Americans don’t like this election. This year has been negative and distracting, and honestly, we deserve better.  Whether you take umbrage with Donald Trump’s hateful comments, Hillary Clinton’s email server, or you’re just frustrated with the direction your party has taken, you’re not alone. Many voters are disillusioned with the candidates who emerged from the primaries, and the general election is expected to be an even nastier fight.

But there’s another fight that deserves our attention, one with far less negativity baked into the candidates. The undercard fight is a cleaner, better fight. If you look to the vice presidential picks, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, you get a glimpse of what that reset might look like. Pence and Kaine disagree on almost everything—gun rights, civil liberties, religious freedom, women’s health–yet they’re similar in that they avoid negative campaigning, and are seen as caring family men.

@KevinMKruse Both grew up Catholic, but took different paths: Kaine adhered to Jesuit training; Pence became an “evangelical Catholic” /2

— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) July 28, 2016

The vice presidential candidates make waves for policy decisions, rather than personal drama. They’re better representations of party values than the frontrunners are. They want to focus on the issues central to their party and central to their beliefs. Of course, you still might despise their decisions — but hating ideas is whole lot better than hating a person.

Imagine turning on the TV, and instead of hearing pundits analyzing the latest disparaging remarks from one candidate to the other, they debate whether a certain is good for the economy, or whether one is discriminatory. The closest chance we’ll have for that kind of debate will be when the VP candidates have their chance to spar.

People are already remarking on the similarities and differences between the two men, and while some people will still make jokes, the tone of their comparison is much more serious:

Tim Kaine always looks like he’s seconds from laughing and Mike Pence always looks like he’s seconds from screaming

— Erin Gloria Ryan (@morninggloria) July 28, 2016

Both @mike_pence and @timkaine were student body presidents of their high schools pic.twitter.com/7wMsZqN8te

— Dave Jorgenson (@davejorgenson) July 28, 2016

Both VP nominees have strong records in promoting trade. Tim Kaine –> https://t.co/LiyyTNpMH7 Mike Pence –> https://t.co/Ri60F08B97

— U.S. Chamber (@USChamber) July 28, 2016

I wish that we had a chance to start over with candidates who are seen for their policy rather than their baggage. Perhaps then we could get a chance to reset and focus more on the differences between our solutions rather than the differences between our character.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pence vs. Kaine: The Election America Deserves appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like there’s always a new speech from one of the presidential candidates on TV, trending on YouTube, or live streaming on Facebook. Sure, Trump’s speeches are bombastic, spittle-flecked, and nonsensical, making them much more fun to watch–but Clinton’s speeches contain their own bits of fun. After watching hours of footage on Clinton campaigning over the last few months,  I’ve noticed that the same thoughts come to me with every speech I watch. So here are the 10 thoughts I have when I watch a Hillary Clinton speech.

1.Wow, I’m Totally Hypnotized By Her Metronomic Nodding

The sun sets, the tide comes in, Hillary nods. It’s a force of nature.

Whether she’s grooving on the crowd’s positive vibes, or listening to an interviewer, moderator, or ‘everyday American,’ Secretary Clinton’s head bobs along with mechanical timing. Could she really be paying such close attention to the other person talking?  Either Hill is a very, very patient person, or the nodding is her way of rewinding the large spring in her spine that provides her with energy. Alternate Theory: She’s always got “Smooth” by Santana stuck in her head, and is following the beat at all times.

”My muñequita, my Spanish Harlem Mona Lisa”

2. Is It Weird If I Say “Girl Power?”

Pictured: Hillary Clinton and Meryl Streep, BFFs.

I’m a dude, which means I don’t fully appreciate how cool Hillary’s candidacy is–this is really the first time everyone in the country is listening to what a woman has to say as a presidential candidate. So when H-Dawg refuses to back down from supporting women, it reveals a little glimpse of a female-positive future. We’ve got female Ghostbusters now, and the world didn’t end, so can’t we let a woman lead this country?

3. Oh Boy, Here Comes The Pun

This is exactly how I laugh when I remember something funny I saw online earlier, and can’t explain it to others.

You know the lines I’m talking about. The jokes written into her speeches that are just funny enough to include, but provide a little dose of cringe as well. Doing her best 1992-era Ellen impression, Hillary riffs:

Trump U. That doesn’t sound appropriate, does it? I am going to use that more. Because if he gets anywhere near the White House, you know what he is going to do? He is going to Trump U.

Oh, I get it! It’s like “F. U.” but with Trump’s name? Brilliant. How about saying that if “playing the woman card is fighting for equal wages, women’s health, and paid family leave, then deal me in!” I’m clapping for the cause, but I’m sort of faking the laugh.

4. Don’t Hurt Yourself!

“Rough, rough, rough”–Clinton describes the effect her busy speaking schedule has on her voice.

I’ve got mad love for Secretary Clinton, but I’ve got to be honest; sometimes she shouts a bit too much. I hope that’s not sexist to say, considering I think Bernie Sanders always shouts too much. Being on the campaign trail has got to be tough for many reasons, but in the day and age of the microphone it shouldn’t be tough on your vocal cords. Hillary’s voice is already sore and hoarse from all the talking she has to do, so please, leave the yelling to Trump, it doesn’t pantsuit you, Hill. Plus, haven’t promising Democratic candidates been burned by yelling in the past?

5. Her Hand Motions Are So Precise

If I had photoshop abilities, I’d add some googly eyes and feathers to Hillary’s hand to make an emu. I don’t. So I didn’t.

Every speaker has their own set of hand motions. You’ve got Trump’s little fists doing a lot of sliding and pointing, Bernie pawing and petting the air with both hands in different directions, and Obama’s measured gestures. Hillary’s got her own set–the most notable one being the pinch-and-poke. Her hand forms the beak of an emu, and it snaps in the air with each syllable.

6. I Start Imagining A Trump Presidency

“A wall? And WHO’S gonna pay for it?”

Trump can’t be president. I mean, there’s just no way something that cataclysmic could actually happen. A guy with no political experience, policy savvy, or common sense certainly can’t con the country into giving him the White House? Then again, today on my walk to work I ran into no fewer than a dozen Pokémon trainers, so maybe the end-times are upon us. Either way, you just have to laugh, if only to keep from crying.

7. I Do A Wardrobe Moral Double Take 

She gets mega-points for calling out sexism in reporting. I lose mega-points for creating sexism in reporting.

This might also be dangerous territory. As with any speech, at a certain point I get a little lost and focus on the visuals, forming my opinion of what Hillary is wearing. Do I do that for male politicians? Short Answer: No. (Long Answer: Only if they’re wearing a tan suit.) Sometimes I think what she’s wearing looks great, or I notice that I like the current hairstyle better than the one she had a few months ago. But then I start to worry, “is it alright for me to have an opinion on this?” I’m undoing all the great feminist work that Susan B. Anthony and Alanis Morissette fought for! So I stay positive, and try to focus my attention on the ideas being shared, rather than the fabric being worn.

8. Start Vibing Off Of The Nuanced Discussion Of The Issues

That bulb in the background is bursting the same way my head does when I hear “this problem has systemic causes” this election cycle instead of “We’re losing. We’re gonna win.”

I’ve got these large, honkin’ headphones with an eight-foot long cord, and they block out the outside world entirely. This might be a guilty pleasure, but sometimes when I’m watching a speech live on my computer, I slide on those headphones, close my eyes, and bask in the nuanced language and detailed discussion. Hours in front of the TV have filled my ears with dozens of soundbites played over and over, and simplified solutions (a twelve-billion dollar wall, anyone?) Because of this barrage, it’s nice to hone in on a reasonable person speaking reasonably about reasonable ideas. Ahhh, knowledge truly is bliss.

9. Oh My God That Face

My face, the minute I’m accused of absolutely anything, while deciding how honest I’m gonna be when I respond.

You can’t spell serious without “Clinton.” Or maybe you can–I’m not gonna try. The point is, for a ‘boring candidate,’ she’s got a whole catalog of hilarious facial expressions. Watching her speeches easily inspires a drinking game–one sip for every emu-peck, clapping-laugh, funny face, or Donald Trump diss. (Actually, please drink responsibly…don’t play games designed to make you binge drink)

10. Hey, She’s Not So Bad At This

Is there a way to make my computer background a gif? There must be. If so, I’d like to use this one please.

Hillary Clinton will tell you that she’s not a natural campaigner, and not a gifted orator. While she does seem to be better suited for a conference or situation room than a sold-out arena, every once in a while her speeches contain moments of excellence. Even the most logical supporter might get a little carried away at points during her nomination announcement speech, where the energy of the room is through the roof. It’s enough to make you shout “Yaass!” and then feel self-conscious for saying yaass out loud. Don’t worry, you won’t have to be self-conscious on inauguration day.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 10 Thoughts I Have While Watching a Hillary Clinton Speech appeared first on Law Street.

After FBI director James Comey announced that the FBI would not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton for her private email use, the former Secretary of State took the stage in Charlotte, North Carolina with President Obama. Obama announced his endorsement of Secretary Clinton shortly before she secured the Democratic nomination. Tuesday’s appearance was the first time the two Democrats campaigned together, and President Obama has already managed to breathe some much  needed life back into Clinton’s campaign.

Hillary sells herself as a savvy politician with practical solutions for the country–which can often translate onstage as being a little too analytical. In other words, Hillary majorly lacks the fun factor. That’s where our beatboxing, b-balling, belting, boogie-busting Barack-in-Chief comes in.

Obama’s infectious energy and smoothness help round out Hillary’s campaign. It’s kinda like when your mom tricks you into eating your vegetables by disguising them as fun shapes–or when “Blackfish” got a little boring so they threw in some cool animations to explain just how depressed orcas are.

President Obama was able to provide the yin to Clinton’s yang. Clinton’s speech was full of tongue-in-cheek remarks about how the two politicians were fierce primary rivals eight years ago, including strange anecdotes about their diplomatic travels during Obama’s first term.

When Obama took the stage, the energy in the room built to a fever pitch. Obama chanted “Hill-a-ry! Hill-a-ry!” with the crowd. Like a deft stand up comedian, Obama cracked some jokes about North Carolina food, hospitality, and had a back-and-fourth with the audience comparing basketball teams.

Much like DJ Khaled at the beginning of a Beyoncé concert, Obama did some call-and-response chants to feed the energy of the crowd. “Hillary got me fired up,” he kept repeating. Then he laid out his case for Hillary. Even though almost every word that he said was about Secretary Clinton, from the moment he stepped into the convention center, it was the Obama show.

Watch President Obama and Secretary Clinton’s remarks below:

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama the Hype Man: Bringing the “Fun Factor” to Clinton’s Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

Tim Kaine on Meet The Press

What does he do? Democratic Senator from Virginia.

What has he done? Mayor of Richmond, Lieutenant Governor of Virginia.

The argument for him: It’s difficult to think of an argument against Tim Kaine. Perhaps he’s not a hot young thing, but he’s got the perfect pedigree for the job, and his cautious style and strong resume help him fit the ideal Hillary mold–not a firebrand, but a policy wonk willing to show a little heart. He also has the benefit of already being vetted by Obama.

Likelihood? Since the beginning of “veepstakes” speculation, Tim Kaine has been a front-and-center choice. While he is most likely still the front runner, if Hillary is looking to add a “secret ingredient” to her campaign, she might look elsewhere.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Get to Know Clinton’s Likely VPs appeared first on Law Street.

You know the feeling when you’re witnessing something amazing, and it makes you a little sad that no one else is there to see it? There’s a television equivalent to that–when you’re watching an amazing show with disappointing ratings and you hope against hope that the sponsors and executives will continue supporting it for the art’s own sake. In another context, you might feel a little proud to be enjoying something that the general public hasn’t caught onto yet–but you can’t because you’re too worried that the program won’t last long enough (see: any good show on the CW.) That’s exactly how I feel watching “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee.”

If you don’t remember her, she was a correspondent on “The Daily Show” who did hilarious exposés and interviews ranging from abortion rights and labor laws to women and gays in the military. “Full Frontal” is her standalone late night show, and unbeknownst to seemingly everyone, it’s the best late night talk show for political coverage. While the primaries and the general seem exhausting, it’s always nice to have a voice of sanity you can tune into every week, and if you haven’t tried “Full Frontal,” you’re really missing out.

What makes Samantha Bee’s program head and shoulders over the others? Shall I compare her to the other hosts?–after all, she art more lovely and less temperate. There are of course the three Jameses: Fallon, Kimmel, and Corden are all goofy and fun, but they’re rarely political. Seth Meyers has short political segments called “a closer look,” which are usually informative but full of very flat jokes. Colbert’s new show has some highlights, but the tone is generally very silly. He’s a gifted live interviewer, but the show’s other material can feel repetitive. John Oliver has great long form excerpts, but they’re not consistently about politics, and aren’t usually about current news. Bill Maher is consistently political and keeps up with the election, but is often too abrasive and acerbic, and can alienate those who aren’t on the far-left. I’ve got to be honest, I haven’t seen much of Trevor Noah. I asked some friends who like the show what he’s like, and I heard that he is “dreamy” and has “the cutest accent.” So I guess he’s got that going for him.

Samantha Bee manages to mix together all the best elements of the other hosts to create the best late-night refuge from political craziness. Her best segments teach you something new while making you laugh–and include a call to action to right wrongs. Plus, none of the aforementioned guys have jackets anywhere near as cool as Sam’s.

After working with Jon Stewart so closely, it’s no surprise that she has a well-developed knack for making jokes about topics like mass shootings and rapes without seeming callous or mean-spirited. The delicate balance between serious punditry and side-splitting commentary can be treacherous, but Bee’s explanation videos manage both perfectly. Some highlights include the origins of the religious right movement, abortion restriction in Texas, and explaining what the hell superdelegates are. Just about any video produced for her show will teach you something new, and arm you with funny one-liners about the election perfect for any office party schmoozing.

For a glimpse at how she unflinchingly tackles a subject matter as taboo as rape, check out this video of her argument for passing MJIA, a bill regarding military sexual assault.

She also has a segment where she interviews a group of people to better understand them–and while it’s not always comfortable, it’s always hilarious. Her ‘unironic’ interview with Trump supporters and her meeting with the “Bernie bros,” are great examples.

On the “Colbert Report,” Colbert’s character was a staunch conservative, and his opinions made him interesting to watch. Even if his opinions weren’t real, they provided satirical outlets for his writers’ actual opinions.  Samantha Bee doesn’t pretend to be an impartial observer–she’s got strong opinions, and that’s exactly why her show is interesting. She has an angle, and she owns it. It’s time for more people to tune in.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Samantha Bee Deserves More Buzz appeared first on Law Street.

When you’re making a crossword puzzle, it’s very easy to create a difficult puzzle with next-to-impossible clues. It is also incredibly difficult to make a crossword puzzle that is easy to solve, fitting only common words into the grid. Conspiracy theories work pretty much the same way–with a lot of careful effort, you can create a theory that just might be easy to swallow. It sounds totally crazy but maybe, just maybe there actually was a second shooter behind the grassy knoll. It would be completely bananas, but it’s possible that the NBA rigged the championship because of a blood-oath with LeBron. These are conspiracies, but there’s enough fact surrounding them to give them the veneer of truth.

Since politics can get boring, let’s take a break from all the facts and figures for a moment and have some fun crafting our own conspiracy theory. But what type to choose?

When it comes to current-day political conspiracies, no theory is more widespread or worse-explained than the Illuminati. In case you’ve been living under a rock, or have been brainwashed into sheeple by the mainstream media, the Illuminati were essentially members of a really nerdy book club in the 1770s that lasted for about ten years before being shut down. To conspiracy theorists, the Illuminati is still alive, and its members are pulling all of the world’s strings behind closed doors. They’re meeting in person in top-secret locales and exercising unimaginable influence over world leaders. They also leave fun hints and clues for us to find, because apparently they prefer fun I-Spy games more than actually staying secret.

Actual footage from the moon landing, cut from broadcast for suspicious reasons.

So what does this have to do with the 2016 Presidential Election? I’d tell you, but then I’d have to kill you.

Only joking. You might have seen thumbnails in your recommended videos section on YouTube featuring Hillary Clinton dressed in demonic fashion, or perhaps George W. Bush surrounded by pyramids, and wondered where they come from. Essentially, Americans who are frustrated with our political system, or likely confused by it, concoct clandestine backdoor reasons for every major event in history, claiming that it is all part of a grand scheme for “New World Order.” That’s basically a spooky way of saying a world government designed to oppress all people.

Why should we let the crackpots have all the fun? Here’s a step-by-step guide to creating your own conspiracy, and getting one step closer to the “ultimate truth.”

1. Pick an event you didn’t like.

Feel free to choose something like a famous atrocity, or something like alleged voting discrepancies from North Dakota’s democratic caucus. Explain that the explanation the general public has been fed is not only untrue, but supported by false-flag evidence planted by someone important, like the Koch brothers, or Oprah.

2. Diagnose the real cause

Clearly the BP oil spill and Vince Foster‘s death were both decided in a boardroom by old men in suits. There’s an underlying reason for every random, senseless event, and it’s usually a stepping stone to the ultimate plan.

3. Tie it back to a easily vilified celebrity figure

Either go for the typical “Kenyan Muslim President” route, or think of something more interesting. If you need inspiration, I still trust this conspiracy site I found–I know the source is from 2 years ago–that says Clinton is “a 6th level Illuminati witch & sadistic Monarch slave handler.”

A rare glimpse into the bunker below the White House where the real meetings happen.

So why do people believe in these theories? Illuminati conspiracy theorists are typically people who find it frustrating to believe that either hard work or luck is good enough to propel someone to powerful positions. They take comfort in the idea that there is no hope changing the status quo unless you’ve been pre-selected by the chosen few. Plus, by virtue of “knowing the truth,” you’re smarter than all of your friends.

The most disappointing part of conspiracy theories like this is that it looks remarkable similar to the real non-conspiracy world we live in now. The idea that a select few meet to discuss powerful changes to the world is already true, and it happens all the time. Of course Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, and Xi Jinping control what happens around the world–that’s their job! Hillary Clinton is smart enough to orchestrate secret society cover-ups and rig an entire election, but apparently not smart enough to become as powerful and influential as she currently is by virtue of her own actions.

“Silly Season” is meant to only last a few weeks during the primaries, but given the tone of the 2016 General Election so far, silly season has been extended indefinitely. Why not amp up the chaos a bit more, and introduce some really crazy ideas? It’s not enough to say Trump might be a plant by the Clinton family to ensure a Democratic victory–make sure it’s part of a world-wide conspiracy as well.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Anatomy of An Illuminati Political Conspiracy appeared first on Law Street.

When Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964, he affected the future of the Republican party immensely, even though he ultimately lost the race. Although many argue that Goldwater’s loss began the revitalization of the conservative movement, it also marked the start of black Americans’ growing negative perception of the GOP. It’s a pattern that Donald Trump is poised to repeat with Latino voters this year, potentially establishing a negative trend.

Goldwater’s staunch opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957–the bill striking down Jim Crow voting laws designed to deny voting rights to Black Americans–contributed to his high unfavorability ratings among black voters. According to Goldwater, his vote was purely a matter of resisting federal encroachment on states’ rights–but the specter of racism followed his campaign, leading to abysmal support from black voters.

Barry Goldwater courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Members of the Ku Klux Klan publicly endorsed Goldwater, and although he denounced their support, his opponent Lyndon B. Johnson made political hay out of the connection, which Goldwater wasn’t successfully able to escape. The whole situation sounds eerily similar to another GOP nominee not being able to detach himself from KKK support.

Goldwater’s race politics are the subject of discussion even today–in many ways, he was remarkably socially liberal for his party. By 1989, he stated that the Republican party had been overtaken by ‘kooks,’ and in the 1990s, Goldwater approved of several progressive measures, such as gays serving in the military and marijuana legalization. Martin Luther King Jr. put it very well: “While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives aid and comfort to the racists.”

Although Goldwater isn’t the sole cause of this divide, he certainly coincided with its beginning. Nonwhite voters in 1960 only carried a 22 point deficit in Republican votes–the same divide present with female voters, although in the opposite direction. During this period, white and nonwhite voters disagreed, but not overwhelmingly so. That all changed in the next election–and the divide that followed is still present today.

In the election of 1964, nonwhite voters opposed Goldwater 94 to 6, marking the steepest voting difference among a minority group in U.S. history–until Barack Obama received 95 percent of the black vote in 2008. This is an example of a stark difference between Latino and black voters–ever since the 1964 election, black voters have supported Democratic candidates by an average of 78 points, while Latino voters’ support was only 45 points on average, with splits as close as 9 points in some years.

Check out the graphs below to see the voting patterns by group. The graphs use data on racial and ethnic voting groups from Gallup and the Roper Center, to show actual voting percentages by each group. Click here to read more about the data.

After Barry Goldwater, Black voters went blue overwhelmingly for decades.

Latino voters preferred Democratic candidates in every election but often by slim margins.

This year, Donald Trump’s attitudes, positions, and comments regarding Latino Americans and immigration may be a ‘Goldwater moment’ for the minority voter bases. In almost every measurable way, Trump rates worse among minority voters than Goldwater. Whereas Goldwater served as a blockade for civil rights, he didn’t openly express racist or xenophobic opinions. Trump has no policy precedent to refer to but has ample opinions–many of which are categorically racist.

A candidate as blatantly offensive as Donald Trump sours the party’s relationship with Latino voters, directly contradicting the GOP’s efforts to connect with those voters. While we’ll have to wait until November for voting results, current favorability ratings paint a difficult picture for Trump. A June Washington Post/ABC survey found that 89 percent of Latinos saw Trump unfavorably. That number was 94 percent for black voters, which is staggeringly high, but the same divide was present between Barack Obama and both of his Republican challengers. These numbers don’t exactly correlate to votes, but they help create an estimate.

Here’s one last graph to show exactly what Trump’s effect could be on Latino voters. Note that this graph is speculative and the added election year assumes that Latino Americans will vote according to their current favorability perceptions of Trump as a candidate. The graph below illustrates how a new divide could emerge:

Trump’s record-high unfavorable rating among Latino voters could signal the largest party split since the 1970s.

Donald Trump’s numbers among Latinos are the worst his party has had in over 45 years–and that’s only half of the bad news for the GOP. Not currying favor with Latinos may not have cost Reagan or the Bushes the presidency, but it may very well cost Trump–Latinos are the largest ethnic or racial minority in the United States, making up 17 percent of the general population. Coupled with black Americans at 12 percent, these minorities are no longer so ‘minor,’ and can’t be ignored by candidates hoping to win a popular vote. While Trump might still be able to improve his standing with Latino voters, it will be an uphill battle. Trump may not be as well spoken, intellectual, or experienced as Barry Goldwater, but he may prove to be just as divisive.

Notes:

Graphs created using polling data from Gallup (1952 – 1972) and The Roper Center (1976 – 2012).

1. The term “Latino” in this analysis refers to voters self-identifying as Latino or Hispanic in polls. The term “black” refers to voters self-identifying as African American or black in polls.
2. Group voting data from 1952 to 1972 only distinguishes between white and nonwhite voters. While these two groups voted similarly–but to different degrees in later elections–there is not precise data on how they may have differed before 1972. 
3. The third graph is speculative and is meant to show that Latinos’ current attitudes toward Trump are more negative than the group has ever demonstrated against a Republican candidate based on past election results.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Trump This Generation’s Goldwater? appeared first on Law Street.

On June 12, a gunman in Orlando, Florida murdered 49 people at a gay nightclub. In response to this attack, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump seemed to fuel the fires of conspiracy during a “Fox & Friends” appearance, alluding to a greater plot involving President Obama.

Look, we’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind. And the something else in mind — you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable. There’s something going on.

He doesn’t get it or he gets it better than anybody understands — it’s one or the other, and either one is unacceptable.

The Washington Post ran a story on Trump’s comment with the headline “Donald Trump seems to connect President Obama to Orlando shooting.” Even though Trump may have stopped short of actually saying “Obama played a purposeful role in the Orlando shooting,” there’s no question that he drew a connection, which allowed listeners to speculate.

Trump has to know the effects of his comments, and the media firestorm he can set off with the shortest sound bite. Playing coy–suggesting something insane, only to recoil when he is accused of the suggestion–is an all too common ploy for Trump.

Just think back to when he claimed Judge Gonzalo Curiel couldn’t fairly rule on Trump University cases because of his heritage, only to insist that there is nothing racist about his statement. Or just a few weeks ago, when he accused Hillary Clinton of playing “the woman card,” then fiercely denied that the statement was sexist.

This pattern allows him to feed the narrative that the media is corrupt and set against him. That is why Trump revoked the Post’s press credentials, detailing his reasons in a Facebook post:

I am no fan of President Obama, but to show you how dishonest the phony Washington Post is, they wrote, “Donald Trump suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting” as their headline. Sad! Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post.

Washington Post Executive Editor Marty Baron made a statement in reaction to this revocation:

Donald Trump’s decision to revoke The Washington Post’s press credentials is nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn’t correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished, said in a statement. The Post will continue to cover Donald Trump as it has all along — honorably, honestly, accurately, energetically, and unflinchingly.  We’re proud of our coverage, and we’re going to keep at it.

Compare this behavior with Hillary Clinton’s notorious caution towards the press–such as when she drew criticism for “corralling” the press behind a rope so that they didn’t crowd her during public appearances. Trump’s distrust of the media goes even further, as he has thrown out reporters from his events.

Clearly, the Post won’t be quiet about Trump’s campaign, although it may now be harder to get a scoop as quickly as other outlets.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Revokes Washington Post Press Credentials appeared first on Law Street.

Citigroup, the banking company with over $1.7 trillion dollars in assets, really likes to say “Thank you.” Citigroup’s rewards system is called “Citi Thank You,” and Citigroup is the owner of www.thankyou.com. Because of its frequent use of the words “thank you,” the company has registered the “THANKYOU” trademark.

The trouble is, AT&T launched a promotion for a rewards program connecting its cell service with a Citigroup-backed credit card, called “AT&T Thanks.” Citigroup is suing AT&T, claiming that it has domain over that use of “Thanking.” Because “thank you” is such a common phrase, Citi only has exclusive rights to its usage in very particular contexts. (Unless the reason they’re so wealthy is because they do get a nickel every time someone says thank you!?) Now, AT&T is attempting to trademark “AT&T THANKS.” In this lawsuit, Citigroup is claiming that AT&T’s marketing campaign is “confusingly similar to Citigroup’s ‘THANKYOU Marks,'” and Citigroup is attempting to block AT&T’s trademark.

Take a look at the two programs yourself: the Citigroup Thank You program has scores of gift-cards, vacations, and gadgets you can buy with points awarded through your citi card. The AT&T “Thanks” promotion includes offers like “buy one get one free” movie ticket ‘twosdays,’ along with pre-sale access for LiveNation and exclusive TV content.

If AT&T can prove that it’s unlikely consumers will be confused between the two programs, then it will be able to keep its own usage of “THANKS.” If Citigroup shows that the trademark is being used unfairly, its claim to the words “THANK YOU” is bolstered in other related services. The hearing date has not yet been set in this case, so if you’re waiting to hear what happens, I can only THANK YOU for your patience. And there’s no word yet on whether Alanis Morissette has been served a cease and desist letter from Citigroup.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Citigroup, Owner of “Thank You,” Sues AT&T for Using “Thanks” appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton is coming under social media fire for a clothing choice she made two months ago. The unassuming tweed jacket she had on during an April speech about income inequality didn’t make any sort of splash that day, or even that month. But now it’s all over the news, after a New York Post article about her campaign’s fashion choices valued that particular Giorgio Armani jacket at $12,495.

.@HillaryClinton wears $12,000 Armani jacket while ‘fighting’ for income equality: https://t.co/7QL3WF7kci pic.twitter.com/QQ4nEu8cW3

— BULLETT Media (@BULLETTMedia) June 7, 2016

According to the New York Post, her stylists have recently aimed for more simplistic outfits, trying not to continue Clinton’s previous trend of wearing brightly colored pantsuits. The idea, apparently, was that a more minimalist approach would draw attention away from Clinton’s clothes, and allow her words to be the focus of discussion. The goal was for people to not talk about her clothes–which is impossible. Hillary Clinton can’t afford to wear the same thing every day, like Trump or Sanders. She has to think about what she wears more than her counterparts because no matter what, it will be a subject of discussion.

This back-to-basics plan may have backfired, as Clinton went from a “Pantsuit Peggy” to an “Armani Alicia.” “Veep” fans might be reminded of Selina Meyer’s attempt to stand on a wooden crate to appear down-to-earth, only to learn that it was reinforced with steel and cost $1,200. But why do we reject expensive items like an Armani jacket? When we criticize wealthy people for making exorbitant purchases, we’re mad at them for having money. Would we prefer they hoard their money like a dragon, not turning their payment into paychecks for the people they purchase from? Is it not enough that Clinton donates hundreds millions of dollars every year? You can be mad at Clinton for any of her policy decisions or Senate votes that you disagree with, but throwing shade her way for buying a jacket is a senseless critique.

While we do know that Clinton’s campaign is spending a lot of money to dress one woman, we don’t know how much she paid for the jacket, or if she paid for it at all. Clinton might have been offered this jacket from a representative at Armani, Clinton’s buyer may have cut a wholesale deal on the jacket, or maybe Hill walked into Bergdorf Goodman, slapped 120 Benjamins on the table, and wore the damn jacket home. Regardless, the $12,000 figure is exorbitant and eye-catching, which is why that’s the number in every story about “Hillary the hypocrite.” But does wearing an expensive jacket invalidate your economic plan? Does having a pricy wardrobe mean you can’t care about bolstering the American middle class?

The answer to these questions is of course not. It isn’t hypocritical for a wealthy person wearing expensive clothes to think there should be fewer Americans living in poverty. The Bernie Sanders brag about not having money doesn’t make him any more suited to shape policy on taxes. You don’t need to be middle class to help the middle class. You have to be smart to help the middle class.

Tackling income inequality doesn’t involve slapping millionaires across the face, putting limits on their credit cards, and shutting down Giorgio Armani, Bugatti, and Sotheby’s. It involves creating a set of laws designed to raise wages across the country and end corporate tax loopholes. If the plan is solid, it doesn’t matter how you dress it up.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hillary’s $12,000 Jacket Doesn’t Mean Jacksh*t appeared first on Law Street.

An unnamed Valparaiso University student was arrested in a Rosemont, Illinois Muvico theater by police officers acting on a tip from over 8,000 miles away. His crime? Illegally sharing copyrighted content online via Facebook Live.

The student was watching a local premiere of the Bollywood romantic comedy film “A Aa,” and was allegedly using his cellphone to record and stream video of the screen live to his Facebook friends.

Facebook’s Live feature is relatively new to the platform, and allows users to stream live video of themselves and their surroundings to their Facebook friends, or the general public. After the live stream is finished, the video is saved on your Facebook account. These videos can be made public, and in that case, could be viewed by millions. One live video in particular–an über-viral clip of a Texas mom trying on a Chewbacca mask–garnered over 150 million views. It’s clear that a Facebook Live video can attract a large audience under the right circumstances, and isn’t just a moment shared between friends.

The content was flagged by an anti-piracy team working for the studio Bluesky Cinemas in Hyderabad, India. The team managed to remove the posting, and contacted the Muvico theater where the screening was taking place. Theater management then contacted the police, and soon after the student was arrested at the theater. When police arrived, they deleted the video from the student’s phone–Facebook Live has an option to save the video you’re recording to your camera roll. Only a few minutes had been recorded by that point.

Someone illegally distributing copyrighted material online can be liable for both civil and criminal offenses, and police involvement isn’t a completely unprecedented intervention. While it seems like an overreach of power to arrest someone for using their phone at a movie theater, officials insist that they prevented an incident of real cybercrime. An arrest like this raises the question of whether our anti-piracy laws are effective, or simply impossible to reasonably enforce.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Student Arrested While Streaming Movie Premiere on Facebook Live appeared first on Law Street.

Apparently, Domino’s workers aren’t getting a big enough slice of the pie. Domino’s Pizza is being sued by New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman for wage theft. Schneiderman’s allegations focus specifically on a payment system called Pulse, which Domino’s Corporate encourages each Domino’s franchisee to use. The Pulse computer system calculates gross wages for the workers at each location, and has apparently under-calculated those values for years. Schneiderman asserts that Dominos has been aware of this under-payment issue since 2007. By failing to announce to its franchisees that the wage totals given by the system are slimmer than they should be, Domino’s could be on the hook for withholding wages.

Like a pizza-focused Erin Brockovich, the Attorney General uncovered internal documents from Domino’s corporate office showing that 78 percent of New York franchisees’ payment systems displayed rates for some employees below the required minimum wage. Even more systems had lower overtime rates than are required. This is just the latest example of the Attorney General going after companies on wage issues—since 2011 the Attorney General has secured more than $26 million for almost 20,000 workers who were cheated out of wages.

Can Domino’s be held responsible for wage theft at a specific franchisee’s location? This lawsuit argues that yes, that because Domino’s is a ‘joint employer’ of the workers, the franchise company is also responsible. A decision like this could significantly affect the way fast food restaurants around the country are run. If a judge does find that Domino’s operates as a joint employer, other fast food corporations like McDonald’s may reconsider their franchise-based structure. The argument is that if you can be held responsible for the missteps of your franchisees, why not have total control in the first place and reduce that risk?

While the local shop franchisees need to pay the owed wages to the affected workers, it remains to be decided whether Domino’s corporate office is at fault, but you’d think they could easily correct the wages discrepancies. After all, they have a lot of experience raising dough.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Domino’s Accused of Wage Theft: What Does this Mean for Franchises? appeared first on Law Street.

Donald J. Trump makes enemies handily and frequently, dispensing insults more often than insight. It may be a smart publicity move–after all, nothing sells tickets like a historic feud. That’s why Trump’s incendiary comments about Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, paired with his refusal to participate in a Fox News debate, have garnered world-wide attention.

Kelly represented conservative media taking a stand against Trump’s hijacking of the Republican party, which is why it’s so disappointing to see the two kiss and make up after nearly no effort from Trump to reconcile his former behavior.

This event took place on Tuesday, when Trump sat down with Kelly–allegedly to clear the air. Trump even tweeted in anticipation of the pre-taped event that he was hopeful he would be treated fairly.

I look forward to watching @megynkelly tonight, 8 PM ET. It will be interesting to see how she treats me—I think she will be very fair.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 17, 2016

What ensued was a Donald Trump love-fest, in which Trump was offered softball after softball about his family, his love life, and essentially anything but his proposed policies. “Have you been emotionally hurt before?” was actually a question asked to the presumptive GOP nominee, leaving positions such as his “America First” foreign policy undiscussed.

Promoted like a boxing prize fight, the Kelly-Trump interview briefly held Trump accountable for his insulting and demeaning Twitter presence. Trump tried to weasel out of his own words, asking if he had called Kelly a ‘bimbo” before. In one of the special’s rare critical moments, Kelly told him that he had indeed used that word several times.

Trump deflected each criticism lobbed at him, refusing to ever apologize. When asked about his retweet poking fun at Heidi Cruz’s appearance, Trump said “he could have done without it,” but he never let the word “mistake” escape from his mouth.

Kelly, a woman who’d previously held Trump accountable for his misogynistic comments, fell in line with so many other mouthpieces like Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Piers Morgan. Essentially she gave Trump free fluff-piece airtime.

I will be live tweeting my interview with @megynkelly on the Fox Network tonight at 8! Enjoy! pic.twitter.com/nlJssZeIWm

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 17, 2016

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump Interviewed by Megyn Kelly, Former “Bimbo” appeared first on Law Street.

Everybody’s got their ‘guy.’ He’s the first person to take your side when the going gets tough, and your intermediary with all the people you just don’t have time for. For Donald Trump, Ben Carson is that guy, and somehow, he’s the guy Trump trusts with his secrets. The trouble is, Carson might not be exercising the caution a campaign surrogate usually needs to.

Ben Carson was riding in a car with his wife Candy on his way to an interview, when the reporter who was along for the ride told him about a poll stacking up the favorability rankings of potential vice presidential picks. The reporter told Carson the names on the list, in order of favorability. After Ben Carson, who was seen as the most favorable vice presidential pick, the list included John Kasich, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and Chris Christie.

After stating that he was not interested in being a part of Donald Trump’s administration, Carson did what no nominee’s spokesperson should do: he told the press about the short list. When asked about those five names, Carson said “Those are all people on our list.”

The media will endlessly speculate about potential vice presidential nominees, but until the announcement is made, campaigns are usually tight-lipped about who their candidate is actually considering. Hillary Clinton’s vice presidential choices are under tight wraps, with pundits’ speculations spanning from Elizabeth Warren to John Kasich. Closely guarding the decision-making process keeps the campaign’s final selection exciting, and insures against a bombshell found during the vetting process.

Of course, Carson tried to walk back his statement, calling the Washington Post to explain. “When it comes to who could be the vice president and you name a list of people, I’m going to say yes to everybody, everybody could potentially be considered, doesn’t mean they are on the shortlist.” So when Ben Carson says “Those are all people on our list” that doesn’t mean they are actually on the list.”

The candidates mentioned in the poll do present a VP Vexing Problem–the candidates are either unknown to the public, or they are highly unfavorable, with ratings like Palin’s and Cruz’s around 50 percent unfavorable. Clinton’s camp has a different problem–their choices aren’t too strongly unfavorable, but most of them are unknown to the general public. Likely choices such as Tim Kaine, Sherrod Brown, and Julian Castro are unknown by 30 to 40 percent of voters. The good news for Clinton is that no one–not Huma, not Bill, not anyone–is dishing out her tightly-held list of candidates.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ben Carson May Or May Not Have Leaked Trump’s VP List appeared first on Law Street.

If my Facebook newsfeed is anything to go off of, people my age hate Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. I’ll see videos with titles like “HILLARY EXPOSED,” “$HILLARY STEALS THE ELECTION,” and “WHO SAID IT, TRUMP OR HITLER?” shared thousands of times, most of which are accompanied by the little angry-face reaction emoji. But, of course, that’s not representative of the general public right? If you’re friends with people who share your political views, the internet is a room full of people who applaud everything you say and hate your enemies. If you’re visiting websites like Reddit or the Huffington Post, you’re going to have a much different comments-section experience than at Breitbart or The National Review. You can’t get a fair take on who likes whom on the internet, so to escape the thought-bubbles of social media, I turned to polling to answer the question: What does America really think of our presumptive nominees?

Favorability is measured in a shockingly simple way–surveys ask Americans how they view a candidate, and provide options from “very favorable” to “very unfavorable.” The data suggest that all the online negativity comes from a real place. Even though Hillary Clinton has received more votes in the primary than any other candidate, her average favorability is 38.4 percent. Donald Trump also has a really bad favorability rating, sitting 10 points below Clinton – at 28.4 percent. Pathetic–sad!

Trump and Clinton have a similar problem–if you don’t like one of them, chances are you really hate them. Trump’s fanbase is larger than anyone predicted, and stark-raving mad dedicated to his cause. His detractors are even more numerous, and just as incensed by what he says and does. Clinton’s campaign is a savvy political juggernaut, and her careful planning has all-but secured the Democratic nominee. Despite her success, over forty percent of voters have a strongly negative view of her.

How do these candidates that Americans don’t like continue winning?  Voters might not be in love with Hillary Clinton, but they’re voting for her as the lesser of two evils. If you only see Clinton and Trump being viable options for the presidency, the decision is made very simple for most voters. It’s also important not to be too cynical–nearly half of voters see Clinton and Trump as favorable (although very different halves, I imagine.) It’s not that everyone hates the almost-nominees, just that they are extremely divisive in the American public.

We’re in a tough position now, as most Americans find themselves rooting for the candidate they hate the least–a far cry from the Obama ’08 enthusiasm that energized the Democratic party just two elections ago. An election as important as this one shouldn’t be treated so dispassionately by voters, because a low turn-out could tilt the election the way you’re actually afraid of. An old adage fits well here: If you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you’re with.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Do Candidates America Hates Keep Winning? appeared first on Law Street.

Both Republicans and Democrats have been enamored with “outsiders” this election year: whether it’s Trump’s meteoric rise among the GOP voters desperate for a “non-politician,” or the Bernie Sanders voterbase raving about the necessity of a politician who isn’t connected with the D.C. elites. Every candidate has been adjusting their message to avoid seeming too familiar with the current state of politics. Trump says it’s time to stop listening to the experts. Bernie wants to tear down the establishment. Cruz is running on the idea that he won’t work with Washington, but that he has worked against it.

Basically, experienced and accomplished politicians are trying their best not to seem experienced or accomplished, because those qualities scare and confuse the average American voter. For candidates like Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Hillary Clinton, this poses a huge problem. How can you tell people you’re ‘not a politician’ when you’ve been in office since the seventies? How do you resist looking like an ‘insider’ when you’ve literally lived inside the White House before?

In order to save his campaign after a brutal Tuesday, in which Cruz placed last in four out of five contests, Cruz is bringing in his own outsider. Ted Cruz, the man who is currently not winning the Republican nomination, announced Wednesday that if he secures the Republican nomination (a huge if), he’d select Carly Fiorina as his vice presidential candidate.

Fiorina’s only real experience in the political sphere was a failed Senatorial campaign against Barbara Boxer. You may remember her from her stand-out performance in the Republican debate where she invented a fictional video of an aborted fetus’s organs being harvested and told the nation about it in gory detail. Fiorina is often heralded as a successful businesswoman–after all, she was the female CEO of a Fortune 500 company, certainly no small accomplishment. Her business acumen has been questioned, however, and by questioned I mean constantly assailed, with reports arguing she was disastrous and terrible. Fiorina laid off over 30,000 employees, and was forcibly ousted from her position. In short, Carly Fiorina is all fire and no function–the antithesis of a pragmatic, predictable insider who knows her way around Washington.

The veepstakes shouldn’t begin until nominations are made, or at the very earliest when a nomination is a foregone conclusion. In that sense, this kind of move is way too early, as we shouldn’t be seeing these sorts of announcements until late May, even June. But the reason this feels like a last-ditch effort is because this kind of is a last ditch effort. If Cruz wanted to adjust the image of his campaign to be more outsider-friendly, he should have done it before he was lagging so far behind that nothing he does will have much effect.

So why is this happening? Could it be that the American public trusts unproved talent simply because that candidate hasn’t had a chance to fail yet? Do we shrug at experience because we’re impulsive gamblers who would rather let someone new take the wheel just because it’s more interesting? There’s no clear answer, and it’s hard to understand the why behind the impulsive and nonsensical behavior of the primary voters. The only safe bet is that Cruz’s pick of Fiorina is bizarre, telling, and destined to flop.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cruz Finds His Outsider: Too Early and Too Late appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump recently told his supporters that “If Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she would get 5 percent of the vote. The only thing she’s got going is the woman card.” Twitter users balked at the multiple levels of stupid and offensive tucked inside his statement; namely that it is somehow easier for women to run for public office than men, or that Hillary’s gender is her leading (or only) accomplishment. Men and women alike turned their trigger fingers into Twitter fingers to rebuke Trump’s sexist comments. Check out some of the best tweets below:

The Loyalty Card

I wish my #womancard gave me discounts on shoes and tampons instead of being a discount card for same work pay.

— Heather Wilson-Smith (@GoddessesUnite) April 27, 2016

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Shows Trump the Real “Woman Card” appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump is winning, winning, winning. He’s winning so much, he’s probably getting bored of winning. He’s enjoying a 286-delegate lead over Cruz, and with the April 26 Republican primaries poised to be a sweep for Mr. Trump, his rocket-fueled journey to the magic number of 1,237 delegates has struck fear in the hearts of his rivals. How in the world is this happening?

When you consider that each of Trump’s opponents has a weakness with the GOP base, you start to see how the rabid fanaticism of “Trumpeters” could outnumber the “Cruz-ers” and the “Kasich-ettes.” Cruz is too zealous for many non-evangelical voters, as evidenced by his paltry third place finish in New York’s Republican primary. The opposite is true for Kasich, as his more moderate brand of conservatism appeals to Ohioans, and pretty much nobody else.

Kasich is so far behind in the delegate count, even a miracle couldn’t earn him the necessary majority of delegates. And if Cruz can’t consistently and thoroughly beat Trump, it will be impossible for him to get his majority. That is a recipe for a Trump nomination, which is why Cruz and Kasich’s camps met in what I assume is a secret underground GOP lair to develop a game plan. Much like when Loki coordinated with that robot alien race in “The Avengers,” they figured their powers combined might be what it will take for primary domination.

Here’s how the game plan will work: Kasich will essentially skip the Indiana Primary, conceding all efforts to Ted Cruz. Considering that polls have Kasich’s support at around 22 points, and Cruz and Trump are close at 35 and 41 points respectively, if Kasich’s voters jump ship to Cruz, he could topple Trump. Indiana’s 57 delegates are “winner-takes-all,” so a Trump victory could sound very final. In return for this, Cruz will pass on Oregon and New Mexico, allowing Kasich to be a monolithic Trump-opposer. This interactive graph allows you to change the margins of future primary results in the GOP race, showing how a loss in any one state could prevent Trump from reaching 1,237 delegates.

There are a few drawbacks to this plan–firstly, that it might not work. Kasich’s name is still on the Indiana ballot, and he has yet to formally address his supporters and instruct them to vote for Cruz. So far, the agreement just states that he won’t campaign in Indiana. There’s also no guarantee that Kasich’s voters will want to vote for Cruz, even if they don’t support Trump.

The move also plays right into Donald Trump’s narrative of persecution. “The establishment is out to get me” sounds a lot more convincing when the establishment is actually, actively plotting to take you down in a kamikaze blaze. Nothing will stir his fan base more than actual proof that the system is indeed rigged.

The most terrifying part of this plan is that it’s a strategy designed to cause chaos. Their best hope is to create a contested convention, and it’s likely that Trump would still have the most votes among the three candidates. If Cruz or Kasich wrests the nomination from Trump’s tiny hands, all hell could break loose, including temper tantrums and riots. Say what you will about the candidates’ positions, but this has been the best season of America’s Next Top Candidate yet.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mutually-Assured Obstruction: Cruz, Kasich Aim for Contested Convention appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton is white. I mean, I’m white, but Hillary is super white, like banana-and-mayo sandwich made by Dale Earnhardt Jr. level white. But much like her husband, Hillary is widely supported by black voters, who voted for her over Bernie Sanders in New York by over 50 points. Even in the face of this support, Hillary has been accused of pandering to minority voters, such as when her team posted a listicle explaining how Secretary Clinton is just like your abuela, or when she dabbed, whipped, and nae-naed on The Ellen Show. During a recent interview on The Breakfast Club, Clinton was told that when she acts this way, it reeks of her trying too hard. In her defense, she said it was not her idea. “It looks like I’m trying too hard because I am trying too hard! I can’t do it!” She admitted to dancing in private, but said that she had learned to avoid it in public.

Then, Hillary raved about Beyoncé, which in all fairness is a popular activity among all people. She has even said before that she “want[s] to be as good a president as Beyoncé is a performer:” a tall order considering that I’m still recovering from a Beyoncé concert that took place two years ago. But it was her last answer on the show that is raising some eyebrows (and catching some shade.) Clinton was asked what item she always carries in her bag. Without missing a beat, Clinton responded “hot sauce.” Funnily enough, that’s probably the same answer that Beyoncé gave to the question: “What’s 2016’s version of ‘surfboardt’ going to be?”

“Are you getting in formation?” Charlamagne Tha God asked, referencing the lyric in Beyoncé’s surprise southern-black-woman-pride anthem “Formation.” Clinton laughed, and responded, “I’ve been eating a lot of hot sauce — raw peppers, and hot sauces … because I think it keeps my immune system strong. I think hot sauce is good for you, in moderation of course, don’t go overboard.”

That’s right, much like an insane person, Hillary Clinton eats raw peppers–jalapeños, according to her staffers. Side note: is that the reason Papa John’s always adds those spicy green ones alongside my pizza? I always assumed those were delivered for late-night pizza party dare purposes. But it may be true that spicy food boosts your health: the LiveStrong website provides some pretty dope facts about the health benefits of spicy peppers.

Because he’s the walking, talking shouting version of a YouTube comments section, Donald Trump decided to lead the charge against Hillary’s phony claims of hot-sauce-having, saying:

It’s the same thing that she always does. She carries hot sauce like I carry hot sauce. It’s just, I don’t know, it’s just so phony and so pandering and so terrible.

The trouble is, Hillary was waxing rhapsodic about hot sauce for years before Beyoncé was. In a 1995 lunch interview with The Washington Post, she called hot sauce her “secret passion.” So maybe Secretary Clinton isn’t trying to become Hillaré, but Bey has simply paved the way for her to be open about her love of hot sauce. Chalk it up to yet another example of Beyoncé being a source of inspiration for Americans everywhere.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hot Sauce Lands Hillary In Hot Water appeared first on Law Street.

Kimberly Miller, a nun from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, attended a book signing on November 7. After the event, the bookstore owner gave her some leftovers and a bottle of wine to bring back to the convent. That night, Miller took an Ambien, and had a glass of wine before going to bed. Little did Sister Kimberly know, her night had just begun.

She woke up the next day in New Jersey with a half-empty bottle in the back of her car and a blood alcohol content of .15, nearly double the legal limit. She had driven for almost an hour across state lines into New Jersey, and backed into a car repair shop before eyewitnesses called the police. When she was arrested for driving under the influence, she claims to have no knowledge of the incident.

Miller was hoping that her “Reverend Jekyll and Sister Hyde” experience might lessen her punishment–after all, she wasn’t even aware of the fact that she was driving at the time. In court, her lawyers argued that Miller experienced “pathological intoxication,” and never intended to drive drunk. Pathological intoxication is the phenomenon where a person’s personality and behavior drastically change after they consume alcohol, and it is a rare legal defense used to excuse a person from their drunken behavior. Typically, the defense is invoked when a person becomes exceedingly violent or impulsive after consuming a small amount of alcohol, while the nun’s experience involved her knowing consumption of Ambien. The defense must show that the condition’s effect was as strong as a mental illness would be in an insanity defense.

The presiding Judge Martin Whitcraft found that considering that Ambien has been on the market for over 16 years, a person consuming the medicine should reasonably know that its side effects worsen when paired with alcohol. The prosecutor drew attention to the specifics of the law, showing that the statute made no mention of intent–if you drive drunk, it’s your fault, whether or not you intended to do it.

Judge Whitcraft found the nun’s story to be unbelievable at best, saying “I find the defendant’s testimony less than credible. She testified that this wine was placed in the back seat by two sober, reasonable people.” Ultimately, Miller was found guilty of her DUI, but had the lesser charges against her dropped. Her license was suspended for 90 days, and she was placed on leave from her teaching position.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Drunk Driving Nun’s Ambien Defense Fails appeared first on Law Street.

Remember Helga from Hey Arnold!? The blonde-haired tyrannical bully who constantly picked on Arnold? She used to tease him endlessly, calling him names in front of his friends. Meanwhile, she had his photo in her locket, and a shrine of all things Arnold hidden in her room.

That’s a pretty good comparison to Donald Trump’s relationship with the media. He constantly derails the media for “bias” and “lying,” all the while feeding off of the coverage they give him. The latest clash in Trump’s war on free press (it’s like the war on Christmas, but real) concerns a satirical front page published by the Boston Globe. The page is from a future issue, dated April 9th, 2017, featuring the headline “DEPORTATIONS TO BEGIN.” The accompanying article makes mention of Attorney General Chris Christie, and a White House press blacklist including Megyn Kelly. The fake stories were accompanied by a scathing op-ed from the editorial board.

Trump refused to take the incendiary publication lying down, responding in typical stream-of-consciousness fashion:

How about that stupid Boston Globe, it’s worthless, sold for a dollar. Did you see that story? The whole front page — they made up a story, they pretended Trump is the president, and they made up the whole front page, it’s a make-believe story, which is really no different from the whole paper — I mean, the whole thing is made up. And I think they’re having a big backlash on that one.

Doubling down on the Globe’s decision, Kathleen Kingsbury, deputy managing editor of the editorial page, said “we delivered copies of the editorial to his campaign because we wanted to make sure he saw what we wrote.”

According to the New York Times’ fantastic analysis of Donald Trump’s Twitter presence, Trump has insulted just about every news outlet under the sun, from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal to CNN and Huffington Post. He’ll skewer mainstream media, swatting down Vanity Fair, Univision, and The View with derisive tweets. Almost no large news corporation is saved from Trump’s ire.

And yet the press still loves to cover him. CBS CEO Les Moonves (which is a man’s name and title as well as a tongue-twister), told The Hollywood Reporter, “The money’s rolling in and this is fun. I’ve never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

And how could The Donald not love the attention? The New York Times estimated that the news media had given Trump the equivalent of $1.9 billion in free publicity. I doubt that Trump actually has a shrine in one of his many homes with effigies of Megyn Kelly and Anderson Cooper lit by luxury candles, but I’m pretty sure that he secretly appreciates the hateful words being said about him–after all, the Trump family motto is: There’s No Such Thing As Bad Press.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Boston Globe Hates Trump, Trump Hates The Globe appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been a good day for conspiracy theorists. Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Chair John Podesta believes that the truth is out there—and wants it shared with the American public. During a recent appearance on “The Lead” with Jake Tapper, Podesta argued that the American people are being kept in the dark about UFOs.

“The U.S. government could do a much better job in answering the quite legitimate questions that people have about what’s going on with unidentified aerial phenomena,” he said. When probed further on the question, Podesta said, “That’s for the public to judge once they’ve seen all the evidence that the U.S. government has… There are a lot of planets out there, the American people can handle the truth.”

Podesta served as a counselor in the Obama Administration and lamented that his greatest failure of 2014 was not being granted permission to disclose the White House’s files on UFOs.

John Podesta’s reaction when told that he can’t release the UFO information.

It’s not totally crazy for the Clinton campaign to address the American people’s concerns about UFOs and alien contact. About half of Americans believe that there is extraterrestrial life, according to a YouGov poll. And there are likely many citizens who don’t firmly believe in UFOs but are open to the idea. Let’s call them “sky-curious.”

Responding to some of these concerned voters, Clinton said in an interview, “I’ll definitely get to the bottom of it… Maybe we could have, like, a task force go to Area 51.” Although she was joking and laughing while making those suggestions, she is serious about declassifying as much Area 51 material as possible. Podesta wants to make sure that Hillary wouldn’t forget that promise, saying “I think that’s a commitment that she intends to keep and that I intend to hold her to.”

This serves as excellent motivation for me to finish my spec script for the X-Files reboot where Hillary Clinton is the sitting president. I’ll provide an excerpt:

[ Secret Bunker Beneath The White House, Interior.]

MULDER: You’re telling me that I’ve been working on the X-Files for 23 years, and we’ve had a complete list of all real extraterrestrial and paranormal encounters just sitting in a filing cabinet?

CLINTON [Nodding metronomically]: Yes, that’s exactly right. It turns out that everything you’ve seen is real. Except for the killer trees, and most of the werewolf episodes. Those weren’t great.

SCULLY [poring over documents stained by Nixon’s Cheeto-dust]: This is incredible… detailed autopsies of creatures with organs completely unlike our understanding of terrestrial life. And there’s this fascinating report about lizard-people wearing human disguises to attain positions of pow—

CLINTON: Actually, I’m gonna need that one back.

Unfortunately, 20th Century Fox continues to send me cease-and-desist letters, rather than job offers.

It’s like they can’t see true talent staring them in the face.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Hillary Clinton Would Release The X-Files appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a new celebrity feud, and it’s more fiery than Amber Rose, Azealia Banks, Meek Mill, and Iggy Azalea combined. That’s right, the drama queens involved in a serious beef right now are…Tim Robbins and the former First Lady of Guam? Yes, you read that right.

What set off the political powder keg? Tim Robbins, an actor and Bernie Sanders supporter, argued that Hillary Clinton’s primary win in South Carolina was about as significant as winning Guam. South Carolinians haven’t taken too kindly to his comment, arguing that their votes matter as much as any others.

@Americaputz @TimRobbins1 His point was literally that the South doesn’t and shouldn’t matter. I don’t see his interpretation.

— Alex Katz (@Alex__Katz) April 4, 2016

Dismissing the primary votes of South Carolinians isn’t very kind, but this comment cuts especially deep for the disenfranchised voters of Guam. Because Guam is a territory of the United States, its citizens can vote in the primary, but are not permitted to vote in the general election. They can and do serve in the military, but aren’t able to vote in November. Guam has no votes in the electoral college–and while they’ll often conduct a straw poll, it has no real effect on the general election. This means that their primary votes are their only chance to voice an opinion about who should govern them for the next four years.

Guam’s twelve Democratic delegates and nine Republican delegates aren’t huge counts, but they still count toward the majority each nominee will need. In a race with the potential to be extremely close, no one should sneer at collecting a dozen delegates. Further, it’s short-sighted to claim that Clinton’s 39-delegate take from South Carolina doesn’t matter–Sanders only has three wins with more than 39 delegates, making Clinton’s large wins serious stumbling blocks.

Madeleine Bordallo isn’t just Guam’s former First Lady; she’s also the territory’s only Congressional delegate. Defending her home, she stated, “I am deeply disappointed by remarks made today by Tim Robbins at a campaign rally for Sen. Bernie Sanders that used the inability of the people of Guam to vote for president as a political punch line.”

Robbins responded to Delegate Madeleine Bordallo with a tweet:

No disrespect to voters of SC or Guam. Was making a point about MSM anointing HRC after SC primary. No surprise ABC took it out of context.

— Tim Robbins (@TimRobbins1) April 4, 2016

For those without a pocket political-Twitter-to-English dictionary, MSM is “mainstream media.” In his semi-apology, Robbins attempts to make amends with angered southerners and incensed Guamanians. Although he is trying his best to get out of his comment, this may prove harder to escape than the Shawshank State Penitentiary.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tim Robbins And The First Lady of Guam Are In a Tizzy appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 Summer Olympics will be hosted in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, and it seems like hardly anyone is excited about them. The trouble is, those seats might be pretty empty. Only half of the tickets have been sold–and demand is so low that Brazil might be buying its own tickets (the government is considering purchasing tickets to distribute to public school students.) Those students might be well-advised to stay home during those days, however, to avoid the likely chaos of the Olympic Games. The deck is stacked against Brazil in more than a few ways–pollution, illness, poverty, and crime all swarm around the event in Rio.

Erik Heil, an Olympic sailor, went for a test-swim in the Rio waters during an Olympic test event last August. After his exposure to the water, he became infected with the flesh-eating disease MRSA and had to be hospitalized. The Associated Press performed a test of the water, and the results are astonishingly bad–the analysis found “human sewage at levels up to 1.7 million times what would be considered highly alarming in the U.S. or Europe.” Athletes might refuse to participate in the Olympic events if their health is at risk.

It doesn’t help that Brazil has a reputation for being the murder capital of the world. And while Rio isn’t the most dangerous city by a long shot, crimes on the beaches of Ipanema and Copacabana have been escalating in recent months, in anticipation of a tourism influx. Plus, the connection between large sporting events and spikes in crime was well documented during the World Cup in 2014, when muggings grew 60 percent.

After the Ebola scare of 2014, international travelers are extremely sensitive to the health risks involved in visiting a new country. As concern about the Zika virus grows, would-be spectators, especially women, are less inclined to put themselves at risk–Brazil is in a part of the world where the Aegyptus mosquito, the insect responsible for most Zika transmission, is prevalent. Olympic officials have announced that event spaces will be regularly inspected, so that there are no puddles of stagnant water in which mosquitos could reproduce.

Brazil is also experiencing its worst recession in 25 years, amidst political turmoil–the government is considering impeaching President Dilma Rousseff, and the country’s economy is expected to shrink around 3.5 percent this year. Considering that the government has spent over 39.1 billion reais (about 10.8 billion dollars) on building stadiums and extending their subway lines, the investment could be a massive failure. All of these problems could spell trouble for the Olympics, but with so much money invested, Olympic officials are arguing that the show must go on. You might even be able to get cheap tickets to your favorite event–perhaps the newly added Olympic golf?

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brazil’s 2016 Olympics: Does Anyone Want to Go to Rio? appeared first on Law Street.

Tesla, the company responsible for making super-cool, totally electric, ultra-luxurious, better-than-any-car-ever sports cars, just held a press conference that might be this generation’s iPod announcement. That sounds kind of bombastic, but there’s reason to believe that the car Tesla is making could mark the beginning of a seismic shift in transportation and energy.

Just yesterday, Tesla Motors revealed the Model 3, the product that many suspect the company has been aiming to release since its inception. During the announcement, CEO Elon Musk commemorated the success of Tesla’s earlier cars, the Model S and the Model X, but recognized that they’re far from affordable. The presentation’s exact phrasing for the two cars was “high price” and “less high price.” Now, they’re ready for the mainstream, with the five-seater Model 3, beginning at $35,000. With a series of claims that seem almost too good to be true, including ample space, a 215-mile range on a single charge, and Tesla’s autopilot features baked into the car, the Model 3 is poised to break Tesla out of the exclusive world of luxury vehicles.

That $35,000 price tag is a real sweet-spot for the non-premium market, as the average price of a new car last year was $33,560. Plus, an electric car like the Model 3 is in an enviable position: it’s eligible for federal and state-level tax incentives and rebates, which can reduce the effective price of the car substantially. These incentives are part of a larger government program designed to improve the fuel economy of cars in America. You’ll still need to pony up the initial $35,000, but you’ll be able to reduce your income tax by $7,500 for that year. Individual states have their own incentives as well, with states like Lousiana offering incentives of up to $9,000 depending on battery size. This means that depending on where you live, your totally-electric Model 3 could be less than $25,000. Thankfully, Tesla’s website has a cheat sheet where you can see if your state offers an extra bonus.

There’s one catch–these tax credits are only available until the company sells 200,000 cars. The idea is that once an environmentally friendly car brand has established itself, it will be able to handle costs better on its own. Tesla claims to be able to make 50,000 cars a year with its current robot-army factories, so that number might be reached in the time it takes you to get tired of your current vehicle. Tesla claims people have pre-ordered an estimated $7.5 billion worth of vehicles, with pre-order numbers around 198,000.

Aside from the tax advantages, there are several other pluses to owning an electric car that help keep expenses down. For one, you’ll no longer have to pay $30 to $50 at every fill-up. Tesla-provided “superchargers” will fill your car’s battery to 80 percent capacity in only 30 minutes, with no charge. Plus, you can charge your car at home for your typical electricity rate, which is about $0.10 per kilowatt-hour on average and some third party chargers have rates around $0.30 per kWh. Tesla hasn’t announced how large the battery in the Model 3 will be, but numbers around 40 or 50 kWh have been speculated. That would make a fill-up cost around $15 at the more expensive charging stations, and only about $5 in your home.

While the currently low gas prices across the country right don’t make electric cars seem like a necessity, we don’t know how long these prices will last. While it sounds like a QVC sales pitch—we really don’t know for how long these deals will last. Of course, make sure to take this announcement with a grain of salt, because although Tesla has a pretty good track record of producing amazing vehicles, a promise of this magnitude may prove difficult to follow through on.

Read More: The Tax Credit Battle Over Environmentally Friendly Cars

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Government Wants You to Buy the New Tesla Right Now appeared first on Law Street.

You open up your email after getting to work on Friday morning, and you see that right above an email from Amazon asking you to finally buy the panini press that’s been sitting on your wish list for months, you have an email from Reince Priebus. Confused, you open the email, and you realize that it’s an evite. “Who uses evites anymore?” you wonder. The message, in no-nonsense, 11-point Arial, says:

Paul Ryan and I are throwing a big party tonight at 10 p.m., and you’re invited. I was gonna co-host with John Boehner, but he got cold feet and decided he’d rather not be responsible for what happens. So anyway, there’s gonna be beer, foosball, and absolutely no marijuana—even for medical purposes. We’ve invited basically everyone we know, so get here, early because it’s probably gonna be crowded.

Sincerely,

Reince Priebus,
Chairman, RNC

Your only other plans for the night were stream “X-Files” and decide which Trader Joes dinner to microwave, so you figure—why not? When work ends, you head home, eat some leftovers, and get stuck for a moment on what to wear. How do you dress for a Republican party? You briefly consider some bullet casing jewelry or your favorite “right-winger bitter-clinging” spangly jacket, but you decide on a Reagan/Bush ’84 T-shirt with a blazer. Hip.

Around 10:20 pm, you arrive at the house and see 17 cars in the driveway, so you park further down the street to avoid the inevitable chaos that leaving the Republican party will cause. When you approach the front door, you see a handwritten sign that reads, “We accidentally got the front door stuck. We know it’s not too safe, but we’ve requested that the backdoor remain opened. We’re all cool with this.” You trudge around the side of the house, thinking that this must be what it feels like to be Apple.

Once you walk inside, you’re immediately deafened by the volume of chatter in the crowded basement. Reasonably, there should only be a few people here, but instead, there are so many faces and names that you can barely keep track. This is going to be a long night.

You venture into the fray and see Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, and Lindsey Graham all huddled in a corner, quibbling about how to get people to notice them. Rick Santorum meanwhile, is involved in a furious debate over whether Muslims or gays are more dangerous. He comes to the conclusion that a gay Muslim would be the most dangerous. He is talking to himself.

Carly Fiorina is being a bit of a buzzkill, because she won’t stop telling people about a found-footage horror movie she just saw, giving some pretty gory details about bloody baby parts. Someone asks her for the name of the movie, but Carly mumbles something about not remembering and quickly walks away. You hear Ben Carson telling George Pataki that the pyramids were built for grain, that he once attacked a man in a murder attempt, and that prisons are gay conversion camps. George responds, “Alright, but I just asked if you knew where the bathroom was.”

Jeb! Bush seems to be flitting between groups of people, trying to tell them a joke or ask how they feel about his cowboy boots. No one seems to be engaging with him, so he sits at the table eating some of the guacamole he brought. He gets excited when Marco Rubio comes over to the table, but after a scoop of guacamole, Marco retreats back to his corner and visibly winces as Chris Christie ambles over to him with a menacing look.

John Kasich is rifling through the CD rack, looking for some Linkin Park to play. Reince doesn’t have any Linkin Park CDs in his house because he isn’t a 15-year-old who’s mad at his dad. You ask John why he wants to play Linkin Park and he says, “they’re really good and I like those guys.” John looks sad.

Sitting on the couch, holding the bible in one hand and “The Catcher in the Rye” in the other, is Ted Cruz. It’s a huge couch—large enough to hold at least six or seven people–but for some reason, no one is sitting with him. Literally every person at this party is standing. Many look tired, but they refuse to sit with Ted. Ted is shouting but you can’t tell at whom, and the only phrase you hear is “radical Islamic terrorism.”

Hunched over in the center of the room, is a familiar face. Donald Trump is actually, literally vomiting on the carpet, and everyone around him begins to cheer for some reason. Reince sees you gawking at him, and shouts in your ear over the music, “We didn’t invite him! He’s been really rude, but for some reason he seems to be really popular, so we’re scared that if we kick him out, everyone will leave. Don’t worry, we’ve got it under control.” You see him pour some club soda into a sprayer bottle and hustle over.

After the cleanup effort, Reince and Paul turn off the music and say that some people have to leave. They’ve gotten a noise complaint from their “lamestream” neighbors. Dolefully, Rick Perry and Jim Gilmore head out the door. Wait, who is Jim Gilmore? And Rick Perry was here? You could have sworn that he went to last year’s party, but didn’t expect him to show up again after that party foul. Following Perry, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, and George Pataki all get up to go. Then, in a mass exodus that feels like it takes months, everyone slowly files out. On their way out, you see Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee. Were they here too? How many evites did Reince send?

All that’s left now is Donald, Ted, and John. Mitt Romney comes downstairs and starts to lecture Donald on behaving maturely. Is Mitt Romney the GOP’s dad? you find yourself wondering. Donald hears this but listens to none of it. Mitt heads back upstairs, to resume his DVRed Jeopardy! episode and finish his glass of milk, you assume. You see Donald pull out his phone and bark into it: “Hey Sarah? Yeah, this party is very low energy–sad! I need you to come over here and liven it up a bit.”

You realize that you’re now standing in a room with Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich when you have a Netflix account and there’s a perfectly good armchair at your place underneath your poster of George H. W. Bush. You head to the bathroom, sneak out the window, and high-tail it to your car. On the drive home, you hold back a tear.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If the Republican Party Was an Actual Party appeared first on Law Street.

On the internet, everyone can have an opinion. The idea behind Change.org is that if enough people share an opinion, the powers that be will listen and accommodate their requests. Some petitions are superficial, like this one demanding that Instagram present photos chronologically. Some are touching, such as this one by the mother of a murder victim asking that the killer not receive a death sentence. One petition that has been getting attention recently is a petition for the Republican convention in Cleveland—an event with the potential to incite riots—to be an open carry zone for firearms.

Ohio is already an open carry state, but Quicken Loans Arena, the venue for the RNC convention, forbids firearms inside the premises. The petition explains in no uncertain terms how dire the need for firearms at the convention truly is. The author, a man named Len Davies refers to Quicken Loans Arena’s policy as “a direct affront to the Second Amendment,” arguing that it puts “all attendees at risk.” Davies even quotes the NRA as saying, “gun free zones… tell every insane killer in America… [the] safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”

If the petition comes to pass, the GOP candidates (as well as the managers of Quicken Loans Arena) will have a tricky decision on their hands. From one point of view, open carry is a no-brainer because all three republican candidates have voiced their disapproval of gun-free zones. The petition cites several quotes from each candidate: Donald Trump has called multiple times for the expansion of open carry areas, saying “you know what a gun-free zone is to a sicko? That’s bait.” Ted Cruz has said “look, if you’re a lunatic ain’t nothing better then having a bunch of targets you know that are going to be unarmed.” John Kasich worked to end “gun-free zones” at National Guard facilities in Ohio.

While the decision would ultimately come down to the venue’s management, candidates and figureheads of the RNC will be encouraged to respond to this petition. Supporting open carry at an event like this one could be a very dangerous move, but denying open carry could be seen as a violation of second amendment rights. If a candidate supports open carry in their state, that should mean they see it as a safe choice and would have no issue following the same rules at an RNC event. The petition decries the “hypocritical act of selecting a ‘gun-free zone’ for the convention.”

Some of the petition’s supporters may have ulterior motives, however. Many tweets and Facebook posts seem to indicate that the petition’s proponents aren’t quite friends of the RNC and are sending a tongue-in-cheek request for mayhem and chaos at the Cleveland convention. It’s also likely the petition’s author isn’t a ‘true conservative,’ as some elements of his petition read so strongly that they may be a parody. Davies capitalizes “HUSSEIN” in Barack Obama’s full name, and refers to ISIS using Dubya’s favorite phrase—”evil-doers.”

These petitions do occasionally enact real change but are often just digital wishful thinking. Don’t hold your breath for Cleveland to become the ‘wild wild (Mid)West’ just yet. Expect this petition to make some buzz, especially if it reaches its goal for petitioners. If you believe in the cause, add your name, and if you don’t, add your name just to add fuel to the fire. In all likelihood, nothing will change. Today, the Secret Service announced unequivocally that there will be no guns at the RNC convention, but it never hurts to try.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Open Carry Petition A Double-Edged Gun for GOP appeared first on Law Street.

Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives on Monday that asks Congress to “recognize magic as a rare and valuable art form and national treasure.” To clarify, this is the House of Representatives, part of the United States Congress. That’s not to be confused with the Magical Congress of the United States of America, which is unicameral, not to mention fictional.

The full text of the resolution, which is recommended reading for anyone who needs their heart warmed, uses some personal anecdotes to illustrate the power of magic. We’re introduced to Rebecca Brown, a Portland, Oregon resident who was so inspired by a David Copperfield performance that she returned to her unfulfilled dream of dancing. The resolution argues that magic is a motivational force for many, and transcends culture as an art form. Ms. Brown’s epiphany isn’t the only mention of David Copperfield in the resolution. Out of thirty-three ‘whereas’ clauses arguing that the resolution be passed, eleven of them mention the magician or his charitable organization specifically. This resolution is one third David Copperfield, so it’s reasonable to assume that Representative Sessions is a fan.

The resolution also makes mention of Wylie, Texas Mayor Eric Hogue, a man who discovered magic as a young child, and “continues to use those skills to teach elementary school students about the different roles and responsibilities of local government” While the description makes it seem like Hogue pulls a discretionary budget out of a hat to teach children all about the city council, videos show him performing fun and simple card tricks, and pulling a bouquet from some scarves.

The actual goal of the resolution is a bit vague: if passed, it would essentially state that the House of Representatives “supports efforts to make certain that magic is preserved, understood, and promulgated.” While its intentions seem goodhearted, the bill, sponsored entirely by House Republicans, has some Democrat lawmakers confused:

Breaking: @HouseGOP believes in magic but not climate change. https://t.co/2uDhitDMnN

— Mark Takano (@RepMarkTakano) March 15, 2016

While nothing in the resolution indicates its sponsors believe that magic is real, Representative Takano (D-CA) illustrates that these legislators are willing to officially recognize magic as a valuable art form while being unwilling to acknowledge the impact of climate change. Representative Sessions has a record of staunch opposition to renewable energy investments and efforts to curb CO2 production. But just because larger issues loom does not mean that magic isn’t important in its own right.

Having been referred to the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, the resolution has yet to be voted on–but magic aficionados around the country are holding out hope that their craft will be given recognition in Washington.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House of Representatives to Decide if Magic is a National Treasure appeared first on Law Street.

Patrick McDermott was found in Mexico last week. Again. Maybe. We can’t be completely sure because McDermott, a cameraman known most for his relationship with singer-actress Olivia Newton-John, may or may not have faked his own death in 2005.

It’s hard to know what the truth is, but we know a few things for sure: On June 30, 2005, McDermott disappeared while on a charter fishing boat. More than 25 passengers and crew members gave conflicting alibis to the police–because life is just another episode of “CSI: Miami.” The Coast Guard investigated his disappearance, coming to the conclusion three years later that he had drowned. Of course, anyone who’s seen any decent crime procedural TV show knows that the first explanation is far too simple to be correct. After all, there are still 15 minutes left in the show! The bombshell here is that McDermott may have owed his ex-wife $8,000, that he had just filed for bankruptcy, and may have had a life insurance policy for his son worth $100,000.

When something happens that sounds ridiculous enough to be on a TV show, it becomes a TV show, so McDermott was the subject of a Dateline special involving the most obvious trap ever set for a D-List celebrity. The investigators launched a website called FindPatrickMcDermott.com (which is no longer online, #MissionAccomplished). Whenever someone visited the website, their I.P. address and location were logged. Soon, reports of McDermott in Mexico and Central America surfaced, and an investigator named Philip Klein received a fax from Acapulco, Mexico. (Aside: “A Fax From Acapulco” sounds like the title of the world’s worst mystery novel). The fax was from a ‘representative’ of McDermott and led to the exchange of documentation and “voice imprints,” which proved beyond doubt that McDermott is alive.

So the investigation ended and all was well and good. Except for just one thing: the ex-wife. Yvette Nipar, who had a son with McDermott, claims that Klein provided no proof of life whatsoever and that his book about the incident was just an attempt to profit off of a man’s death. To date, there has been no photographic evidence of Patrick McDermott alive in Mexico.

This case resurfaced just days ago when the Australian magazine “Women’s Day” published “exclusive proof” of McDermott’s livelihood from investigator Phillip Klein. The story shared the cover with “Best Ever Easter Rocky Road: Too Easy!” and “Sam Armytage’s 7-Week Super Slimdown!” The magazine also cites investigator John Nazarian as saying, “It’s rumored he was with a German national. I spoke to people there [in Mexico]. The girl he was traveling with was described as having a German accent.” He alleges that McDermott is living and working in a remote Mexican village called Sayulita.

Crazy Report Claims Olivia Newton-John’s Ex Patrick McDermott Is Alive, Secretly Living in Mexico https://t.co/NhF1XJzAGU

— Jennifer (@janal811) March 23, 2016

So what is the truth? It’s possible that McDermott actually did drown in 2005, which means that Klein is a liar, Nazarian is a liar, or they’ve been fooled by bad evidence and a girl with a German accent. On the other hand, McDermott could have skipped town, abandoned his family and his financial responsibilities, to start over, off the grid, in Mexico. We’ve been told that proof of that story exists, but haven’t seen or heard it—and in the age of camera phones and the internet, it’s suspect that there hasn’t been a single photo of him in Mexico.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Olivia Newton-John’s Dead Ex-Boyfriend Secretly Living in Mexico? appeared first on Law Street.

Perhaps no public figure has received as much criticism and vitriol over such a long period of time as Hillary Clinton. Clinton has been nationally famous since the 1980s, and internationally famous since her first day as First Lady of the United States. In her stump speeches and TV appearances, Clinton chalks the near-constant mudslinging up to oppositional Republican forces who are threatened by her ability to enact real change. And though it may sound trite at this point in the campaign due to repetition, sexism is still a real and damaging force, and may contribute to some of these efforts. Of course, that can’t be true for every line of attack–not every criticism is a right-wing conspiracy designed to slander the former secretary of state. So which is the truth–or could it be a mixed bag of libelous fiction and legitimate fact? Let’s evaluate Clinton’s history of responding to sexual assault and rape by trying to determine the truth, and what they might mean about Clinton’s candidacy and presidency.

Before I dive in, I’ll try to pre-empt some bias–as it stands, I like Hillary Clinton. I know that for some reason, saying you support the efforts of the frontrunner of The Democratic Party (and the most likely person to be our future president) is a divisive statement, but it’s something I should acknowledge. I wasn’t always set on Mrs. Clinton, and my support isn’t unmovable, but her levelheaded approach to policy reform and breadth of executive experience appeal to me. I like Bernie Sanders, and I respect him as a politician. He’s represented the state of Vermont loyally for decades, but I find myself doubting whether he’d make progress on his lofty plans with Congress, and wonder if he has enough foreign policy clout to serve as our Commander in Chief.

Still, the internet can be a toxic place for a Hillary Clinton supporter. The seemingly cult-like online presence of Sanders fans is suffocating to anyone voicing support for his opponent. In the real world, Clinton leads Sanders nationally, and has fantastic momentum in the delegate count, but the subset of voters who are active online paint a very different picture. Know that I’m not a blind supporter of Mrs. Clinton, and that I believe her to be a flawed person.

Most famously, Clinton’s husband’s sex scandal has also become her cross to bear. It’s no shock to the American people at this point that President Bill Clinton had an extramarital affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. At the time that the affair was first breaking to the public, Hillary Clinton argued that the claim was yet another attempt by a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to tarnish her husband’s reputation. Then, as evidence to support Ms. Lewinsky’s claims grew, Clinton told the press that she had been misled by her husband, and she publicly committed to her marriage in spite of her husband’s indiscretions, taking the role of “the good wife.” Whether Clinton was truly unaware of the goings-on between her husband and Ms. Lewinsky, and whether Hillary and Bill are in love and devoted to each other is anyone’s guess. It’s equally reasonable to think that the former President and his wife have successfully moved on from the scandal as it is to think that their relationship is rocky and held together by political promise. Either way, I don’t think that the personal marital strife of the couple reflects poorly on Hillary Clinton’s intelligence or leadership.

The larger concern borne out of the Lewinsky scandal is Hillary Clinton’s attitude toward women leveling accusations against her husband. On the campaign trail these days, she tells crowds that rape victims should be believed and supported.

Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported. https://t.co/mkD69RHeBL

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 23, 2015

That proves troubling when faced with Juanita Broaddrick’s 1978 rape accusations against Clinton’s husband, which came to light two decades later. This created a conundrum for her: if these claims are false, standing by your husband is the right thing to do. If the claims are true, disbelieving a rape victim is heartless, wrongheaded, and reprehensible. The only response from Bill or Hillary to these claims came through President Clinton’s lawyer, who said “Any allegation that the president assaulted Juanita Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false.”

A person in a position as powerful as president is a lightning rod for false accusations, but it’s also true that a president’s influence could be used to cover up sexual indiscretions as well as acts of sexual violence. Knowing that both of those things are true, it would be extremely difficult to navigate charges made against your extremely powerful husband. There is no evidence to show that Hillary Clinton threatened or intimidated Broaddrick into silence. At the time, Clinton was supporting Anita Hill during her testimony against then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, so it’s tough to argue that Hillary was completely unsupportive of women or even specifically victims of sexual harassment and assault. Many online rags will argue that Hillary personally sicced private investigators on Bill’s accusers, but the only concrete statement on that comes from a 1998 Matt Lauer interview:

I think we’re going to find some other things. And I think that when all of this is put into context, and we really look at the people involved here, look at their motivations and look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.

That’s certainly not the “love and kindness” angle that Clinton is espousing now, but it’s not inherently criminal or evil. While false rape accusations are exceedingly rare, they do happen, so though it’s very disappointing to hear Clinton say these things, it would only be truly unforgivable if Clinton knew that these accusations were true, and actively tried to bury them. Criticizing Hillary Clinton for her comments about rape accusers in the nineties is absolutely fair game, and shows pretty clearly that in many areas of women’s issues, Hillary Clinton was certainly part of the problem.

For a candidate whose campaign often puts women’s issues at center stage, Clinton’s comments from twenty years ago show that she has been on the offensive against specific women accusing her husband. Whether she’s learned from the backlash, or simply learned to hold her tongue, her policy decisions and voting record show that she’s been a defender of women for decades, turning the feminist corner and leading the charge among the 2016 candidates. While her record on equal pay legislation, maternity leave, and global women’s rights is something she can proudly tout, some of Mrs. Clinton’s attitudes and comments from the 90s are absolutely disheartening, but not disqualifying.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Should we Make of Hillary Clinton’s Record on Rape Victims? appeared first on Law Street.

When Anderson Cooper came to speak at George Washington University, he had to adjust the timing of the event. Due to a change in scheduling, the event previously scheduled for the morning was shifted to the evening. What was the early morning emergency that caused Mr. Cooper to change his plans? An interview with Melania Trump.

When interviewer Frank Sesno, the Dean of GW’s School of Media and Public Affairs and former CNN correspondent, asked about Cooper’s time with Mrs. Trump, Cooper told the audience that she was “cautious” and “lovely,” but that the interview would certainly not be a news-making revelation. At the event, Sesno’s questions for Cooper discussed the media’s role in the presidential election, asked him to reflect on some video clips, and later turned to his personal life.

Image courtesy of Sean Simon for Law Street Media

As for CNN’s coverage of the presidential elections, Cooper defended the media’s role in the primaries several times during the event, saying that Trump is hyper-aware of the media and that he is the only candidate willing to be interviewed so often. When criticized for giving Trump excessive airtime on CNN, Cooper argued that a presidential run as unorthodox as Trump’s is worthy of attention—that it points to a very real wave of anger and distrust in the American public.

Pushed further on the issue of the media’s role in elections, he argued that much of the onus is on the viewers. Today we have unprecedented access to information through the internet, and each person has the ability to become educated on a topic in a matter of minutes. He could make an hour long documentary on healthcare in America, but it’s not worth the time and effort if no one watches.

Then came time to review some video from Cooper’s career at CNN. Sesno showed some clips to Cooper and the audience, asking for more background on Cooper’s decisions as an anchor and interviewer. One clip was an interview with Senator Mary Landrieu in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, in which he hears platitudes from the senator. Cooper expresses the anguish of the people of New Orleans, forcing her to face the horror of the natural disaster. After watching the clip Cooper elaborated on his thought process, adding that he had seen a family left dead in their flooded home just the day before his interview, an image that haunted him as he spoke with the Senator.

When asking about his interactions with the presidential candidates, Sesno presented a clip that showed one of Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings—a sort of tone-deafness. The video, taken from the February 3 Democratic Town Hall, shows Hillary not-so-deftly addressing her high-priced speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms. Sesno highlighted Cooper’s decision to demand a real answer for the large fees, rather than being content with a stock response.

At the end of the event, Cooper began talking about his personal life, giving the audience a look at a side of him rarely revealed on CNN. Cooper’s older brother committed suicide at the age of 23, and his father died when he was 10 years old. He told the audience that he felt so much grief and pain that he needed to find a surrounding that reflected that feeling in order to make sense of it. That was why, after graduating from Yale, Cooper took a camera and some friends to travel to the most war-torn parts of the world. He remembers sleeping on a roof in Somalia, exploring with very little money while trying to find connection in distant and foreign cultures.

The event Cooper spoke at was sponsored by Allied in Pride, a student organization at George Washington University dedicated to LGBTQ issues, and so Cooper also opened up about his identity as well. Although he was not publicly “out” for many years, he told the audience that he has always been openly gay in his professional life, and in no uncertain terms that being gay is one of the greatest blessings of his life.

Being the great-great-great-grandson of railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, Cooper has had a cushy and privileged upbringing. Without also being gay, Cooper thinks he may not have been aware of his privilege, and the discrimination that others go through daily. His sexual orientation gave him more perspective on life, leading him to be more of an observer than an active participant. “Being gay has taught me empathy, and empathy has made me a better reporter,” he said.

Cooper ended his talk by answering questions from the audience. He took the opportunity to sum up his own reporting modus operandi. He wants to confront his interviewee with the facts, rather than his opinion. He’s not interested in voicing how he feels, but rather to get an understanding of how the other person operates, and to understand the essence of their positions.

Cooper warned that fame can be “gangrenous” and told the audience that if you become obsessed with your own image, you lose integrity as a journalist. At an event was co-hosted by GW’s School of Media and Public Affairs, that warning should be well-heeded by aspiring journalists.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anderson Cooper Gets Personal During Talk at GW appeared first on Law Street.

Netflix is a behemoth in the entertainment world, beloved by its 75 million paying subscribers. During a recent presentation, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings announced that the service is now truly international, as Netflix’s streaming platform is available in over 200 countries, not including the ever-obstinate China. But it’s not all good news–during the same presentation, Hastings mentioned subscribers’ use of VPNs when streaming Netflix, adding that Netflix would soon begin blocking users from accessing Netflix through a VPN.

VPN stands for Virtual Private Network, and in order to understand what a VPN is, let’s take a look at its most common use: in business, a company might have an ‘intranet,’ which is a network that doesn’t connect to the outside world, but links together all of that company’s servers and computers. An employee working from home or abroad could use a VPN to connect to that private network, and browse through the files as if they were physically there.

Now picture that instead of accessing a business’s intranet, you’re connected to someone else’s internet. This would mean you can browse the web from the geographical point of view of another person. That’s where Netflix users see an opportunity: because much of Netflix’s expansive catalog is locked to specific regions, a user in the U.K. could ‘pretend’ to be in Tennessee, and catch up on a U.S. exclusive show.

Why does Netflix geo-block some of its content? And why do they care if users circumvent those blocks? Netflix gets distribution rights to its content through agreements with content owners. These agreements have limitations to make them affordable for Netflix, which might include limiting how long the content is available online, how many seasons or episodes of a show will be streamed, and where it is allowed to stream. A content owner might have an existing agreement to exclusive streaming rights with a service provider in the EU, and so they can only offer their show to Netflix for streaming in the U.S.

Netflix is now acting on its promise, and users worldwide are finding that their visits to Netflix are blocked if they have an active VPN. Many subscribers are angry because their Netflix selections are narrowed down to their country’s content, while the majority of subscribers who don’t use VPNs will experience no change.

It’s hard to blame Netflix for accommodating the requirements set by the content owners. This may be part of the reason Netflix has been accelerating production of Netflix Originals, which it retains full control of, and can stream worldwide without the permission of others. But there is also a reason that Netflix users feel entitled to a broader selection of content–physical boundaries for online content feels antiquated in an increasingly globalized world. It’s reminiscent of the irksome region-locked DVDs we used to struggle with. If I can Facetime a friend in Germany and show her a Youtube video over the air, how do region-locks on the world wide web make sense? We can hope that Netflix pressures content owners to be less restrictive when cutting deals, but until then, subscribers in the U.S. will have to go without streaming “22 Jump Street.”

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everyone Panic: Netflix is Actually Blocking VPNs Now appeared first on Law Street.

What do you get when you cross a get-rich-quick scheme with a for-profit college, while adding a healthy dose of reality TV megalomania? The answer is Trump University–a series of “classes” designed to teach aspiring young entrepreneurs the secrets of real estate passed on from the Donald himself.

Trump University, which Marco Rubio used as fodder for his attacks on Trump during last night’s Republican primary debate, did indeed exist, and many people are mad about it. Rubio was correct when he told the debate audience that there are pending lawsuits against Trump for his involvement with the organization.

There are currently two active class action lawsuits against either Trump or his company. The first is Cohen v. Donald J Trump, a lawsuit against Mr. Trump specifically which cites a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. This lawsuit highlights that the New York State Education Department warned Trump that it was unlawful to call the unlicensed ‘school’ a university. There’s also a national lawsuit named Makaeff et al. v Trump University LLC, which cites a violation of state consumer protection false advertising and elder financial abuse laws. Some people who paid for an education with Trump University are dually covered by these class actions.

Some of the failures of Trump University can be attributed to mismanagement. But many of the complaints against it allege deception and fraudulent practices. The university promised to reveal Trump’s real estate secrets. This was done through video advertising featuring Donald himself as well as flyers mailed out with Donald Trump’s signature. When interested would-be students attended these free seminars they found a marketing pitch for a three-day conference that would cost about $1,500.

Naturally a portion of these free attendees decided to pay for the three day conference–after all who wouldn’t pay less than $2,000 to receive “the last real estate education you will ever need for the rest of your life?” But these attendees were disappointed yet again when they arrived at the three day conference only to find that they were able to take a picture with a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump, and then encouraged to sign up for a Gold Elite program. At this point, the students who hadn’t realized how similarly this program structure reflected Scientology and had never heard of a scam, agreed to charge $35,000 to their credit cards for this special program.

The lawsuits claim that Trump University even provided scripts for the students to use when calling their credit card companies to explain how they could afford such a large charge. Students were allegedly told to include potential future earnings in their income reports to allow the credit card companies to provide such a sizable sum.

In typical Trump fashion, almost every detail of the lawsuit has been denied. The executive vice president of the Trump Organization Allen Garten said that “there’s no merit to these allegations whatsoever” and that the suits came forward “completely out of a financial motivation.” Garten points to a “98 percent approval rating,” but many claimants have argued they felt pressured to fill out good ratings, with some claiming they were given the survey before the program began.

There are some participants who say that the Trump University experience was beneficial for them, including one customer who paid for the Gold Elite Package, who claims that calling the education helpful “would be an understatement.” This is in stark contrast to one of the claimants in the lawsuit saying that after her $35,000 payment she was unable to reach any of the instructors for further tutelage.

As Donald J. Trump continues to totally dominate in the polls, in the primaries, and in delegates, his opponents are scrambling to cut down his support. The scandal of Trump University may prove to be a useful tool for eroding Trump’s success, but so far, nothing seems to stick to the candidate.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Was Trump University a Scam? appeared first on Law Street.

The “Trial of The Century” is beginning—but to put on the show, you need an audience. That’s the role of jury selection—a process of making logical decisions about illogical things. It’s a racist, sexist, and biased part of the trial because the lawyers have to anticipate the racism, sexism, and biases of potential jurors. As a lawyer, you want to include jurors who are sympathetic to your narrative, considering factors like their sex, race, and marital status. Episode four of “American Crime Story” fills the 12 front-row seats for the nationwide event.

Jury Selection

The jury analysts contacted in O. J. Simpson’s case give simple advice: listen to the data rather than your own ethics. For someone like Marcia Clark, who strives to be racially fair and unprejudiced in the workplace, this advice may be hard to take to heart. Ordinarily, a woman being told to soften her appearance by dressing more femininely and changing her haircut would reek of workplace sexism. But in this case, it may be the only way Clark can get the jury on her side. As long as sexism and racism exist, the law will have to react to these very real prejudices.

“American Crime Story” paints Marcia Clark’s underestimation of race and its influence on the trail as her biggest mistake. She ignores what the focus group tells her about her poor rapport with black women because she has had great experiences with black-majority juries before. She’s content to allow the defense’s selection of black jurors because she sees them as logical and reasonable individuals. When her colleague accuses defense lawyers of playing the race card, our attention shifts its focus. At that point, the episode’s other central theme comes to a head—just who is in charge of O.J. Simpson’s defense team?

A Dream Team Divided

The dream team that we watched assemble in the previous episode is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare. They’re still a supergroup a famous and successful lawyers, but there’s only room for so many big personalities at the defense table. There are many rational reasons to debate whether Johnny Cochran or Robert Shapiro should be the lead attorney. Shapiro started with the case, knows O.J. personally, and has invested significant effort, time, and money into his strategy. He’s also known as a settler, and at one point proposes that O.J. adjust his charges to manslaughter and hope for a lighter sentence.

On the other hand, we have Johnnie Cochran who is the total opposite of a settler. He comes alive in the courtroom, persuading juries and presenting the facts like no one else can. He’s a showboat, but prosecutors are right to be scared of his dedication and savvy. The decision between these two attorneys didn’t exclusively come down consideration of their talent. In large part, Cochran was chosen because he is black and will be able to relate better to the jury.

The police department begins to bend to the same pressure when District Attorney Garcetti suggest that they spice up their lineup with a black attorney as well. Marcia Clark shows both heart and cunning when she chooses this as the opportunity to recognize Christopher Darden, who had previously been overlooked for his effort.

Showing Some Heart

Because so much of this episode, and the show in general, is centered on Marcia Clark’s humanity working against her, it’s easy to miss that the show has some heart. In Murphy’s previous work, such as the early seasons of “Glee,” the show excelled when exploring an emotion plainly and honestly with no sense of bombast or pandering. These moments were rare but touching. In this episode of “American Crime Story,” we explore the tragedy of a double homicide without the lens of irony. Meeting the father of Ronald Lyle Goldman and seeing how completely torn apart he is by the death of his son affects us. It shows us how the media obsession with the case’s drama and intrigue can cause real damage to the people affected. This show of unrestrained emotion helps to counterbalance the show’s habit of indulging the pulpy and fun aspect of the case.

Ronald Lyle Goldman’s father at his funeral and seeing how completely torn apart he is by the death of his son affects us. It shows us how the media obsession with the case’s drama and intrigue can cause real damage to the people affected. This show of unrestrained emotion helps to counterbalance the show’s habit of indulging the pulpy and fun aspect of the case.

The good news is the Kardashian children did not make an appearance in Tuesday’s episode. The bad news is that the material that replaced it was still over-steeped in irony and cheekiness. Episode four chronicles Faye Resnick’s “authorship” of a tell-all Nichole Brown Simpson biography in pure Ryan Murphy fashion. Actress Connie Britton hamming up her chance to play the “bad girl” so much that the scene can’t be deemed kosher. Resnick’s book did play a part in the voir dire process, but there are dense sections of the episode in which Britton’s monologs about Nicole and O. J.’s intimate past. Murphy can’t resist giving you the saucy details and then reminding you over and over how saucy they are.

Episode four of “American Crime Story” walks the fine line between what is ethical and what is effective. Clark’s team of prosecutors are focused on doing what is right while Simpson’s defense team is focused on whatever method will actually work. I suspect we’ll see the prosecutors fall further and further from their position on the moral high ground, as they find themselves unable to compete with their opposition’s cutthroat willingness to do whatever it takes to win. We already know how this ends—the ‘bad guys’ win. And we’re beginning to see the prosecution’s confidence chipping away.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “American Crime Story” Wants A Good Jury, Not A Fair One appeared first on Law Street.

The Mississippi Alcohol Beverage Control board has a strict rule about liquor and adult entertainment: they don’t mix. This means no jägerbombs at a strip club, and no vodka sodas at any event they deem “sexual in nature.” The Mississippi ABC is very clear about its policy: in summary, no fun allowed.

This is a pretty hardline rule, intended to prevent sexual entertainment from becoming the booze-soaked mess it should by all rights be. The rule is being called into question after being invoked to cancel a twerk-centric concert by bounce star Big Freedia. The Mississippi ABC threatened The Dollar Box Showroom with fines and revocation of its liquor license if it featured Freedia’s show, due to “potential gyrating.”

Before we address the craziness of this law and its application, there are some questions to answer. Like who is Big Freedia and what is bounce?

Big Freedia, born Freddie Ross, is a hip hop artist hailing from New Orleans. Freedia is the biggest name in bounce music, and has helped bring the genre’s music and dance style to the masses. Rolling Stone even raved over her performance at SXSW in 2013, and that same year Big Freedia also set the Guinness World Record for most amount of people twerking simultaneously.

As for bounce music, the simplest way to describe it is that it’s really, really fun. Check out this video for an example of the dancing associated with bounce, and you’ll see that it’s high-energy, fast-paced, and a far cry from the feeble shakes of Miley Cyrus and the like. The dance is a long-standing element of New Orleans hip hop culture, and has been traced back to dance traditions from sources as varied as Haiti’s gouyad, Jamaica’s whine, and the Ivory Coast’s mapouka–all part of the African diaspora.

The reason that the Mississippi ABC interfered with Freedia’s show at The Dollar Box Showroom in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, is that her performance is considered to be “adult entertainment,” and sexual in nature. In one of the most hilarious interviews in recent memory, Mississippi ABC’s Chief of Enforcement Rusty Hanna explained, “You can’t wear a thong. You must keep the cleft of your buttocks covered, and you cannot simulate a sex act.”

This is bogus for two reasons. Not only because the law is a pretty dumb one, but, moreover, that it’s unevenly enforced. The ABC hasn’t taken this kind of stand against a Beyoncé, Miley Cyrus, or Rihanna concert, all of which feature a heavy dose of hip gyrations and sexually charged dancing. Plus, Freedia’s twerking isn’t designed to titillate a passive viewer like stripping or lap dances. At a Freedia concert, the audience is all twerking along, and attendees are invited to join Freedia on the stage. It’s celebratory and appreciative in a way that a strip performance is not.

I’ll admit a degree of bias towards the free enjoyment of bounce music and the associated dance. I had the pleasure of attending a Big Freedia concert in Washington, D.C., and it took me hours to wipe the smile off of my face after Freedia had left the stage. Not once was I disturbed by a buttock cleft or a sex simulation. So why have the good people of Mississippi been deprived of that joy? Freedia’s not sure why:

“I’ve been there numerous amounts of times already, so I’m not sure who’s pulling this cord or what’s going on up there. But my legal team will be taking action. It’s sad that the fans in Mississippi could not get to see me and indulge and have fun like we normally do. I just played at the Mississippi Coliseum with Lil Wayne and Young Jeezy.”

Many suspect, however, that Freedia’s recent involvement with the Beyoncé song “Formation” may have made her a target for law enforcement officers. Freedia offers backing vocals on Beyoncé’s song about her proud southern black female identity, contributing with her unabashed celebration of southern food. Freedia raps,

I did not come to play with you hoes, haha
I came to slay, bitch
I like cornbreads and collard greens, bitch
Oh, yes, you besta believe it

It’s hard to believe that Freedia’s contribution to Beyoncé’s song could be taken as a criticism of the police, but Beyoncé’s music video and subsequent Super Bowl performance caused a political stir among some groups. Freedia’s association with that Beyoncé song could be the reason she’s under further scrutiny.

If Mississippi is going to stand by a law that prevents someone from drinking liquor while they watch a person strip, they should at least recognize the difference between “adult entertainment” and a dance with strong cultural ties designed to celebrate heritage and inspire bodacious fun.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You Can’t Drink and Watch Someone Twerk in Mississippi appeared first on Law Street.

After the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, President Obama announced that he would nominate an “indisputably qualified” candidate to take Scalia’s place. Apparently to many House republicans, “indisputable” is indeed, disputable. And while it’s all well and good to take your time evaluating the credentials of a person who could feasibly be making important decisions for the country for the next forty-plus years, refusing outright to look at any nominees is obstructionist nonsense. As with most political nonsense, members of Congress are finding excuses for their actions. Here are a few of their “reasons” behind that un-constitutional garbage, each dumber than the last:

1. The Thurmond Rule

Several GOP candidates have cited “The Thurmond Rule” as a reason to avoid appointing a new justice in an election year. For the unfamiliar, here’s a recap on the person behind The Thurmond rule:

Strom Thurmond, a South Carolina senator, was one of the most aggressive segregationists in modern American history. This is a man who never fully renounced his belief in segregation all the way to his death in 2003. That’s right, iPods existed, and this influential man still didn’t dial back his position that black people and white people should use separate bathrooms. This is a man who impregnated his family’s sixteen year-old black maid, fathered an illegitimate mixed-race daughter, and secretly paid for her schooling while railing against her right to share a bus seat with a white person.  This is a man who makes George Wallace look like Beyoncé Knowles.

So now that we’ve gotten a quick re-cap on the historically heinous opinions of Mr. Thurmond, we can understand just how much weight we should give his opinion on Supreme Court Nominations. And while people refer to Thurmond’s argument as a “rule,” it’s really just one guy’s suggestion. That suggestion is that the Senate should not nominate a Supreme Court justice. And even if we were to take this rule of thumb as the letter of the law, we’d need to look at Thurmond’s exact quote. In a moment where he wasn’t disparaging ethnic minorities, he said: “No lifetime judicial appointments should move in the last six months or so of a lame-duck presidency.”

Barack Obama has over eleven months left in his presidency, and nine months until the presidential election. By any measure, that’s more than six months, and this rule of thumb shouldn’t apply.

2. “Conflict of Interest”

In a cart-before-the-horse argument, Rand Paul said that Obama should not be allowed to appoint a justice, because potential nominees would support the Presidents’ own issues facing the Supreme Court, such as his executive actions concerning immigration, and his climate change regulations.

There will always be a potential for a president to choose a nominee who supports the same interpretation of the law as they do. In fact, the court’s more conservatives justices; Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and formerly Scalia, were all appointed by Republican presidents. The more liberal justices, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer were all appointed by Democratic presidents. That’s kind of just how it works. Obviously it works in the President’s own favor to elect a similarly-minded justice. That’s why we democratically elect a president whose political ideologies align best with the majority of Americans–so that his political decisions won’t be subject to an arbitrary whim.

Here’s the thing: if Obama picks a strongly biased or crony nominee, that person won’t make it through the Senate’s approval. That’s the check on Obama’s power that already exists, and which should be used regardless of political affiliation to make sure that the person nominated is qualified, and not unduly biased.

Thankfully, Paul qualified his argument to be less resolute “It’s going to be very, very, very difficult to get me to vote for a presidential nomination from this president,” he said. “I will look at it if it comes down, but my threshold for voting for somebody is going to be very, very high.” I’d hope that his threshold would he high regardless, and not exceptionally high simply because a Democrat is in office. We’ll have to see how he ends up voting.

3. We Owe It To Scalia / There’s No Precedent

We’ve heard a lot from GOP presidential candidates about honoring Justice Scalia’s legacy, How do you best honor the passing of a strict originalist? By ignoring the text of the constitution, of course.

Senate Majority Leader and alleged turtle Mitch McConnell responded to Scalia’s death by saying “This vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” But Scalia was known for his very literal reading of the constitution.

If Scalia had been asked about the nomination for his successor, he’d pull out his pocket-sized (but never abridged) copy of the Constitution, and zero-in on article II, Section 2. That section says “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint … judges of the Supreme Court.” Then Justice Scalia could slap Mitch McConnell across the face with that Constitution for misrepresenting the founders’ original intent.

Unfortunately in his absence, we have candidates decrying that there’s no precedent for a Supreme Court appointment in an election year, and that there’s no time for a candidate to be vetted. The only trouble with those arguments are that they are just not true. For one, there have indeed been Supreme Court appointments during an election year, as NPR explains brilliantly in its rundown of SCOTUS history.

And the notion that there’s no time is also unfounded. The longest Supreme Court Justice nomination took 125 days, after Louis D. Brandeis was confirmed in 1916. Actually, if the Senate waited until our 45th president nominated a Supreme Court Justice, the country would endure the longest vacancy on the court in the last thirty years: well above the earlier record of 237 days.

No matter how you slice it, President Obama is well within his constitutional rights to appoint a Supreme Court Justice of his choosing, so long as the Senate fulfills its constitutional obligation to fairly assess and vet the nominee. All of the reasons presented by these legislators are simply excuses for being deliberately obstructive to the legal procedure mandated by the Constitution.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The 3 Dumbest Reasons To Block Obama’s SCOTUS Pick appeared first on Law Street.

If they introduce the attorneys in a case like they announce an NFL team’s lineup before the game, it would look a lot like episode three of “American Crime Story: The People v. O. J. Simpson.” One by one, John Travolta’s plastic-faced Robert Shapiro assembles the behemoth legal team behind O. J. Simpson. We’re given the sense that the show is done revving its engine now, and it’s ready to speed along into familiar territory. The key here, building further on the earlier background episodes, is the word “familiar.” Is this where fatigue sets in?

When you’re telling people a story they already know, there is additional pressure to make your telling fresh. Since the show was announced, it has lived under the shadow of the public’s own knowledge of the case. It’s like watching a movie after reading the plot summary online. Or catching up on a TV show after your friend has spoiled the plot twists for you. As dramatic and intense the production becomes, it can’t escape the fact that it is by nature a surprise-less story. Therein lies the trouble for high-profile true crime: getting an audience to care again. “Serial’s”  first season, and “Making A Murderer” both focus on relatively low-profile cases—viewers don’t know what to expect and are surprised by each new witness or piece of evidence. That’s the trouble faced by “Serial’s” second season, in which they took on the high-profile case of Bowe Bergdahl.

The Challenge of Familiarity

With “American Crime Story,” audiences can’t be shocked. This alone doesn’t devalue the show, in fact, it makes the show better. That’s because the Clark’s team of prosecutors faces the same problem. Their witnesses are gabbing on television about what they saw, and the 911 tape is playing day in and day out on national television. Their jury will have already heard the story, already seen the evidence. By the time they’re in trial, it’ll be double exposure.

Ryan Murphy, the show’s producer, is Marcia Clark, and we are his jury. That might be why Clark is given a much more empathetic position, as penance for the “dowdy,” “bitchy,” and “shrill” comments hurled at her at the time. So how do Murphy and his team liven up an over-exposed story?

Much like the lawyers in O. J.’s case, “American Crime Story” needs to decide on a fresh narrative angle and make it stick. In its third episode, the show does just that, cementing several through lines. We’ve got the race angle, which builds as scheming lawyers construct a defense; the failure-of-justice angle, as we follow a cocky prosecutor losing her confidence; and the repercussions of fame angle, demonstrated most clearly through the Kardashian family’s rise to notoriety. And there’s a glimmer of themes to come, as the focus on Marcia Clark’s home life suggests the show will address sexism in upcoming episodes.

The race angle is “American Crime Story’s” most evident effort to make Simpson’s case relevant. The vignettes and quotes in episode three continue the pattern of looking at Simpson as both an example of and an exception to racial biases. For every TIME magazine cover darkening Simpson’s appearance, there’s a barb from Clark saying, “Doesn’t Simpson deserve a jury of his peers, you know, rich middle-aged white men?” That’s the balance struck by the show: when Shapiro tells Simpson “We get one black juror, we get a hung jury, you’re going home,” Simpson responds, “I’m not black, I’m O.J.” We see Shapiro dance around the word “black” as he explains why he wants Johnnie Cochran to join Simpson’s team.

Making it Resonate

As the titular dream team drums up sympathy for a ‘racist police’ defense, they’re riding on the coattails of earlier tragedies such as Rodney King and the Christopher Commission. This begs a valuable question: does it cheapen or invalidate the true injustices they’re referencing? To compare the sham of a racist cop defense with actual atrocities might lump those events together, in a disservice to the truly innocent victims of police violence. “American Crime Story” stays fresh because it makes us ask these questions about a decades-old case.

As for the miscarriage of justice, Clark’s confidence has been steeled even further since Simpson’s arrest. “A star is born” we hear her say. “He practically did my job for me” she boasts to co-workers as she delivers high-fives. A hyper-confident Clark at the beginning of the series builds tension in the viewer, who knows that failure is looming for her. We know she’ll fall, but just how and when remains to be seen.

While it makes for gripping television, the actual Marcia Clark clarified in an interview with Vulture that she was nowhere near as confident as her character on the series:

I’m sorry, the truth is, we were not [confident]. We’ve got to look confident, though. I’m not going to go out to the press and say, Oh, we’re going to lose! I have to present a confident case.

And finally, fame. Fame has long been a favorite topic of Murphy’s, ranging from “Nip/Tuck” to “Glee” to “Scream Queens.” An obsession with celebrity, along with its perils, has always been on the forefront of his productions. As for “American Crime Story,” the show deals best with fame when it discusses its intersection with race and gender and justice. It falters when it delivers us scenes that feel like prequels to “Keeping Up With The Kardashians.” Like David Schwimmer’s professorial delivery of a diatribe to his children about the trap of fame exemplifies this issue. Saying, “We are Kardashians, and in this family being a good person and a loyal friend is more important than being famous” is so egregiously ironic that viewers may need to visit an optometrist to address eye-rolling-related strain.

As for additions to the already star-studded cast, some new faces get screen time in this episode. Nathan Lane provides a delightful and nuanced F. Lee Bailey, Evan Handler gives us Alan Dershowitz–the most lawyerly lawyer I’ve yet seen on television–and Selma Blair is handed a few lines, with which she plays Kris Jenner better than Kris Jenner could.

And now that the show has found its footing, confidently asserting exactly the story it’s telling and why you should be watching, we’ll be able to see the ensemble cast flourish in the part of the rich trial drama that America knows so well.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “American Crime Story” Hits its Stride as the Dream Team Assembles appeared first on Law Street.

The National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, known best for hosting the Grammys, is getting political this year, and not in a “Formation” kind of way. The Academy has created a Political Action Committee intended to support and protect recording artists by attempting to influence Congress on important bills.

Currently, the Academy’s PAC, called ‘the Grammy Fund for Music Creators’ is taking aim at getting the Fair Play Fair Pay Act passed. Like most bills, the name sounds appealing, but the drafting and passing of this bill has become quite contentious. The core of the bill would require radio stations to pay additional fees in order to play songs, and other parts of the bill would concern payments from online streaming.

When you buy a song on iTunes, or stream a song on Spotify, the money spent is split between Apple or Spotify, and then then between the artists, producers, and songwriters, according to their agreement. When music is used in another work of art, such as in a film or TV show, or sampled in another song, royalties are similarly distributed. There’s one major exception to this trend: when music is played on the radio, the stations pay royalties to the songwriters, and no one else.

The reasoning behind this is that airtime on radio stations is considered “promotional,” and is argued to drive sales of music and build popularity of artists. Even in our streaming-saturated music scene, most Americans still go the the radio for new music. Of course, the recording artists see it differently. They claim that with record sales dropping year after year, radio is an increasingly weak promotional force, and shouldn’t be exempted any more than Rdio, Spotify, Pandora, or Apple Music. Some criticize this new bill as a ‘cash grab,’ calling to mind Taylor Swift’s ongoing boycott of Spotify.

Proponents of local radio worry that these potential regulations would be stifling to small radio stations. The Free Radio Alliance explains why on its webpage:

The multinational record labels want a bigger slice of the pie and they want Washington to give it to them. The record labels have made several attempts to impose a performance tax, or fee, on free and local radio stations through Congressional legislation in the past and now they are back at it. A performance fee would require radio stations to pay the record labels yet another fee to air music free, over-the-air to listeners. Congress has continually rejected the notion that imposing a new fee is appropriate, based on the tremendous promotion value radio stations provide to labels and performers.

The Academy claims that the proceeds will benefit the artists, adding a specific claim in the statement by one of the Grammy Fund’s officers, Harvey Mason Jr.:

We represent everybody, not just superstar artists. So we are careful in how we disseminate our message, and when we go to D.C. or have events, it is with a variety of people from the bottom to the top.

While the effort to give money to the artists and creators is noble, it may be difficult to achieve this goal, given that it would need to overcome the precedent of radio stations being able to inexpensively play music. It’s worth learning more about the process to evaluate whether you support the bill. I’d recommend checking out Rolling Stone’s in-depth analysis of how royalties are divided in various music listening formats. And if you tune in to this year’s Grammy Awards, you’ll likely notice a more nostalgic tone, with David Bowie and Lemmy tributes planned. But you should know that behind the scenes, the Academy is taking a political stand with far-reaching implications.

Editor’s Note: This post was updated on 2/17/2016 for clarity. 

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Grammys Get Political Behind The Scenes appeared first on Law Street.

Ted Cruz has used an approach to campaign ads fitting for the current race: bizarre, inflammatory, and slimy. You might remember his “send-up” of Saturday Night Live commercial parodies, Cruz Christmas Classics. How about his Donald Trump Doll ad, where children argue over Trump and Clinton action figures while concerned parents look on? His newest ad, however, won’t be airing on TV or the campaign’s YouTube account, because Cruz’s people took the video down over a scandal concerning one of the actresses. His campaign has quickly replaced it with a new, anti-Clinton ad.

The removed spot, called “Conservatives Anonymous,” riffs on Alcoholics Anonymous, showing a support group for conservative voters who feel spurned by centrist politicians who are “Republicans In Name Only.” The ad slyly suggests at which candidate Cruz is taking aim when a blonde woman says “Maybe you should vote for more than just a pretty face next time.” The punchline hits when a new member enters the room, wearing a Marco Rubio t-shirt, asking “Do you guys have room for one more?”

The campaign learned that Amy Lindsay, one of the actresses starring in the advertisement, has previously acted in erotic films, finding that her filmography includes movies called “Secrets of a Chambermaid,” and “Insatiable Desires.” To be clear–the distinction between hard and soft core pornography is that in soft core material, no sex acts are shown, and in some cases, no genitalia. The films featuring Lindsay fit in the latter category, as she performed topless, and didn’t perform any sex acts with her co-stars. Lindsay took to Twitter to voice her disappointment:

Extremely disappointed the #TedCruz campaign pulled the national television spot I had a role in… #moretocome #myvotecounts

— Amy Lindsay (@amylindsayLA) February 12, 2016

But is it really reasonable to pull an ad simply because of one actress’s past? It may not line up with Cruz’s “family values,” but there’s no reason to conflate Lindsay’s performance in this advertisement with her past roles. We don’t eternally see Charlize Theron as a psychopathic killer or Viola Davis as a house maid. These actresses are afforded the chance to re-invent themselves for each role, whereas any actor who participates in a salacious role isn’t offered that chance.

It’s not as though Lindsay drags Cruz’s message into a seedy pornographic underworld–70 percent of American males 18-24 watch actually-pornographic material–footage much more explicit than the soft-core projects Lindsay participated in. In fact, 20 percent of men admit to watching porn during work. Somehow, for all the ubiquity of adult content in mainstream America, the presence of a person whose naked body is in other videos invalidates the message of the ad. Lindsay even identifies as a Christian Conservative, and her personal views actually mirror those of her character in the advertisement.

By this measure, Cruz’s campaign would also refuse to cast Matt LeBlanc, Sylvester Stallone, David Duchovny, and Adam West. Even Helen Mirren acted nude in sexual scenes in the pornographic film “Caligula,” only to later portray Queen Elizabeth. All of these actors have performed in either hard or soft core pornographic programs, yet continued to have successful film careers after the fact. It wouldn’t surprise me if from now on soft-core porn production companies refuse to cast Lindsay, citing her appearance in a Ted Cruz advertisement.

This effort to save face isn’t surprising from Cruz, or similar conservative candidates who hinge on the support of religious voters–often Evangelicals and Baptists. Though it may be a shrewd move, it’s simply unfair to allow an actor’s past roles color their other performances. Clearly politicians can’t be held to what they said or did in the past–so why shouldn’t actors be afforded the same leeway?

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In Defense of Ted Cruz’s ‘Porn’ Actress appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, 167 million people watched a white Bronco carry his team to victory. Then on Tuesday, a few million people watched a white Bronco carry a fugitive along Interstate 405.

If you had asked me yesterday about O. J. Simpson’s breaking-news car chase in 1994, I could have probably told you that he drove down a Los Angeles highway in a white Ford Bronco, with officers in hot pursuit. I bet if you asked my parents to describe the same event, they’d paint a picture much closer to the events in episode two of “American Crime Story: The People v. O. J. Simpson.”

They’d mention how everyone was glued to their televisions, that the news networks all broke away from their scheduled programming for the live chase. They’d know that the chase was more of a motorcade, as the LAPD kowtowed to the demands of Simpson, who had a gun to his own head in the backseat of the car. They’d add that for six hours, the question of life or death for the actor and athlete was up in the air. Before watching “American Crime Story,” I knew none of these details, as many people my age fall into an O. J. knowledge gap that I mentioned when I covered the first episode of the series.

I was very skeptical when I heard that “American Crime Story” would weave real footage from the news into its dramatization. It could’ve been exploitative, dragging unsuspecting bystanders back into the fray, and might lend undue credibility to the drama’s version of the events. After watching two episodes, I’ll admit I was wrong. The footage is seamlessly integrated with the fiction, and I think it was the only way to give me some understanding of how it must have felt to watch the chase live.

Seeing Tom Brokaw and Bob Costas announcing the chase and read the news as their younger selves was also momentarily off-putting. It’s like seeing a young photo of Maggie Smith or Joe Biden–we understand that all older people were once young, but it’s still bracing to actually see their younger self. Being able to recognize the newscasters makes the viewing experience more immersive.

As for the part where we see the tiny Kardashian kids watching their father read an apparent suicide note on television; to me, the children chanting “Kar-da-shi-an!” breached the limits of the narrative–winking a bit too strongly at the modern audience, who might feel as though the television is constantly chanting “Kardashian” at them today.

Still, the Kardashian connection may become more meaningful if the show bridges their fame with the rise of 24-hour media and the dawn of reality TV. For months, The O. J. arrest, trial, and verdict dominated newspapers, magazines, and especially television. One character in “American Crime Story,” a television producer, said it best when he demanded that ABC’s feed change to the Bronco chase: “O. J. is news, entertainment, and sports.” This perfect storm of America’s obsessions: celebrity, race, crime, and politics set the fuse for the explosion of constantly breaking news and national television moments. Remember, this is well before “American Idol” capitalized on the unifying nature of live television.

And of course, the topic of race is discussed further in this second episode, as we meet Christopher Darden’s family and friends. They’ve got their television out by the pool, and they’re discussing the favorable treatment Simpson receives. “When he got rich, he became white” one character added. “The police are chasing him—he’s Black now!” another retorts. It’s curious to see the intersection of wealth and race in Simpson’s case, especially considering that most of the victims Black Lives Matter focuses on belong to a lower socioeconomic class.

Johnnie Cochran wastes no time in excusing Simpson’s actions by placing them in the context of race relations between the black community and the LAPD. Cochran evokes the story of Leonard Deadwyler, a black man who was shot while speeding his pregnant wife to the hospital. The series walks a fine line, as the defense’s claim of police racism is weakened by the fact that most Americans believe O. J. Simpson committed the 1994 murders. As the show moves into new territory, especially the specifics of the trial, we’ll see whether “American Crime Story” treats the defense’s case as a smokescreen or a real social injustice.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “American Crime Story” Episode Two: The Bronco Chase appeared first on Law Street.

Dixville Notch. That’s the name of a small town in New Hampshire, and not, as you may have expected, the name of a Southern lawyer from the 1920s. Actually, the word town isn’t technically correct, as it’s designated as an “unincorporated community in the Dixville township.” The only reason anyone has heard of Dixville Notch is because the town has the honor of being the first town to vote in the New Hampshire primaries. To illustrate just how small Dixville Notch is: the community’s population tally in 2010 was a whopping 12 people.

In the wacky world of primaries and caucuses, where some of the most powerful people in the country pretend that Iowa is their favorite state, sometimes small towns like Dixville Notch get their fifteen minutes of fame.

This all happens because New Hampshire law allows a town with fewer than a hundred residents to open polls at midnight, and close polling as soon as the last ballot is cast. Why? Because “Live Free or Die,” that’s why. Dixville Notch isn’t the only town who has taken advantage of this law, as there is a nearby town named Hart’s Location which has a similar tradition. One key difference: the citizens of Hart’s Location grew tired of the media attention for a few decades, and suspended the tradition from 1948 to 1996. I like to imagine that Hart’s Location is a bustling metropolis of forty-one people, who look down on the twelve townsfolk of Dixville Notch for living simple lives.

One man, Neil Tillotson, (who has a bizarre and fascinating Wikipedia page) had the ceremonial honor of casting the first ballot, which he would do by holding his slip above the ballot box with one hand, checking his watch on the other hand, and dropping his vote in at the exact stroke of midnight. He has since passed away at 102 in 2001, and now the first to vote is randomly selected.

There has only once been one tie in the history of Dixville Notch, and while that statement could feasibly be about neckties given the size of the population, here it refers to a tie in voting. This occurred in 2012, when Mitt Romney and Barack Obama each received five votes.

Dixville Notch is just one of several small towns across the country that draws attention during the insane election season. Remember when Polk County, Iowa was momentarily nationally relevant? In a political system governed by archaic and bizarre rules, with caucuses and coin-flips, midnight voting and pork-eating, quirks like Dixville Notch’s voting tradition add a little levity to the tiresome ordeal.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dixville Notch: A Small Town On The Big Stage appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve used the app Tinder, a match-making social app which allows you to “swipe right” on potential matches for a chance to chat with them, then you know there’s a fair share of duds. There are the people who can’t hold a conversation, ones who are too flaky to meet for a proper date, and ones who just blatantly want to get into your pants. Now, however, there may be a new Tinder plague, and it’s some Bernie Sanders supporters.

Tinder troll asks her matches to ‘Feel the Bern,’ gets banned https://t.co/8ZoazQ7MHM pic.twitter.com/S20SebyEiX

— Mashable (@mashable) February 5, 2016

That’s right–these ardent fans of Senator Sanders created Tinder profiles, and once they match with you, they bombard you with pro-Sanders arguments, and encourage you to vote for him in the primaries. Often, they’ll include a number to text “WORK” to, which donates $5 tacked onto a user’s phone bill to Sanders’ campaign. There’s even a Facebook page, called “Bernie Sanders’ Dank Tinder Convos” where fans share their ‘intellectual conversations’ with the unsuspecting (and single) public. “I won’t blow you, but Bernie Sanders will blow you away with his progressive policies” is one memorable rejoinder. One particularly jarring experience is seeing Bernie Sanders’ own face on a Tinder profile, as seen in this fake account created by a supporter.

Raleigh woman surprised by Bernie Sanders appearing on her Tinder app. He’s looking for votes, not a date. pic.twitter.com/oyW5q5nBrP

— Steve Daniels (@DanielsABC11) January 29, 2016

Some supporters are even paying up for the chance to spread the gospel of Sanders, by purchasing Tinder’s premium option. This lets them to choose alternate locations to ‘swipe’ in, allowing Sanders supporters all across the country to communicate to New Hampshirites. Curiously enough, I couldn’t find any examples of “Bernie Bros” doing this kind of canvassing, perhaps due to the fact that women get more ‘right swipes’ on Tinder, making their message-spreading more effective. Tinder is not so fond of this unlicensed marketing, as they’ve been banning users who abuse their service for political gains. That’s as it should be–Tinder is a safe space for matching with that kid from your high school calculus class ten years later, and should be reserved for such venerable acts.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Bernie Sanders And Chill”: Using Tinder as a Canvassing Tool appeared first on Law Street.

If you had any doubt that politics are more like “Veep” than “The West Wing,” Jeb! Bush resoundingly proves that awkward tragicomedy is the reigning genre of Washington. Constantly avoiding comparisons to his older brother, taking his mother along for campaign appearances, and struggling with a “glasses-on or glasses-off” wardrobe choice, Jeb!’s presidential campaign feels more like a kid desperately trying to run for class president after his brother ran a few years ago promising free pizza for lunch and ended up invading the neighboring middle school. You might find Jeb! listed in the thesaurus as an antonym for suave—and his total inability to hide how poorly he is doing gives him a touch of humanity that is never afforded to a frontrunner. Here, we’ve collected the most “Jebby” moments of the 2016 campaign, for your cringe-inducing pleasure.

“You might swing my vote”

This video (which has no sound, don’t worry) shows a potential voter telling Jeb! that his vote just may have just been swung. This admission of potential interest was enough to brighten Jeb!’s face (and likely his entire week), causing him to jog over to the man with a gleeful expression and wrap him in a bear hug. Still, giving away a hug for a vote is pretty cheap compared with the $2,800 Jeb! ended up spending per vote in Iowa.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Jebbiest Jeb! Moments of the 2016 Race appeared first on Law Street.

Presidential campaigns don’t come cheap. While superPACs help funnel donations in the millions from the elite class, candidates prefer to brag about the amount of small donations they’ve received. But Americans are savvy consumers, and are rarely content to give away their money for nothing. This leads to perhaps the most niche market of all: Campaign Merchandise. Much like the booths at a Beyoncé concert, these online shops peddle fun tchotchkes emblazoned with the candidate’s name and face, at hyper-inflated prices.

Consider purchasing a faux-embroidered throw pillow from Hillary’s camp to give your home a dowdy yet socially-conscious touch. Perhaps you’d be more interested in a “Grillary Clinton Spatula” for a burger flip that’s sure to break the glass ceiling. No? Not even a “Chillary Clinton” drink koozie? You’re probably just not jumping on these offers because you can’t decide, so why not go for a Hillary Clinton Shop gift card and pick out your favorite later?

Hillary’s store is a perfect example of the general silliness of the campaign merchandise world, but there are select other examples that almost seem like parody. Jeb Bush, for example, has tried many methods to connect with Hispanic voters, but he may have found the clincher with his $75 “Guaca Bowle.” This item is included in the “Lifestyle” section of his shop, for the consumer who wants to better emulate the Jeb Bush lifestyle.

jeb bush is funding his campaign by selling guacamole bowls……#guacabowle pic.twitter.com/G4UiTESKpj

— lil minkus chellygal (@chelleygal2) September 24, 2015

Be sure to also check out his “Vintage Tank,” which shows a young John Ellis with “a sideburn-mustache combo that would make Burt Reynolds blush.”

Trump’s store is more of a one-note operation, as his “Make America Great Again” hats are among his campaign’s largest expenditures.

Donald Trump blew $450,000 on red hats – made by Latinos #IowaCaucus https://t.co/wpsItFFUtl pic.twitter.com/iCoGPACjT4

— Independent US (@IndyUSA) February 1, 2016

The award for the most insane store might just be Dr. Rand Paul’s. His campaign is now suspended and his shop’s webpage now says “EVEN THE NSA COULDN’T FIND THAT PAGE.” But before he bowed out of the race, Paul had a “fun stuff” section in his shop, where you can buy a $1,000 autographed constitution, as well as a giant (meaning several feet large) birthday card, something called “Rand on a Stick,” an NSA spy cam blocker for your laptop, flip flops, and a “Don’t Drone Me Bro” t-shirt, cementing Rand Paul as the candidate most hip to the ways of the youth. I would link to these, but these soon-to-be-collectibles may need to be hunted down on eBay now that they’re truly “limited edition.”

As for Bernie Sanders, his store is one of the most reserved, filled mostly with cups and shirts with “Bernie” and “Feel the Bern.” The only stand-out product is a “Babies for Bernie” bib, which proves yet again that Bernie polls well with the under-20 crowd.

Ted Cruz rounds out the list with a terrifying image: a photoshopped poster of him shirtless and tattooed:

Errrrmagod!

Shirtless Ted Cruz poster for $50 on his website. #Merica https://t.co/GknvtvYEL6pic.twitter.com/lsx2uiXCi7 — marija bekafigo (@drbekafigo) September 10, 2015

So peruse the options available to you, and pick your favorite candidates’ merch. Plaster their name on your wall, across your forehead, or on your chest, for a “made-in-America” exorbitant cost.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Strange World of Campaign Merchandise: Who has the Best Swag? appeared first on Law Street.

On October 3, 1995, seven jurors announced to the world that they found Orenthal James Simpson not guilty of two counts of murder. The very next day, as the widely televised news was printed in the daily newspapers, I was born.

Being a newborn infant, I was painfully unaware of the media spectacle, racial tensions, cultural effects, and legal quagmires presented by this all-consuming trial. Even as I grew up, I barely knew that it had happened. Later in my life, I was able to experience my own equivalents of “the trial of the century,” when Michael Jackson went to court for child molestation, and later again when Casey Anthony was acquitted of the first-degree murder of her daughter. The fact remains that when it comes to the O.J. Simpson trial, I knew next to nothing. Up until I watched the first episode of “American Crime Story,” which aired on Tuesday night, I probably would have said that the most influential result of the trial was the rise of the Kardashians. That just might be the case for many people my age.

Creator Ryan Murphy, showing much-welcomed restraint in his handling of the material, knows very well that in addition to a public who was saturated with O.J. melodrama twenty years ago, he is courting a millennial audience. Along with his large production team, Murphy needed to make 1994 feel relatable to a host of young viewers. In a way, seeing the ’90s on screen is like watching another world. It’s almost unrecognizable for me to see a waiter approach Rob Shapiro, played by John Travolta, to let him know someone had called the restaurant to ask for him. I’m reminded of the Seinfeld generation gap, in which cultural touchstones once considered universal are lost on the next generation of consumers.

Still, the odd experience of watching a “period piece” set in the very recent past is offset by the themes inherent to the story–race, privilege, and fame–will never be relegated to a specific generation. The narrative is framed smartly around these issues, chock full of quips about institutional racism in the police department and the preferential treatment of the rich and famous. In the hands of the man behind “Glee,” these lines could have easily felt glib, but in today’s social atmosphere they only seem prescient.

The show opens with real footage of the Rodney King beating, verdict, and ensuing L.A. riots. I recognized the event after piecing together the soundbites playing alongside the footage. During this opening montage, I realized, embarrassed, that I had never seen the video before. I wouldn’t be surprised if that held true for many people my age, even those following the progress of Black Lives Matter and other movements.

I’m led to believe that there’s a gap in your understanding of history during the period right before you’re born. You’re able to take stock of what’s happening in the world around you, feeling the aftershocks of a cultural phenomenon, but everything you’re taught in school is from well before. The phenomenon of textbooks and teachers waiting for the dust to settle before teaching about something that happened only a few years ago leaves many students unaware of the immediate past. Although I never thought I’d say this about yet another true crime drama, it’s refreshing for people my age to take our time understanding this case. In a world as rapidly-paced as ours has become, we rarely take the time to look back on the past, in fear that we might miss something that’s happening now.

So I’ll continue tuning in, assuming the show won’t fall prey to Murphy’s tendency to overblow plot arcs and schmaltz-soak finales (advance reviews seem to paint a positive picture of the direction of the show). I’m interested in watching the modern-day parallels develop, reading about what the dramatization gets wrong, and maybe, finally have a sense of what I missed out on just before I was born.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “American Crime Story” Teaches Millennials A Much-Needed Lesson appeared first on Law Street.

It seems that an iconic sports car from the 80s will find new life this year due to a minor adjustment in federal regulations. Some changed language tucked away inside the “Low Volume Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Act” (H.R. 2675) will help pave the way for the DeLorean Motor Company to make car aficionados’ and movie buffs’ dreams come true.

Automakers are subject to thorough regulations and costly examinations before being allowed to get their cars on the road. Large corporations take these processes and fees into account while developing and selling new makes and models. For smaller automakers, such as DeLorean Motor Co. and Superformance LLC, these regulations are extremely costly compared to the size of their revenue. These processes can be so expensive, in fact, that they prohibit the small manufacturers from producing vehicles at all.

The Delorean had its share of fame (and some would say infamy) since well before it was featured as a time-traveling vehicle in Back To The Future. In the 1970s, John Z. DeLorean was still the youngest person to ever be an executive at GM when he left the company and founded his own: The DeLorean Motor Company (DMC). His brainchild was the DMC-12, the only car manufactured by the company, and it took over eight years to come to the market. When the car finally became available in 1981, it was far from a commercial success, selling only 9,000 models amidst middling reviews. DMC couldn’t shoulder the losses, and went bankrupt. In a bizarre aside, DeLorean himself did try to help fund the company by trafficking cocaine, but was acquitted of the crime after a jury found him to be entrapped.

So the Delorean parts sat in a warehouse somewhere for a few decades; meanwhile a film called “Back To The Future” was released in 1985. The movie staged the futuristic-looking car as a dynamic centerpiece, and cemented its image in American pop culture for years to come. One decade later, in 1995, a mechanic named Stephen Wynne created his own DeLorean Motor Company, and bought the logo, name rights, and remaining parts. Since Wynne’s move, DMC has been offering Delorean parts to owners who wish to refurbish their vehicles, but found it financially difficult to move forward on actual production.

Republican Senator John Thune from South Dakota is the chairmen of the Commerce Committe, and he is excited about Delorean’s prospects, saying “I’m excited to see this part of our reform bill is making a difference for a small business and fans of an iconic 1980s car.” DeLorean announced its plans with a page on its website, saying that at first, it plans to produce only four cars each month, at an estimated $100,000.

2015 marked both the futuristic year the “Back To The Future” characters travelled to, and the 30-year anniversary of the film. Fans’ passion for the movie has reached a new high. If the excitement keeps up, we could see more and more DeLoreans on the road in the nonfiction future.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Great Scott! There Will Be DeLoreans in the Future appeared first on Law Street.

The World Health Organization’s director general, Margaret Chan, recently warned her executive board and the world that the Zika virus is posed to “spread explosively” throughout North and South America this year. Another WHO officer suggested that three to four million new infections are likely in that time frame.

The Zika virus, (pronounced ZEE-kuh) named after the Ugandan forest where it was first discovered, is transmitted by mosquitos. When Brazil reported its first case of Zika in 2015, it marked the first instance of the illness in the Western Hemisphere.

While the illness poses a threat to the countries it affects, the Zika virus isn’t much of an immediate concern for people living in the United States. The Aedes mosquito which carries the virus is native only to parts of Florida, and prefers the warmer climates of South America and Mexico. A person who is infected with Zika by a mosquito may experience a mild fever, a skin rash, and conjunctivitis, lasting up to a week. At first glance, Zika’s symptoms are indistinguishable from and not much more threatening than influenza.

This map shows how over time, the virus has moved from mosquito populations across oceans.

MAP: The spread of the Zika virus http://t.co/4vFT5ok6R0 pic.twitter.com/L3FPytZqts

— Post Graphics (@PostGraphics) September 21, 2015

Zika’s effects, however, are more than skin deep. For one, many countries with inadequate health services may see symptoms worsen. But the far more concerning result of these infections is the effect of the virus on the next generation. Many doctors share concerns that the children of mothers who have contracted Zika during pregnancy are born with a condition known as microcephaly. The connection between the virus and the condition was only made recently, as doctors in Brazil found the virus in the placentas of affected children, and in one autopsy of a baby who died.

Microcephaly, literally meaning “small head,” is a birth defect/condition in which stunted or abnormal development of the brain during gestation causes a child to be born with a smaller head than is healthy. Children born with microcephaly often experience developmental delays, difficulties with coordination and balance, and mental retardation, among various other physical ailments, according to the Mayo Clinic.

The main prevention advice being dispensed by health organizations like WHO is to avoid mosquito exposure by using mosquito nets and insect repellent. One doctor went as far as to instruct women in affected areas to not get pregnant, and women of child-bearing age who may have children are advised against traveling to these areas.

This level of attention is reminiscent of the Ebola scare of from 2014 to 2015, and word of such a widespread outbreak leaves many wondering if they should be fearful for their health. A recent Center for Disease Control report that a dozen travelers returning to the United States had the Zika virus further fanned the flames of concern.

The ramifications of an outbreak as large as WHO is predicting could be heartbreaking–if any the millions of affected women become pregnant, their children are at great risk of conditions which would lower their quality of life. President Barack Obama has urged the rapid development of vaccines and treatments  for Zika infections among American doctors, but the fate of millions will rest on careful prevention and hopefully, medical advances.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet Zika: The World’s Next Health Crisis? appeared first on Law Street.

Primary season is upon us, and it seems you can’t scroll through your TV guide without passing a televised political debate. For political junkies, the primary debates are equivalent to Sunday Night Football, with fans watching eagerly for stand-out moments, which can be alternately career–defining, or campaign–destroying. It’s easy to feel saturated with the political back-and-forth, especially considering the GOP candidates will debate seven times in the first three months of 2016.

Amidst all the chaos of these events, however, there are some regulations the campaigns and candidates must follow. Each of the two major parties lay out a schedule and a list of restrictions–if you want to be their nominee, you have to play by their rules. Both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions forbid candidates from performing in sanctioned debates if they participate in an un-sanctioned debate. This means that the debates organized by the party are the only debates a candidate can participate in, if they want that media coverage.

When it comes to scheduling there are stark differences, however, between the parties. The DNC announced that it would organize a total of six debates from 2015-2016, down from 26 debates in the ’07-’08 election. The RNC also reduced the number of debates, from the 20 between 2011-2012 to twelve debates this season.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the chair of the DNC, has received criticism for limiting the number of official debates, and for scheduling the debates for time slots with low viewership. Critics of Wasserman-Schultz see the debate schedule as support for Hillary Clinton, as Clinton is a more familiar candidate, while Bernie Sanders might benefit from more airtime to introduce himself to voters and put his message forward.

One loophole used by candidates on both sides is to join a “forum” or “town hall.” These events still involve candidates answering questions live on television, but are distinct from debates in that the candidates take turns, and don’t interact with or respond to each other. The Democrats and Republicans each have four forums scheduled.  As for other debates, MSNBC and The Union Leader newspaper are considering hosting a separate, unsanctioned debate, which could disqualify participants.

Thursday’s Republican debate is already drawing headlines for the candidate who won’t be there–none other than the chief headline-drawer himself, Donald Trump. Trump asked followers on Twitter whether he should attend the debate, and eventually his campaign stated he will refuse to participate due to his discontentment with Megyn Kelly’s position as moderator. A move like this might spell trouble for the RNC’s ability to control its already anti-establishment candidates. This does not, however, bar him from participating in other official debates.

Fox News representatives fired back at Trump’s refusal, poking fun at his decision to poll his millions of Twitter followers.

We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings

Trump didn’t take too kindly to the barb:

The statement put out yesterday by @FoxNews was a disgrace to good broadcasting and journalism. Who would ever say something so nasty & dumb

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2016

Following this refusal, Ted Cruz, Trump’s biggest rival in the Iowa caucus, challenged Trump to a “mano a mano” debate between the two. This sort of event would be right in Cruz’s wheelhouse, as during his undergraduate years he shined on Princeton’s extemporaneous debate team. But such a debate would be against the RNC’s rules, and would forbid either candidate from participating in future RNC debates.

While leadership from each party has control over the sanctioned debates, we may see more town hall forums spring up throughout primary season. If rebukes like Trump’s become more common, the control of the parties might begin to slip away, leading to an even more unpredictable primary season.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Debate Drama on Both Sides in 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

The prison system is meant to deter crime, provide public safety, and rehabilitate criminals. But today, the Supreme Court told us that too often that last aim is ignored in the case of juvenile offenders. The court ruled 6-3 to allow prisoners convicted of a crime they committed while they were juveniles to have their life without parole sentences reconsidered.

In a 2012 ruling, Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court barred “life without parole” sentencing for juveniles, but only for future convictions, affecting none of the currently imprisoned people, for the sake of preserving the “finality of conviction.”Today in Montgomery vs. Louisiana, the court had the rare effect of retroactively altering the sentences of inmates. The case, centered around Henry Montgomery, a man who shot and killed a deputy sheriff at the age of 17. Montgomery is now 69, and for his entire adult life has known nothing but the prison system.

#SCOTUS holds Miller’s prohibition on mandatory life w/out parole for juvenile offenders IS retroactive in cases of state collateral review

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) January 25, 2016

Some states individually chose to adjust the sentences of convicted juveniles following the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling. This means that the new retroactive ruling only affects the sentences of about 1,000 inmates out of the 2,341 people convicted as juveniles facing life sentences, according to a study by The Phillips Black Project. More than half of that population had already been allowed to seek reconsideration of their sentences, as long as they can prove that their “crimes reflected their transient immaturity.”

The entire course of this argument hinges on whether a life sentence should only apply to an incorrigible person–that is, one with no hope of rehabilitation–and whether a juvenile is capable of being incorrigible at a young age. Justice Kennedy wrote in his opinion that “prisoners like Montgomery must be given the opportunity to show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruption; and, if it did not, their hope for some years of life outside prison walls must be restored.” This ruling adds on to the ban on “life without parole” sentencing for juveniles unless the prosecutor can prove that the specific individual is beyond saving. While standards of incorrigibility vary by state, they typically focus on the accused showing repeated examples of behavior and no response to reprimands from authority.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Undoes “Life Without Parole” Sentences For Juveniles appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve ever been “sub-tweeted,” then you know that it’s not a good feeling. Sub-tweeting is the social phenomenon that occurs when someone tweets about you without “@mentioning” you, which gives you a notification. While sub-tweeting is seen mostly as a petty social faux pas, consistently tweeting “at” or about someone after they’ve made efforts to block you could become criminal.

Two women–Heather Reilly and Stephanie Guthrie–who are active on Twitter, filed a lawsuit against Gregory Alan Elliott, who allegedly tweeted at them and about them constantly. Elliott was charged with criminal harassment, marking it the first harassment case in memory to hinge exclusively on online contact.

After they briefly considered hiring Elliott to provide graphic design work, he and Guthrie launched into a Twitter fight about then-Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and feminist objections to certain video games. According to Guthrie and Reilly’s claim, Elliott tweeted frightening and hurtful statements about the two which caused them to fear for their safety. This material included one tweet mentioning their location at the time, saying “A whole lot of ugly at the Cadillac Lounge tonight.”

The two of them blocked Elliott on Twitter, but he was still able to tweet about them, and use hashtags they were likely to see. The Canadian criminal code prohibits anyone from knowingly or recklessly harassing another person through conduct that causes that person reasonably fear for their safety. Ultimately, the judge held that Elliott didn’t definitively know that he was harassing them, as the women continued to tweet back about his comments. This, in the court’s opinion, elevated the exchanges to political discourse, and that while it was impassioned, it didn’t cross the line into causing safety concerns. Elliott was found not guilty, meaning that for now, the distinction between political arguments and personal attacks is drawn pretty clearly in that court.

Of course, obsessively tweeting someone you don’t know could actually be the key to a new relationship, if you’re less creepy about it.

Danielle Ceaser, 22, is a big fan of Jake T. Austin, a 21-year-old actor known for his work on “The Fosters” and “Wizards of Waverly Place.” Dating back as far as 2009, when the actor was just 14 and Ceaser 15, she tweeted “I wanna meet @JakeTAustin so badly,” and asking “…is it bad that I wanna kiss youu right now?.” She continued to tweet that the two were destined to meet. She announced that she put photos of Austin up on her wall, and told the world that the two would get married, and that “he just doesn’t know it yet :).”

Just like most love stories, the obsessive tweeting was met with a “follow” from Austin’s account in 2011, a sort of holy grail for superfans. Then, the two actually met at a meet-and-greet opportunity in 2012. Ceaser continued to post all about Austin for the next three years, and suddenly Austin posted a picture of the two kissing on his Instagram. It became official–the fangirl who had set her sights on Austin for over seven years is now finally dating him. In this example, relentless tweeting resulted in a happy ending. It would be a Cinderella story, if Cinderella had run a Prince Charming-themed fanblog since she was in middle school before attending the ball. So, Twitter has evolved into a lot of new things–it can be a tool for creepy stalking, or a venue for love. It all just depends on how the tweets are received.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Stalking Can Lead To Lawsuits, Or Love appeared first on Law Street.

Clad in a jangle-y, fringe-y sweater, Sarah Palin grabbed a gooseneck microphone Tuesday night, beamed and said, “This is gonna be so much fun.” And boy, was she right.

Palin, second only perhaps to Donald Trump himself, understands the spectacle of the media–after all, the two have both starred in their own reality television shows. During her endorsement speech, Sarah Palin announced that Trump wouldn’t “pussyfoot around” and would “kick ISIS’ ass.” Remember when she was almost the Vice President of the United States? And we thought that was the height of lunacy.

That sweater, by the way, has now sold-out from Saks Fifth Avenue at its original $695 price. For a cheaper option, coat a magician’s cape in clear glue, stand in your kitchen, and detonate a firework in your silverware drawer.

As soon as Sarah Palin’s frantic, wholly non-sequitur speech went online, various internet communities quickly created send-ups.

Vine only has six seconds to lampoon Palin, but thankfully she packed as much material as possible into that short time, with this unintelligible description of “Trumpeters”–Trump’s most ardent supporters.

Is Sarah Palin OK. https://t.co/MckD5il1xt

— Louis Peitzman (@LouisPeitzman) January 20, 2016

In turn, this moment has been blended with other popular Vine trends, such as poking fun at Iggy Azalea’s rapping abilities:

THE INTERNET IS SO ILL https://t.co/iw5ewaxT1J — The Kid Mero (@THEKIDMERO) January 20, 2016

And of course, a mashup, which is the only time you’ll ever see “Ciara, and Missy Elliot feat. Sarah Palin.”

omg. the internet. https://t.co/IlXyEbEBGO

— kelsey mckinney (@mckinneykelsey) January 20, 2016

One personal favorite quote from the speech is:

Trump’s candidacy has exposed, not just that tragic — that ramifications of the betrayal of a transformation of our country, but, two, he has exposed the complicity on both sides of the aisle that has enabled it, OK?

Here Palin demonstrates that she has heard several multisyllabic words before, but never took the time to read up on what they meant, or how they fit into a sentence. Twitter users chimed in on her seemingly endless tirade:

Breaking: Trump names Sarah Palin his running mate, plans to trade her in for a younger woman once he loses interest.

— OhNoSheTwitnt (@OhNoSheTwitnt) January 19, 2016

BREAKING: Sarah Palin endorses Donald Trump in 17 minute run-on sentence.

— Top Conservative Cat (@TeaPartyCat) January 19, 2016

I can relate to Sarah Palin in that I have worn tight pleather to distract people from the fact that I am a nightmare.

— Pony Starwars (@tigersgoroooar) January 20, 2016

And finally, some repurposed poetry. The candidates’ debate performances have also been given the poetic treatment.

I reformatted Sarah Palin’s Trump endorsement speech as Walt Whitman poetry. Lyrical! https://t.co/JADZlE84zJ pic.twitter.com/dugkFIqeUk

— Jason O. Gilbert (@gilbertjasono) January 20, 2016

If you’re in the mood to feel your brain melt inside your skull like ice cream in the Gobi desert, endure the full 20-minute speech at your own risk.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Internet Reacts to Sarah Palin’s Insane “Stump for Trump” Speech appeared first on Law Street.

The two recent debates–the Republican debate on Thursday, January 14, and the Democratic debate from Sunday, January 17, were chock-full of strange exchanges and bizarre declarations. They were also strangely poetic; and the perfect reason to create some found poetry based on the standout performances from the debates.

For the uninitiated, Found Poetry occurs when a poet “select a source text […] then excerpt words and phrases from the text to create a new piece.” Politics and found poetry have been bedfellows before, such as when Donald Rumsfeld waxed philosophical about the essence of war in a series of found poems written by Slate’s Hart Seely. For the following found poems, all of the contents come directly from the listed speaker, and were spoken in that order. The titles, however, are of my own creation.

I Have Never Heard of the Geneva Convention

by Dr. Ben Carson

“We’re not going to bomb a tanker

because there might be a person in it”

Give me a break.

 

Just tell them that,

you put people in there,

we’re going to bomb them.

 

So don’t put people in there

if you don’t want them bombed.

You know, that’s so simple.

I Once Saw A Jewish Man on Television

by Ted Cruz

There are many, many

wonderful, wonderful

working men and women

in the state of New York

 

The values in New York City

are socially liberal or

pro-abortion or

pro- gay-marriage,

focused around money and the media.

Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want

by John Ellis Bush!

Donald, Donald — can I —

I hope you reconsider this.

 

So I hope you’ll reconsider.

I hope you’ll reconsider.

 

The better way of dealing with this

the better way of dealing with this

is recognizing that there are people in,

you know, the — Islamic terrorists inside,

embedded in refugee populations.

I Know They Talk About Me In The Back Of P. F. Chang’s

by Donald Trump

China —

they send their goods

and we don’t tax it —

 

they do whatever they want to do.

They do whatever what they do, OK.

 

When we do business with China,

they tax us.

You don’t know it,

they tax us.

 

I love China.

I love the Chinese people

but they laugh themselves,

they can’t believe how stupid

the American leadership is.

I Respect That You’re Taking My Lunch Money

By H. Rodham Clinton

Well, my relationship with him,

it’s — it’s interesting.

 

It’s one, I think, of respect.

We’ve had some very tough dealings

with one another.

 

He’s someone that you have to

continuingly stand up to because,

like many bullies,

he is somebody who will take as much as he possibly can

unless you do.

I Don’t Know How To Use My Daughter’s iPhone

by Martin O’Malley

I believe

whether it’s a back door

or a front door

that the American principle of law

should still hold

 

that our federal government

should have to get a warrant,

whether they want to come

through the back door

or your front door.

Wall Street Has More Puppeteers Than Sesame Street

by Bernard Sanders

I do believe

we have to deal

with the fundamental issues

of a handful of billionaires

who control economic

and political life

of this country.

 

Nothing real will get happened

 

Unless we have a political revolution

Where millions of people finally stand up.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Found Poetry From Last Week’s Republican and Democratic Debates appeared first on Law Street.

Would you drink this water?

Here’s what Flint, Michigan’s poison lead water looks like. pic.twitter.com/s2g2ml8UL4

— (´・ω・｀) (@_icze4r) January 15, 2016

Many citizens of Flint, Michigan are refusing to–and for good reason. The water supplied by the city of Flint to many residents has been contaminated with poisonous amounts of lead and other toxins for over two years. The safe level for lead content in drinking water, according to the CDC, is absolutely none. That’s why the EPA’s goal for public drinking water is zero parts per billion (ppb), and why 15 ppb is listed as their action level (the concentration at which water authorities are federally required to lower contamination).

So with these regulations from the Safe Drinking Water Act, why are some families reporting 25, 100, and even 200 ppb of lead detected in the tap water from their homes? The answer is shrouded in the intricacies of municipal water supply agreements and water main construction, which are enough to make anyone’s eyes glaze over. So let’s break down just how this ‘man-made disaster‘ began: with a corner-cutting move designed to save money.

It Began With a Plan

Flint, Michigan had been getting its tap water from Detroit for over 50 years. But in 2013, the Karegnondi Water Authority (KWA) began constructing a new pipeline to connect water from Lake Huron to Genessee County, which contains the Flint metropolitan area. This new project would provide water to Genessee and neighboring counties no longer rely on water piped in from Detroit.

A project like this is great news for towns like Flint, which could reduce their public water costs by procuring it locally while also creating jobs to construct and maintain the new system. So construction began on the KWA, and at this point in the story, no public officials or agencies have done anything wrong. That changes.

A Temporary Switch

You see, when this happened, Flint planned to switch to the new KWA pipelines when they finished construction in three years. But in the meantime, they still needed water, and rather than continuing to buy the Detroit water–a pre-treated and sanitary supply from Lake Huron–they switched sources to the Flint River. This switch was estimated to save about $5 million over less than two years.

The trouble was that the water sourced from the Flint River was 19 times more corrosive than the Lake Huron supply. Even after being treated and deemed acceptable, the water eroded the city’s pipes and water lines and accumulated iron, lead, and other metals from the material of the pipes.

By the time the water arrives at neighborhoods, businesses, and schools, the once-drinkable water is tinged brown from the iron, and carrying harmful levels of toxic chemicals. The most dangerous of which is lead.

Flint, Michigan, is suffering a major water crisis. Here’s how you can help. https://t.co/Z01vWiG8JLpic.twitter.com/ecJyIhEtkF

— CNN (@CNN) January 14, 2016

Permanent Health Effects

The presence of lead in drinking water is known to cause kidney problems and related issues in adults, but infants and children are subjected to the worst effects. Lead interferes with development such that children exposed to lead exhibit delays in mental and physical development are often severely impaired by the contaminant’s effects. In September 2015, according to a study performed by the Hurley Medical Center, the proportion of infants and children with above-average levels of lead in their blood nearly doubled since Flint switched its water source.

Given the extent of the problem, residents in Flint have very few options to stay safe. Many homeowners took to boiling large batches of water before bathing their children or giving them water to drink. While that process can help remove some impurities, it actually makes the issue of lead contamination worse. The city issued a ‘Boil Advisory‘ detailing how boiling water just increases the concentration of lead in the tap water.

The only choice left for thousands of residents is to purchase bottled water. The FDA regulates that a bottle of water can have no more than 5 ppb of lead, so bottled water is a safer option for concerned homeowners. For many, this cost is in addition to their water bill, which still may need to use for bathing, and washing dishes. Considering that Flint is often recognized for its poverty (in addition to being among the most dangerous cities in the United States), this burden is especially debilitating.

A Failed Response

After denying that the water in Flint presented a danger to its citizens for nearly two years while residents continuously complained about their water quality, Flint officials finally recognized the contamination problem. When trying to contain a public health epidemic such as this one, it’s important to know the scale of the problem. That seems like a pretty simple task– figure out which homes receive water from pipes made of lead, as those pipes are now corroded and cannot safely transmit water– but as with all things bureaucratic, it wasn’t nearly that simple.

The city government’s data on which houses are serviced by lead water lines was written down on 45,000 index cards stored in a filing cabinet in the city’s public utility building. In October of 2015, transferring this information into a digital spreadsheet was, according to Department of Public Works Director Howard Croft, “on our to-do list,” but only a quarter of the cards had been processed at that time.

Remember that $5 million number? That was the amount Flint expected to save with their water-source switch. The ultimate cost of that “money-saving” maneuver has been estimated at over $1.5 billion dollars by some, as officials evaluate the cost of completely renovating the Flint waterlines with lead-free pipes. That figure also doesn’t take into account any compensation for families and children affected by the contaminated water. The Governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder has now officially appealed to President Obama for a declaration of disaster and federal aid.

Whether Snyder and the state of Michigan receive the declaration and money they are hoping for, the damage to the people of Flint has already been done. Even as the water source is relocated, the lead pipes servicing Flint will still be compromised. A careless decision by local officials snowballed into a public health crisis of unprecedented scale in the area, and the youngest residents of Flint will pay the highest price.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Call for Help in Flint’s Toxic Water Emergency appeared first on Law Street.

Update: We Have Winners

The three winning tickets announced so far were sold in California, Tennessee, and Florida. In these states, the winners will be asked to reveal their name to the public, meaning they are most likely planning out how to escape the country and ensuing media blitz. All three winners will have the luxury of paying no additional state taxes on their jackpot, so they’ll have more money to put towards their great escape.

The Powerball lottery has worked the country’s ‘temporarily embarrassed millionaires‘ into a frenzy with an unprecedented jackpot that estimates put at around $1.5 billion. The next closest jackpot, from a Mega Millions lottery in 2013, lags behind at a measly $590 million.

So how did we reach this astronomical number? It turns out to be more than just pure luck: Powerball actually reduced the already minuscule chance of winning by about 40 percent last summer (from 1 in 175 million to 1 in 292 million). By lowering the chance of a winner in each individual drawing, the jackpot rolls over to the next drawing leading to unprecedented windfalls.

Han Solo won’t let the Powerball changes stop him from his chance at fortune

1. #NotAllStates

Still, even if you refuse to be daunted by how slim the chance of a win is, you’re not going to have the same Powerball experience in every state or even all states–six states do not participate in the national lottery. In many states such as Utah, gambling is illegal, which bars stores from even selling tickets. For others, like Nevada and Mississippi, the lottery is seen as competition for the states’ well-established casinos. Residents of those states, plus Alabama, must visit neighboring states to purchase their tickets. For the remaining residents without access to Powerball–Hawaiians and Alaskans–a visit to another state isn’t an easy option.

So, if you’re in one of the remaining 47 states and territories (including D.C. and the Virgin Islands) you’re able to buy a ticket. The trouble is, even then you’ll have a different lottery experience depending on where you purchase your ticket.

2. Staying Anonymous

One much-heralded piece of advice from former winners is “Don’t tell anyone you’ve won. Anyone.” While a brief moment of celebrity may seem appealing, the intense media scrutiny as well as relatives, friends, and acquaintances coming out of the woodwork for their piece of the pie are enough to drive any winner crazy. Only six of the participating states and territories allow winners to remain anonymous: Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Carolina. For other states, winners’ names and hometowns are a matter of public record.

Importantly, these rules apply to the place where you purchase your ticket, not your state of residence. That means that if you really do believe in your lucky numbers, it may be worth visiting another state to buy your tickets, lest you become an unwitting overnight sensation.

3. The Money

A representation of the winner’s first day with their money, even after taxes.

Lottery winners have the choice between a lump-sum payment, or an annuity paid out over 30 years. The lump-sum is cut down from the advertised billion-plus to $930 million, and that’s before taxes. Factor in the two taxes you’ll have to pay on this total–a federal tax of 25 percent and additional state taxes.

Your winnings will also look a lot different depending on where you live because state tax laws on lottery winnings vary widely. Your lump-sum total could wind up anywhere from $615,474,000 in New York to $697,500,000 in California (New York taxes 8.82 percent while California has no tax on lottery winnings). If you decide to take the annuity a ticket purchased in a high-tax area like Washington, D.C. would net you a yearly payment of $33,250,000, while a ticket from a tax-free lottery haven like Texas earns you $37,500,000 each year. California and Texas are joined by Wyoming, Washington, Tennessee, South Dakota, Puerto Rico, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, and Delaware.

This means that if you’re looking to maximize profits while staying anonymous, buying your lottery tickets in Delaware is your best bet. However, if you’re really looking to be smart about it, the best option is to not buy a lottery ticket in the first place.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Billion Dollar Powerball? It Depends On Your State appeared first on Law Street.