law makers have implemented this law differently to reduce the effects of companies having to scramble to find suitable candidates?