A federal judge ruled on Wednesday in favor of one more search for Hillary Clinton’s missing emails.

D.C. District Judge Amit Mehta ordered the State Department to search its servers for emails related to the 2012 Benghazi attack. In particular, they are tasked with looking for anything Clinton sent to aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, or Jake Sullivan at their state.gov addresses.

“Secretary Clinton used a private email server, located in her home, to transmit and receive work-related communications during her tenure as secretary of state,” Judge Mehta noted in his ruling. “[State] has not, however, searched the one records system over which it has always had control and that is almost certain to contain some responsive records: the state.gov email server.”

The ruling comes after the watchdog group Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit calling for a renewed search. The group argued that the State Department had only searched outside sources, such as Clinton’s private server.

Lawyers for the department countered that an additional search is unlikely to turn up anything else. In addition, it would set a poor precedent for any future requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Judge Mehta responded that “this matter is a far cry from a typical FOIA case” and that the email scandal was “a specific fact pattern unlikely to arise in the future.”

He then ordered the department to give him a status report by September 22.

Previously, Clinton and her three aides surrendered more than 30,000 emails to the agency in 2014. The investigation found 348 emails relating to Benghazi sent to or from the then-Secretary of State.

Any emails she deleted off her private server, however, may not have a backup and are likely gone forever.

In contrast, as a government agency, the State Department would have server backups in place. Department officials, though, have admitted that there was no automated archiving system in place during Clinton’s tenure.

The State Department did not comment on the ruling. Tom Fitton, president of the Judicial Watch, said in a statement, “This major court ruling may finally result in more answers about the Benghazi scandal–and Hillary Clinton’s involvement in it–as we approach the attack’s fifth anniversary.”

Clinton cites the “emailgate“controversy and then-FBI director James Comey’s subsequent investigation as major reasons why she lost the 2016 presidential election.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Orders New Search for Clinton Emails appeared first on Law Street.

The owner of an Atlanta gym wants the world to know that police aren’t welcome at his business.

Recently, Jim Chambers posted a sign on the front door of the EAV Barbell Club explaining the gym’s rules. The sign is clearly visible from the street and reads, “Do whatever the hell you want, correctly, except crossfit cultism. No f—–g cops.”

According to Chambers, although the sign went up a couple weeks ago, he has enforced this policy since the gym opened. He also does not give memberships to active members of the military.

Former law enforcement and military members, however, are welcome to join.

In an interview with Reuters, Chambers explained that most of his clients are minorities and/or members of the LGBT community. Many of them would be uncomfortable working out alongside law enforcement because police officers had harassed them in the past.

“We know statistically that those people are at risk around police in America,” Chambers said. “I had members who joined because of the policy: they saw it on the door and thought, ‘Oh, that’s cool,’ and joined.”

He has since removed the vulgar sign but plans to put up another without the expletives.

The Atlanta Police Department has not released an official statement about the policy. However, a representative told local news station WXIA, “Were we to respond to an emergency there, this sign would not stop us from lawfully doing our job.”

Chambers doesn’t mind. “If they have a warrant, they can go anywhere they want, but we’re not breaking the law,” he said.

He also noted that, as someone who describes himself as “somewhere between an eco-anarchist and a Marxist-Leninist,” he would not be likely to call the police in the first place.

WXIA reached out to a team of lawyers about the legality of the policy. They agreed that federal anti-discrimination laws do not protect law enforcement as a separate group. The courts could decide if the policy is discriminatory, but for now, it remains legal.

Since the story broke on Tuesday, mixed reactions have been pouring in on social media. The gym’s Facebook page currently has a 1.4 rating and over 2,000 one-star reviews.

Atlanta Gym Owner Puts Up Sign, ‘No F—ing Cops’ – Tells Reporters: No Veterans Either https://t.co/KUGJQNMsCt
Wow
Why would anyone go there?

— Truckster1 (@truckster1) August 9, 2017

Atlanta gym owner you're doing amazing sweetie https://t.co/sLUzClmBkc

— reggie (@1942bs) August 9, 2017

Atlanta gym bans Cops from joining.

It’s their right. And it’s our right not to join & to protest outside the gym. https://t.co/l7BmVeYzV8

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) August 9, 2017

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Atlanta Gym Bans Police and Active Military Members appeared first on Law Street.

After the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organized a rally over the weekend to protest the removal of a confederate monument in Charlottesville, Virginia, thousands of counter protesters gathered to voice their disgust.

The Charlottesville City Council recently voted to remove a monument of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, but the KKK claims it is part of a sweeping effort to erase white history. The protest was held a block away from Emancipation Park, formerly Lee Park, which was recently renamed. But the statue of Lee riding a horse has yet to be removed.

LIVE from #CharlottesvilleKKK rally—#KKK still protesting. HUNDREDS of Counter protestors –very loud @ACLU #Charlottesville pic.twitter.com/QuShCGeehW

— Bo Erickson (@BoKnowsNews) July 8, 2017

City Councilwoman Kristin Szakos wrote in an editorial that the council’s decision was made to join a “growing group of cities around the nation that have decided that they no longer want to give pride of place to tributes to the Confederate Lost Cause erected in the early part of the 20th century.”

A court order has delayed the removal of the statue until a hearing next month that may just be a precursor to an elongated legal battle, according to NPR.

Not only is the town home to the University of Virginia, but it was also the home of American founding father Thomas Jefferson, and is near his Monticello estate.

Sunday’s protests featured about 30 Klansmen, many of whom arrived armed with handguns, and approximately 1,000 counter protesters, according to the Washington Post. The KKK was escorted by police clad in riot gear as they entered and exited.

The fact that the police force, comprised of local, county, state, and university police, protected the Klansmen, left a bad taste in plenty of people’s mouths after seeing police disproportionately use violence to subdue African-American protests.

The KKK is a hate group. Police are keeping them safe. When Black folks protest for our right to life, police harass and harm us. https://t.co/eVv9Vf4e7m

— Negrita (@HustleAndFro_) July 8, 2017

Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer previously urged the town’s residents not to “take the bait — to deny the KKK the confrontation and celebrity they desire,” but thousands still felt compelled to voice their disgust with the group’s resurgence.

While the Klansmen attempted to speak publicly to the crowd at multiple points, they were inaudible and drowned out by the noise made by the counter-protesters. Jalane Schmidt, a professor at the university and a vocal supporter of the removal for Lee’s statue, was among the group gathered at the park. She told the Washington Post:

It is important for me to be here because the Klan was ignored in the 1920s, and they metastasized. They need to know that their ideology is not acceptable…I teach about slavery and African American history, and it’s important to face the Klan and to face the demons of our collective history and our original sin of slavery. We do it on behalf of our ancestors who were terrorized by them.

By the end of the day 22 people had been arrested while three others were hospitalized. Two of the medical issues were due to the heat while the other was alcohol-related, according to the Washington Post.

The Klansmen were members of the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, based in Pelham, North Carolina, about 140 miles across the Virginia border. The group was compelled to fight, in their view, the eradication of white history. While most protesting the statue’s removal were part of the KKK, others, like Brandi Fisher, drove hours from neighboring states to join and voice their concerns.

“I don’t agree with everything the Klan believes, but I do believe our history should not be taken away,” said the West Virginia native. “Are we going to remove the Washington and Jefferson memorials because they were slave owners?”

The KKK also staged a protest last month alongside white nationalist leader Richard Spencer in which the group ominously marched with torches to protest the council’s decision. That earlier protest also drew condemnation from citizens and even Virginia Congressman Tom Perriello.

Get your white supremacist hate out of my hometown. https://t.co/KfkxHImvze

— Tom Perriello (@tomperriello) May 13, 2017

Once the protests ended on Sunday afternoon, police escorted the Klansmen out and asked the counter protesters to disperse. After the police decided the remaining crowd was “an unlawful assembly,” the police force donned masks and released gas canisters to disperse the crowd, according to the Washington Post.

Last month the Anti-Defamation League released a comprehensive report on the current presence of the KKK in the United States. According to the research, there are about 3,000 people who strongly identify with Klan ideology and there are 42 active groups across 33 states. The report also states that many of the chapters have joined forces with each other or with neo-Nazi groups in order to show strength and unity. As a result, groups have beliefs ranging from “traditional” white supremacist beliefs to Christian Identity, “a longstanding racist and anti-Semitic religious sect,” according to the ADL Report.

Several white nationalist groups have obtained permits for yet another rally on August 12, so there will likely be more conflicts like these in the future. With racial tensions heightened since the 2016 election, these feuds over confederate monuments are just one example of the conflicts that continue to arise between white nationalists and more progressive communities.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters Clash with KKK in Charlottesville Over Robert E. Lee Monument appeared first on Law Street.

John Oliver took the opportunity on Independence Day to release a little web special, with a reminder to Americans about the original “Brexit.” It has now been 240 years since Americans kicked the Britons out, and he wanted us to think about what could have been. According to Oliver, this is a sampling of what you guys miss out on by not being British:

• The accent–the “beautiful vowel sounds” of the British could have been yours, Oliver points out, before describing what he thinks the American accent sounds like. (Spoiler alert: it’s not flattering.)
• Fashion–the little black bowler hats are also something that Americans probably envy the Brits.
• The cuisine, like minced meat pie–the British delicacy that embodies the British people. According to Oliver, they’re hard and crusty on the outside, they can give you the impression of composure, but on the inside it’s just a hot f***ing mess.

Finally, Oliver concluded by pointing out the very significant difference between the American sunny optimism and the British cloudy pessimism. It is a well-known fact and cultural difference that Americans have a hard-to-break confidence. Brits on the other hand would “never make the mistake of developing self-esteem” since they know they could never be as good as the Queen. Oliver even took a shot at the Queen, dubbing her “an elderly woman who frowns for a living.”

Generously, Oliver admitted that America might be better off the way it is, after all.

The show is having a summer break but will be back on July 24. Watch the clip below:

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver: What are Americans Missing out on by Not Being British? appeared first on Law Street.

You’ve probably heard the name Schumer before–but the question is whether politics and taxes on private equity managers or jokes about women’s sexuality and vaginas come to mind. Now, the two Schumers will be increasingly associated. Comedian, writer, and actress Amy Schumer and her cousin, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, publicly announced on Monday that they are teaming up to fight gun violence. The announcement comes just two weeks after a fatal shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana, when a gunman opened fire at a screening of Amy Schumer’s new movie “Trainwreck,” killing two women and injuring nine others before committing suicide.

My heart is broken and all my thoughts and prayers are with everyone in Louisiana.

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) July 24, 2015

The comedian has called this shooting “extremely personal” and stated that she thinks of the two women who were killed during the showing of her movie every day. “This should not have happened,” she said at a news conference alongside her Senator cousin on Monday. “It’s a tragic, senseless and horrifying action from this man who should not have been able to put his hands on a gun in the first place.” The Lafayette shooter bought his gun in Alabama last year after a background check failed to reveal his history of psychiatric problems and that he had been the subject of domestic violence complaints. Senator Schumer, sponsor of the “Brady Act” that was passed 20 years ago and requires background checks for gun buyers, stated, “We should do everything possible to tighten up loop holes,” and that “we can’t sit back and let mass shooting become commonplace.”

Senator Schumer proposed new gun control measures that are meant to prevent violent criminals, abusers, and those with mental illnesses from obtaining guns. The legislation would improve the currently flawed background check system by creating monetary incentives for states that submit thorough reports to the federal database used to block gun sales to people with criminal records or a history of serious mental illness. The bill would also create penalties for states that fail to submit these records to the database. The Senator emphasized that this new plan is about improving the present background check system, not putting new restrictions on buyers.

74% of Americans want stronger background checks. Joining @amyschumer to call on my colleagues in Congress to finally listen. More at 11.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) August 3, 2015

On Saturday, Amy Schumer tweeted in response to an open letter addressed to her from a Georgetown University student who called on Schumer to speak out against gun violence and advocate for stricter gun laws. “Your movie — which was so well-received, so brilliant, so you — will now forever have this shooting attached to it,” the letter begins. The letter, which went viral on social media, raised many points about women’s victimization from gun violence, stating that every day in the United States, five women are murdered with a gun, making American women 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women in other high-income countries. The letter continues with more chilling statistics about gun violence against women, stating:

And from 2001 through 2012, 6,410 women were murdered in the United States by an intimate partner using a gun — more than the total number of U.S. troops killed in action during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

The author of the letter, Sarah Clements, says that she knows the “guilt, the sadness, the hole in your heart” that Schumer must have experienced upon hearing the news of the shooting. Clements writes that her mother was a survivor of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, and she has since dedicated her life’s work to gun violence prevention. After Schumer read the letter, she tweeted in response, saying not to worry because she is “on it.”

@cdickason11 @sfclem Her name was Mayci, not Marci and I think about her and Jillian everyday. Don't worry I'm on it. You'll see.

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) August 1, 2015

And she was on it. Just two days after the tweet, Schumer followed her cousin’s presentation on his plans for gun violence prevention with an emotional speech at the New York press conference. “Unless something is done and done soon, dangerous people will continue to get their hands on guns,” she said. “We never know why people choose to do these things,” Amy Schumer stated, “but sadly we always find out how, how the shooter got their gun.” She said that her cousin’s three-step plan “deserves unanimous support” because it seeks to address the flaws in the “how.”

Amy Schumer fights gun violence: 'Shootings have got to stop' http://t.co/t29GcKiWY3 pic.twitter.com/MH2Uj68iIt

— TODAY (@TODAYshow) August 4, 2015

Mass killings in the United States have occurred with increasing frequency in recent years. From 2000 to 2007, an average of 6.4 active shootings occurred per year; from 2007 to 2013, that number jumped to 16.4 incidents per year. These mass killings will continue to gain momentum unless we pass legislation that creates serious incentives for states to obey the gun restriction laws that are already in place. Not only do we need to buckle down on the current system of gun control that is not being followed, but we also need to eventually introduce new restrictions. In a majority of mass shootings, killers obtained their weapons legally. This fact warrants significant pause; our laws are not protecting us from danger and are allowing individuals to commit mass murders. All in all, serious improvements to America’s gun laws are needed.

Senator Chuck Schumer and Amy Schumer are using their public platforms to advocate for necessary change that will hopefully spark a more robust conversation on gun control that has been fleeting and unfinished in the past. Amy Schumer’s last line during Monday’s press conference has left everyone wondering what is next for the Schumer pair when she stated: “These are my first public comments on the issue of gun violence, but I can promise you they will not be my last.”

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Schumers are On It: Gun Violence Prevention Has a Few New Faces appeared first on Law Street.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently announced that Cuba is the first county in the world to eliminate mother-to-child transmission of HIV and syphilis.

“Eliminating transmission of a virus is one of the greatest public health achievements possible,” Dr. Margaret Chan, the WHO director-general, said in a Tuesday press release. “This is a major victory in our long fight against HIV and sexually transmitted infections, and an important step towards having an AIDS-free generation.”

Preventive treatment for mother-to-child transmission of HIV and syphilis is not 100 percent effective, so the WHO defines elimination as a reduction of transmission to a level that it no longer constitutes a public health problem. So the country must demonstrate that it has seen less than 50 infections from this particular route of transmission per 100,000 live births for at least one year. Cuba has surpassed those requirements. In 2013, only two babies were born with HIV and five with syphilis. Officials claim that this recent milestone shows that an end to the AIDS epidemic is possible, and that they expect more countries to seek validation from the WHO.

There are 16 million women worldwide who are living with HIV, and each year, about 1.4 million of them will get pregnant. The risk of passing the virus to the child is only around 1 percent if anti-HIV drugs are provided during phases of potential infection, which span through the pregnancy until breastfeeding. However if completely untreated, the risks are much greater, with a 45 percent chance of the child being infected during one of the pregnancy stages. Even though syphilis does not receive as much attention, infection during pregnancy and the absence of antibiotics can lead to stillbirth or neonatal death.

In order to reduce the mother-to-child transmission rate, the WHO and Pan American Health Organization began to work with Cuba and other countries back in 2010. The initiative worked to improve testing and treatment for these infections, caesarian deliveries, prenatal care, and breastfeeding substitutes. Some of their services also include prenatal care. Maternal and child health programs are integrated with HIV and STD programs. Similar services, which are a part of Cuba’s universal health system, are being implemented in a number of other countries to help work toward the global target of less than 40,000 new infections annually.

Worldwide, the number of children born with HIV dropped to 240,000 in 2013 from 400,000 in 2009, the WHO reported. In order to reach the target of no more than 40,000 new child infections in 2015, officials say more efforts will be needed around the world. But while Cuba may have been the first country to receive the WHO validation, that does not mean other countries have not reach elimination status. According to the Pan American Health Organization’s Director Carissa Etienne, it’s likely that the U.S. and Canada have already eliminated mother-to-child transmission of both of these infections, but haven’t sought validation.

So what do Cuba’s recent medical advances mean for the United States now that a relationship has been formed?

Cuba has one of the most advanced medical biotechnology industries in the world and invests heavily in the production of new treatments and medications. The Cuban biotech industry is said to hold around 1,200 international patients, and markets pharmaceutical products and vaccines in more than 50 countries–but not in the United States. For the 26 million people in the United States who have diabetes and the 80,000 Americans who suffer from diabetics amputations a year, this has significance. Because of the government’s continuous funding, Cuba has developed a safe and effective medication that reduces the risk of amputation by 78 percent.

This is just one example of how Americans can benefit from all of Cuba’s medical advances. Cuba’s medical prowess is impressive–eliminating HIV and syphilis transmissions are just one example of its potential. Even with the new relationship recently announced, Cuba and the United States have a lot of work to do to improve their relationship. But hopefully this new relationship will encourage Cuba to share its medical advances, and improve health worldwide.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cuba Becomes First Country to Eliminate Mother-to-Child Transmission of HIV and Syphilis appeared first on Law Street.

Columbia University made history last week when it became the first U.S. university to divest its endowment from the private prison industry. A student-led activist campaign has put pressure on the Board of Trustees to divest since early 2014 when a small group of Columbia students discovered that the school was investing in G4S, the world’s largest private security firm, and the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private prison company in the United States. After a vote last week, Columbia’s $9 billion endowment will now be void of its shares in CCA and its estimated 220,000 shares in G4S. Divesting from an industry that makes its money by breeding human suffering is a move that should be loudly applauded.

The divestment vote occurred within the larger discussion of mass incarceration and the tribulations that stem from the systemic injustices that American prisons propagate. While local jails and state and federal prisons all seem to value a punitive rather than rehabilitative approach, private prisons are by far the cruelest. There is an inherent conflict between the supposed goal of the criminal justice system–rehabilitation–and companies’ profit motives. For-profit, private prisons make up a multibillion-dollar per year industry. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that as of 2013, there were 133,000 prisoners in private prisons, or 8.4 percent of the U.S. prison population. These numbers break down to 19.1 percent of the federal prison population being detained in privately owned prisons, and 6.8 percent of the state prison population.

Since 1990, violent crime in America has dropped 51 percent, property crime has fallen 43 percent, and homicides are down 54 percent. But incarceration rates since 1990 have increased by 50 percent. If crime is down, why do we have so many more people in prison? Due to the war on drugs and the increase of harsher sentencing laws, more low-level and non-violent offenders are sent to prison. Almost half of state prisoners are serving time for non-violent crimes, and more than half of federal inmates are imprisoned for drug offenses. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote, “This prodigious rate of incarceration is not only inhumane, it is economic folly.” The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of the world’s prison population. We incarcerate a greater percentage of our population than any other country on Earth, and our compulsion to incarcerate costs taxpayers $63.4 billon per year.

The overcrowding of jails and prisons across the country and a reluctance to adequately finance these correctional facilities precipitated the movement toward private prisons, which proponents claimed could result in overall prison cost reductions of 20 percent. However, allowing the facilities to be operated by the private sector has resulted in a meager 1 percent cost decrease. With crime rates on the decline, private prisons began doing everything they could to increase imprisonment rates so that they could stay in business and continue to make money. From 2002 to 2012, CCA, GEO Group, and Management & Training Corporation (MTC), a contractor that manages private prisons, spent around 45 million dollars lobbying state and federal governments, arguing for harsher laws and more arrests. These corporations also poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the election campaigns of governors, state legislators, and judges in order to ensure that their plans become laws that guarantee more people will be incarcerated, so they can continue to make money.

Some people try to justify this system with the thought that people who are in prison are there for a reason. But this wishful thinking is untrue. About 50 percent of immigrants who are in prison are detained in privately owned prisons, and the majority of these people are simply being detained while waiting for their cases to be decided in court. In other words, immigrants who have not been convicted of any crime are being housed in violent, corrupt, dangerous private prisons while they wait for months for courts—that are often illegally being paid off by corrupt companies like CCA to keep people in prison—to decide their fate. The private prison industry has an incentive to keep people in jail. If their business plans included imprisoning to rehabilitate and treating people for mental health or drug addiction issues that may have contributed to their arrests, the industry would collapse. Instead, private prisons are rampant with abuse, neglect, and misconduct; private prisons understaff their facilities to save money, ignore pleas for help and prisoner-on-prisoner violence within the prison, and even refuse healthcare to inmates. In order to make the most profit, the private prison industry wants harsher drug laws, longer sentencing, and wants to increase recidivism rates.

In New York, about $60,000 of government money is spent per year to keep just one inmate imprisoned, while just under $20,000 is spent to educate an elementary or secondary school student. This trend extends nationally: no state in the country invests more—or even an equal amount—on educating an individual student than on housing a prisoner. Maybe if we relaxed drug laws and unreasonable sentencing, focused more on rehabilitation than punishment, did not allow prejudiced and ill-intentioned companies like CCA to spend millions on lobbyists, and we invested more on education than on our corrupt criminal justice system, the United States would be a happier, healthier place.

Columbia University’s divestment from the private prison industry will not solve the issue of mass incarceration. It will not redesign the broken system that we call criminal “justice” in America. It won’t even put CCA or G4S out of business or make a sizeable dent in their net worth. But what divestment will do is beyond economic comprehension. Refusing to reap benefits from companies founded upon violence forced on people by virtue of their race, class, or citizenship status is a social stance that proves a complete rejection of everything private prisons stand for. When you stop investing in something, you’ve stopped believing in it. And no one should believe in the private prison industry.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Columbia University Backs Away From Private Prisons: We Should Follow Its Lead appeared first on Law Street.

Real estate mogul Donald Trump has recently become one of the most talked-about people on the internet. Trump has a long history of making highly arrogant, conceited, and disparaging comments on pretty much any topic. But, Trump is faring fairly well in some presidential primary polls–second only to Governor Jeb Bush. While candidates saying stupid things is not a new trend,  some of Trump’s recent statements stand out as remarkably incorrect and foolish.

Check out some of the best Donald Trump quotes of the cycle so far, debunked:

When speaking about the “Great Wall of Mexico” he intends to build, Trump stated: “I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me–believe me–and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.”

It appears that Trump has visions of making a small scale “Great Wall of China” to be placed at the Mexico-U.S. border. Although the concept of a fence between the U.S. and Mexico isn’t a new idea–a 700 mile long one was attempted a decade ago–it hasn’t proved cost effective enough for the U.S. According to Former Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Ralph Basham, that’s because fencing in poor soil, flood plains, or sand dunes has proven to be more expensive than effective. As a result of these terrain challenges, in some places the government would have to spend more than $6 million per mile for specialized fencing. In those areas, the government has opted for more agents and technology to better secure the border. Basham further elaborates that there are plenty of paved roads where agents have time to respond to incursions or where there are natural obstacles like mountains and water that already slow, deter, or reroute traffic. These obstacles make the installation of a barrier unnecessary. There is clear evidence that agents on ground would not only be a more cost effective solution but also more successful at keeping illegal immigrants from crossing the border.

Also the illegal and ridiculous notion that he wants Mexico to pay for it would technically give that nation the rights to the wall, so it would have to be renamed “The Great Wall of Mexico.” It is safe to say Mr. Trump would not be too pleased with that name.

When asked about ISIS, Trump responded by saying he would: “Bomb the oil fields in Iraq.” Furthermore he augmented on his point by saying: “I don’t care about the government of Iraq.”

It seems that Mr. Trump is slightly confused when it comes to Middle Eastern geography and history. If he ever were to become president, he would benefit greatly from a class or two on Middle Eastern Affairs or International Relations at an accredited institution. Just to be clear, the actual Iraqi government is entirely independent of ISIL and is constantly fighting the terrorist group. In fact the United States Army trains the Iraqi military, which would make things not only messy but rather awkward if the U.S. took Trump’s advice to bomb the oil fields. Moreover, bombing an entire oil field to “end ISI[L]’s funding source,” would not only affect oil prices dramatically, but our current diplomatic relationship with Iraq would be hurt.

When asked about why he is running for president, Trump goes on a tangent in which he states: “We’ve lost our jobs, we’ve lost our money. We’re a third world nation and we’re a debtor nation at the same time.”

Effectively, the United States isn’t what it used to be. In many instances jobs have become more difficult to come by and the economy has struggled. However, to call the United States a “third world nation,” is not just a politically outdated statement but also flat out wrong. Statistics provided by Forbes show that the entire country is relatively rich. In fact, America’s bottom twenty percent is still richer than most of the world: That is, the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68 percent of the world’s inhabitants.

When asked about abortion, Trump stated, “In terms of polling, the pro-choice (support) is going down a little bit.”

Referencing national statistics in a speech is a great way for presidential candidates to appear caring and knowledgeable about hot domestic issues. It is even more impressive when the statistics are actually accurate. Donald Trump has made it very clear that he is socially conservative–that extends to his personal views on abortion. Needless to say however, he makes an interesting claim regarding pro choice support when compared to recent polls.. A survey conducted by the Gallup in May of 2015 showed that 50 percent of Americans identify as pro-choice; an obvious 9 percent increase from 2012 when the same question found 41 percent Americans identified as pro-choice. Furthermore, according to the 2015 survey, 44 percent of Americans identified as pro-life which effectively contradicts Trump’s statement.

So, Trump has certainly had some doozies lately. But be sure to check back next week to see which political figure  makes an appearance on Law Street Media’s page of outrageous comments.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump’s Top 4 Outrageous Comments So Far in the Presidential Race appeared first on Law Street.

“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” the latest hit in the Avengers franchise, debuted in theaters recently and made more than $200 million in a single weekend. The surprising part however, is that it earned that $200 million outside the U.S., before the movie even opened stateside. The increasing globalization of the film industry is abundantly clear. But the changes in the film industry aren’t just reflected in the exports of American movies to foreign audiences. There are also many nations expanding into the industry. Read on to learn about the globalization of the film industry, and its worldwide ramifications.

The American Film Industry: Changes From Sea to Shining Sea

While Hollywood is facing greater competition from abroad in almost every aspect of the film industry, it is still the dominant player globally. In 2014, for example, the top ten most profitable movies were all made in the United States.

Hollywood has had to adjust to a changing customer base. Nearly 60 percent of the box office hauls taken in by these big productions came from abroad. This means that the success of the Hollywood movie industry is driven more by foreign markets than domestic. In fact, the number two market for Hollywood films, China, is predicted to surpass the American market by 2020.

In response to this changing environment, Hollywood is increasingly relying on big-budget blockbusters. These movies have been particularly marketable specifically because of their simple plot lines, which often avoid nuanced or culturally specific stories that might get lost in translation. Additionally, Hollywood often adds extra scenes to movies released in other countries, sometimes featuring actors from those countries, in order to make them more relatable. This has meant making changes to movies, too. For example, in the remake of “Red Dawn,” the nationality of the invading soldiers was changed from Chinese to North Korean in order to avoid alienating the Chinese movie audience.

Foreign Film Industries: The Veterans

Although Hollywood, as a result of globalization, is facing stiffer competition abroad, there has long existed a traditional foreign film industry. The center of this industry is located in Europe

European Film Industry

While every country in Europe makes movies, five countries in particular make up 80 percent of the market: France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain. The industry itself is also massive in scope, including 75,000 companies and 370,000 workers across Europe.

In addition to the number of people involved, Europe is also home to some of the most prestigious events in cinema. Perhaps the most famous is the Cannes Film Festival in France. This event has taken place nearly every year since 1946, with filmmakers from all walks of life competing for the coveted Palme d’Or prize for the best film in the competition.

Despite the success of the film industry in Europe, it has struggled to deal with foreign competition, particularly Hollywood. As of 2013, 70 percent of the European film market was dominated by American films. This is in stark contrast to a much smaller 26 percent coming directly from European sources.

But as Hollywood has made efforts to keep its industry relevant, so has Europe. One of the most prominent attempts has been through the LUX competition. Seeking to address one of the most glaring problems in Europe’s film industry–distributing and dubbing movies in all the languages spoken in Europe–the films involved in this competition are sub-titled in 24 different languages so as to be accessible to a wide audience.

Film Industries Down Under

Australia and New Zealand also have prominent film industries. While Australia is currently dealing with losing out on some projects because its tax credits are not competitive enough, there is a strong tradition already in place. For example, “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith” as well as the “Matrix” trilogy were both filmed there.

The New Zealand film industry is strong and thriving. This has been the result of two forces. First, home-grown production of films such as “The Piano,” which won three Oscars in 1993, has helped promote the industry. There has also been a rise of recognizable talent coming out of the country, including director Peter Jackson. Like Australia, New Zealand has also been the location of major Hollywood productions such as “Avatar,” “King Kong,” and “The Last Samurai” to name just a few.

Rising Stars

Other countries are continuing to create voices of their own through national film industries. Three of the most successful countries in creating major movie industries of their own have been India, Nigeria, and South Korea.

India

Although Hollywood is the most profitable film industry worldwide, India’s is the most productive based on its sheer number of films. India’s film production is so prodigious that it has earned a nickname of its own: Bollywood, in reference to the city of Mumbai. In fact, India’s industry is so expansive that the Bollywood moniker is really only applicable to Mumbai–other regions and cities have film industries of their own that have spawned similar nicknames, such as “Kollywood” and “Sandalwood.”

While the Indian film industry has been a compelling force for more than 100 years, it has seen a huge jump in growth recently. From 2004-2013, gross receipts tripled and revenue is estimated to reach $4.5 billion next year. With those kinds of numbers, India’s film industry promises to continue its upward trajectory in money and influence.

Nigeria

The Nigerian film industry also produces more films per year than Hollywood, and it has the similar nickname “Nollywood.” Nigeria’s films are often lower-budget productions that are released directly to DVD and often not even filmed in a studio. Nonetheless, the Nigerian film industry is influential enough regionally that neighboring countries fear a Nigerianization effect on their own cultures.

The Nigerian film industry is so popular that the World Bank believes that with the proper management it could create a million more jobs in a country with high unemployment levels. The film industry in Nigeria already employs a million people, making it the second-largest employer in the country behind the agricultural sector. Still, for Nigeria to be on the same level as Hollywood or Bollywood, many issues would have to be addressed, in particular the high rate of film pirating. The video below explores Nollywood and its impact on Hollywood.

South Korea

South Korea also has a strong film industry, although it doesn’t have a catchy nickname. While it does not generate the volume of films of Bollywood or Nollywood, it does have the advantage of being the go-to destination for entertainment for much of Asia, particularly China and Japan. South Korea’s movies resonate both domestically and regionally because they often play on historical conflicts that affected the region as a whole. The film industry there also received a boost when a law was passed stating that at least 40 percent of films shown in South Korea had to be produced there, forcing local companies to step up and fill the void.

What does film industry globalization mean?

Money

One of the most obvious implications of globalization is financing. Several major Hollywood studios including Disney have bankrolled films in Bollywood. This is in an attempt to harness the massive potential audience there. Financing is a two-way street however, and when Hollywood struggled for funds following the 2008 recession it received loans and financing from Indian sources.

Culture

Another implication is cultural. In many countries, the government has posted quotas or imposed tariffs on foreign films to limit their dominance domestically. These laws are aimed specifically at American movies. One of the motivations for these rules is the competition American films provide. In basically every domestic market worldwide, Hollywood movies have a larger share than the domestic industry. Secondly, movies are seen as cultural pillars, so leaders are interested in preserving, and even promoting their own culture over that of a foreign entity like the one presented by Hollywood.

Like financing, cultural considerations also have a return effect on Hollywood. In order to attract more foreign viewers, Hollywood movies have simplified story lines and included more actors from different locales. In effect, Hollywood has had to become more diverse and open in order to appeal worldwide. This effect may actually dilute any would-be American cultural overload as well, as these movies are incorporating more global cultures in order to be competitive.

Globalization is a give and take. There has been a long-standing fear of globalization leading to Americanization; however, as the film industry has shown, for American filmmakers or any others to be competitive globally their themes and characters must be global, too. Additionally the invasion of Hollywood movies has also encouraged many domestic industries to build up their own audiences and industries that had been neglected before.

Conclusion

Hollywood has long dealt with issues, ideas, and events that have stretched the world over, and it is now dealing with competition as diverse and far reaching as the topics of the movies it produces. The Hollywood film industry had remained the dominant player in the industry by leveraging foreign markets. Globally this has also meant the incorporation of more films and actors from traditional markets such as Europe. It also means the rise of movies and stars from non-traditional markets as well. Thus the globalization of the film industry has meant many things to many different people, but what it has meant to everyone involved from production to consumption is greater access and opportunity. Hopefully, the global film industry will continue along this path.

Resources

Arts.Mic: Three Countries With Booming Movie Industries That Are Not the U.S.

BBC: How the Global Box Office is Changing Hollywood

Vanity Fair: Avengers Age of Ultron is Already a Huge, Hulking Hit at the Box Office

Business Insider: The Highest Grossing Movies of 2014

Grantland: All the World’s a Stage

Law Without Borders: The Intersection of Hollywood and the Indian Film Industry

Los Angeles Daily News: Why TV, Film Production is Running Away From Hollywood.

European Parliament Think Tank: An Overview of Europe’s Film Industry

BBC: Australia Film Industry Hurt by Strong Currency

International Journal of Cultural Policy: Cultural Globalization and the Dominance of the American Film Industry

UN: Nigeria’s Film Industry a Potential Gold Mine

Festival De Cannes: History of the Festival

100% Pure New Zealand: History of New Zealand Screen Industry

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Globalization of Cinema: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like all anyone can talk about anymore is Ebola. Especially now that the first case of Ebola has been found in the United States, in Dallas, and the first case transmitted outside Africa reported in Madrid, people seem to be freaking out. One big concern has been that Ebola is going to become an issue in the U.S., which I just want to start by saying is unfounded and unrealistic. The public health infrastructure in the U.S., as well as our ability to isolate the disease make it incredibly unlikely that it becomes an epidemic. You’re still significantly more likely to die of the flu, or a car accident than even go near someone who has Ebola. As of press time, Thomas Eric Duncan — the man in Dallas who had contracted Ebola — has passed away of the disease, and while our thoughts and sympathy are with his family, this development does not change the risk factors in the U.S.

People are losing their minds over it. Seriously, check out #EbolaQandA on Twitter. It makes me terrified — not of Ebola, but at the extent to which our American education system appears to have failed people when it comes to very, very basic concepts of health and geography. Now Ebola is an incredibly important world issue right now, and combating it absolutely deserves our attention, vigilance, and support. That being said, we all need to take a deep breath over here in the U.S., and stop listening to misinformation and conspiracy theories, because this is getting silly. Here’s a helpful flowchart for anyone who’s concerned about the spread of Ebola in America.

Worried about Ebola? Here's a flowchart just for you! #diseases #outbreak #EbolaOutbreak #notenoughwine pic.twitter.com/U6uvQd8MKf

— Melody Butler (@MelodyButler) August 2, 2014

There have been many proposals to try to keep the United States from having Ebola-infected people cross over our borders. One of the most extreme is a “travel ban” aimed at West African countries with high infection rates.

This sounds like a good idea in theory, it really does. But in reality, it’s not something the U.S. will do, or should do. First of all, the best way to make sure that the United States does not experience problems with Ebola is to stop the epidemic. And if we restrict our access and communication with the affected region, it’s just going to get worse. When there’s not a huge risk of Ebola reaching any sort of epidemic levels in the United States, it doesn’t make sense to impede our relief efforts with a ban. A travel ban could mean that relief workers have a harder time going in, or refuse to go at all because they worry that they might not be able to get back.

Also, instituting a travel ban could make it more likely that someone with a case of Ebola makes it into the U.S. If we have a ban in place for countries heavily infected like Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia, people are going to find a way around it. They could go to Senegal, or any other nearby nation where travel is not restricted. Because of the ban they may be incentivized to lie about whether or not they’ve been in contact with an infected person in hopes of not being prevented from getting on a plane. Right now we’re able to track people and examine them at the airport and upon arrival, and we’re going to strengthen our tools for that. We shouldn’t incentivize anything that makes it harder for us to do that.

I’m not an expert in public health; I don’t know what will happen with this epidemic. But what I do know is that panicking is going to do nothing. Educate yourself. Donate to the relief effort. Don’t feed the frenzy. This crisis needs a pragmatic approach, not a reactionary one.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Keep Calm and Carry On: You Don’t Have Ebola appeared first on Law Street.

Early last week the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed that for the first time since 1980 the federal prison population in the United States has dropped. In the last year alone, the federal prison population decreased by roughly 4,800. With new counts projecting the number of federal inmates to continue to fall by just over 2,000 in the next 12 months and by nearly 10,000 the year after, I ask the questions how, why, and what effect will this change have?

Over the past few years the Justice Department has revealed that crime rates have been dropping. Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder aimed to change policies to reflect the belief that increasing the number of people behind bars does nothing to improve public safety. An example of such policies includes The Smarter Sentencing Act — which essentially seeks to eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing for defendants found guilty of first-time drug offenses — and the more recent Clemency Act, which seeks to release offenders from prison who were unfairly sentenced by mandatory sentencing guidelines. Holder has worked in the last year to reduce a prison population he says is costly and bloated. He was not wrong: in 2014 the country spent approximately $60 billion to incarcerate offenders.

Even as someone who has completed a masters in criminal justice, including a core required course in statistical management (which let’s be honest, was as horrific as it sounds), I still struggle to understand the relevance of the numbers the media is throwing at us. I agree that it is a real achievement that fewer people are being sentenced to time in prison, but I really want society to understand why it is such an achievement, and what this really means.

The decrease in prison population is certainly an incredible start to the potential success of community supervision and its benefits. The one thing these articles fail to point out is just how much further we have to go to protect us as a society, and those who enter into the system. You may be thinking at this point that I am out of my mind for considering the safety and well being of convicted offenders; however, the majority of individuals arrested and convicted are non-violent drug offenders. What the article praising the decrease in the prison population failed to acknowledge is that although certain convicted offenders will not be sentenced to prison, the conditions of their sentence lived in society carry a higher risk of future incarceration than if they were placed behind bars in the first place.

Just because these individuals are not physically locked behind bars does not mean they are not locked behind the transparent bars of social isolation. Rates of unemployment, difficulty securing housing, and loss of family are just some of the hurdles most of these individuals  contend with. Why? Because they have been stigmatized by society with their criminal label. Virtually everyone on community supervision is at risk of being detained or incarcerated upon failure to comply with the conditions of supervision. Would you be able to follow a list of conditions if you felt like no one supported you? In order to support alternatives to incarceration, we really need to welcome the culture of supervision and understand the positives it can bring us. Not only will we be spending less money on the safekeeping of these individuals, but intervention and supervision can be accurately given to each offender to prevent re-offenses, interrupt the cycle of crime in families, and shake up the social disorganization within communities.

Regardless of whether you believe crime is a choice, crime is inherited, or crime is learned, the solid facts are that crime happens. By locking individuals up without any guidance, or even attempting to work on understanding the cause, the likelihood of reoffending is just as high if not worse than it was before that person was put in jail. Legislators clearly have been able to understand the reality that sending people to prison does nothing for public safety, so now it is time they invest money into supervision agencies to aid offenders in the right way. In order for this to happen, well-trained staff, evidence-based programs, and support from others is essential.

It is essential we maintain a safe environment for everyone in our communities. The notable decrease in the overall American incarceration and crime rates is something that hasn’t happened in more than 40 years. This hopefully marks the start of a revolutionary change for the U.S. criminal justice system.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes.

Featured image courtesy of [Viewminder via Flickr]

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Incarceration Figures Drop, But Community Support is Essential to Public Safety appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of the tragic and monstrous attacks on America on September 11, 2001, it is important to continue commemorating and honoring that day, and it is important to keep discussing that day’s stories and contexts. One survivor of the attacks is asking for just that. This year, Greg Trevor wrote an op-ed for New Jersey’s Star-Ledger requesting that September 11 be memorialized as a “National Day of Discussion, where Americans actively seek ways to find common ground across political, religious and cultural divides.” He suggested this as an alternative to 9/11 being commercialized like Memorial Day or rarely brought into mainstream attention like Pearl Harbor Day. America should listen to this survivor and talk about our feelings toward Islam, and our judgments about religion in general.

This summer, the Arab American Institute polled Americans about their attitudes toward Arabs and Muslims. Its key findings include sad statistics: just under half of Americans “support the use of profiling by law enforcement against Arab Americans and American Muslims,” while an increasing “percentage of Americans say that they lack confidence in the ability of individuals from either community to perform their duties as Americans should they be appointed to an important government position.” In the 13 years since 9/11, these numbers have only gotten worse. It’s part of a persistent Western Islamophobia. One Gallup article details this fear that so many in the West have of Muslims. At 48 percent, Muslims are the religious group most likely to feel racially or religiously discriminated against by Americans. There is great concern among Muslims internationally, too, about how the West treats them. Because the terrorists who orchestrated 9/11 were Muslim, a great deal of latent Islamophobic sentiment was released after the attacks. How are we addressing this reaction?

President Obama recently reaffirmed his statement that Islamist extremists, from Al-Qaeda to the Islamic State, are not truly Muslim. Saying that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” he claimed that “no religion condones the killing of innocents.” Obama has made this claim before, and his predecessor affirmed the same. Less than a week after 9/11, President George W. Bush said that “the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” On the one hand, these proclamations from American presidents are laudable and can do much to temper Islamophobia in the U.S. On the other hand, it isn’t their place to make claims like that about an entire religion.

Let’s get something straight: religion is kind of complicated. There are a lot of religious texts, doctrines, and mandates that condone, value, and encourage violence. This isn’t restricted to Islam. The Old and New Testaments, too, have inspired a great deal of violence. Religions that originated in the East are not free from it, either; this summer Buddhists in Burma again attacked their Muslim neighbors.

Yet peace is prevalent in religious texts, too. Love, compassion, and understanding are fundamental in many religions, Islam included. Both these presidents are Christians, but they were more than willing to paint the over one billion adherents with one broad brush. I do not think that one person of any religion should make a broad claim about each of its adherents. Religion is a complex web of faith that we should be wary of characterizing singularly. President Obama is right in that Islam is a peaceful practice. President Obama is wrong, too, as devout Muslims have looked to their texts for justification of sick violence.

Politically, it’d be preferable if religion could be summed up by either “peace” or “violence” or some other trait. But religion’s complexity, dynamism, and diversity make it interesting, relevant, and beautiful, even. Of course, the aspects of violence contribute in no way to that beauty. Should people use religion as a justification for violence? Never. But to ignore that violence is a part of religion’s history, present, and most likely its future is unfortunately a mistake.

This is why we need a Day of Discussion. This is why we need to talk, learn, and grow. We can’t be prejudicial of Muslims, but we sure can be prejudicial of the terrorists in Iraq and Syria. We have to be mature enough to condemn those Muslims and not condemn all Muslims. Hindsight allows us to condemn the Spanish Inquisitors who persecuted people of other faiths. Those Catholics did horrible things, but we can’t condemn all Catholics or Catholicism generally. Making these distinctions is important, and generalizing is dangerous. If we listen to survivor Greg Trevor and sit down to talk about it a little more, I think we would be on the right path.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Violence, Religion, and the Need for a 9/11 Day of Discussion appeared first on Law Street.

Right on the heels of  the Ray Rice domestic violence incident, NFL star Adrian Peterson was charged with negligent injury to a child. Known for being the best running back for the Minnesota Vikings, Peterson allegedly punished his 4-year-old son by whipping him with a tree branch, leaving cuts and bruises on the boy’s legs, backs, buttocks, hand and scrotum.

This subject is something I am really passionate about, and I was in absolute shock when Peterson gave a statement to the police following the incident claiming he felt confident in his actions, and is thankful for what spanking has done to him in his life. Each parent is responsible for choosing the way he or she disciplines his or her child, but if we start to say spanking is acceptable, how will we ever be able to set boundaries and limits? In typical NFL handling of these cases, Peterson was suspended from a game and no further action is being taken until the official police investigation is complete.

Last week I referenced the punishment for the father of a child who died as a result of being left in a hot car. That father was charged with murder. In the case of Adrian Peterson, I ask you what would happen if Peterson gave one more hit as opposed to the 10-15 lashes his poor child received, and that final hit resulted in the child’s death? Would he be let off because he didn’t intend to hurt the child? Would it be accepted like it is now, because that’s the way he grew up and spanking does “good”? I find it appalling that excuses are being made to justify what allows parents to discipline their children in this way.

Legislation is proposed all the time to stop acts of abuse toward children, and yet this incident has the potential to make parents think it’s OK to discipline their children in this way. I do not doubt that Peterson is telling the truth when he claims his intentions were harmless, but I do doubt that he feels any kind of remorse or is aware that his actions were wrong. In 2013, Peterson’s other two-year-old son was killed by his ex-girlfriend’s partner. Although Peterson had only found out about the child three months prior to his tragic death, one would have thought it would make him change his own actions.

All it takes is one hit in the wrong area, or with a certain amount of force, to cause serious harm and fall under the realm of child abuse. NFL players have the responsibility not only to be great athletes but also to be good role models. With the influx of recent incidents involving NFL players and their mistreatment of the law, I worry what effect this will have on the general public. Yes people make mistakes, yes people can change, but we should not be encouraging this behavior by making excuses. Each article I read about Rice and Peterson is drenched in excuse after excuse, each justifying the simple fact that these acts are wrong. In my opinion, if these acts of abuse were done by anyone else not in the public eye, I can guarantee the punishment would be a lot different.

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post There Is No Excuse for Child Abuse, Not Even for Adrian Peterson appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Thirteen years ago yesterday our country was shaken to the core. I was sixteen, skipping school and watching some awful show on television when the program was interrupted by the news reporting on the first airplane hitting the Twin Towers in New York City. Not even 20 minutes later, as the news anchors were still reporting on the crash, we all watched as another plane crashed into the second tower. It was live TV and there was no controlling what the viewers were going to see. The confusion and horror coming from the news anchors was something I could never forget. My brother and I sat in silence not knowing what to do, what to think, or what was going to happen next. Parents pulled their kids out of school and I remember this feeling of urgency in the air and the uneasiness of what could possibly happen next. Thousands of people had just lost their lives and the country witnessed it. There were no answers, only questions of why and what will happen next.

Every year we remember that horrendous day. It was a constant fear for the first year or two, but also a great feeling that our country had come together and we had heroes to thank daily. Budweiser aired a commercial during Superbowl XXXVI that really demonstrated the somber tone and respect the entire country had for the events of September 11, 2001. The ad was only shown once to ensure they did not profit from it in any way. Even today, 13 years later, it is the most moving dedication done in such a small amount of time.

Yesterday was a somber day for us all. Most news outlets covered the anniversary in addition to current events. While watching one of the programs I had to do a quick rewind to make sure I was hearing it correctly. Young America’s Foundation had gone to the George Washington University campus in Washington, DC last Friday, September 5, to interview students about the anniversary of September 11. YAF only had a few questions to ask these students:

1. Next week marks the anniversary of a major national event. Do you know what that is?
2. Do you know what ISIS is?
3. Did you know that ISIS is responsible for the beheading of two American journalists? If so, could you name one?
4. Are you aware of the celebrity “nude photo” hacking scandal? If so, could you name any of the celebrities involved?

The responses from these kids are just mind blowing…

So the total results:

• Six out of 30 students recognized that this week is the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
• Four out of 30 students were able to name one of the American journalists beheaded at the hands of ISIS.
• 29 out of 30 students were able to identify one or more celebrities involved in the nude photo hacking scandal.

The kid interviewed two minutes in genuinely reacts like he had no idea what had been going on and it clearly upset him, which is great but frustrating. Actually this whole situation is frustrating. How is it that college students in their late teens and early twenties know more about pop culture and the ridiculousness of a nude picture hacking scandal than they do about current events and the death of two Americans at the hands of terrorists? This is not only the responsibility of these young adults to know what’s going on but it is the responsibility of teachers, parents, and our society as a whole.

There are already so many issues with what kids are learning in the classroom today that this should not surprise me, but it honestly does. How is this possible? When I was growing up my parents and grandparents talked to me about Pearl Harbor and the significance of that date. We may have brushed through it in history class but it is a day that I remember because it was an important part of history. My grandparents even lost friends and family members during the attack on Pearl Harbor and World War II. The same could be said about 9/11 and the Iraq War that followed. Hell, there are even movies about the two events. While there have been about seven movies made about the Pearl Harbor attacks, nearly 20 have been produced about 9/11.

What has become of our younger generation? Things need to change or our society will become Idiocracy.

This video is a great representation of what is going on in our culture and it needs to stop. We need our children to be better and smarter and more informed. We are not only disappointing our parents and grandparents, but we are disappointing our country, our culture, the world, and our Founding Fathers! Flabbergasted.

I don’t want to end this post on a note of frustration for our society. Instead I want to share a moving video about the last surviving search and rescue dog who returned to Ground Zero yesterday, a place she had not been to since 2001.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Never Forget.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 9/11 Never Forget? Not Exactly For These GW Students appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

This is going to be a fun one!

Some of y’all know a while ago I was writing a personal blog, stumbled across Law Street, and was fired up by one of the contributors, Hannah Winsten. I wrote a rebuttal and the rest is history. I’ve been writing for Law Street for a few months now and have had the greatest pleasure in doing so, the team rocks! But in the back of my mind I always wondered when I would be able to have another encounter with Hannah. I like to think of her as the antithesis of me, she stands for everything that I don’t believe in, but in a good way!

The day has finally come. Ladies and gentlemen, Hannah is back and she has fired me up!

Hannah wrote a piece this week entitled, “LADIES: Vote Republican and You’ll Get the D” and I thought this will be a fun one. Boy was I right! I love how she starts right off with a sarcastic tone, throwing in those traditional pop culture references before pulling out the big words like ‘racist,’ ‘sexist,’ ‘homophobic’ and ‘Republican.’

First, she certainly did get it right that President Obama is getting close to being a lame duck, actually at this point he’s checked out and moved on to retirement on the golf course while still in the White House. Things haven’t gone the way he planned and homeboy has chunked deuce on the country, as pointed out by fellow Law Street writer Katherine Fabian here.

Who isn’t ready for the 2016 elections? I know I am!

Here we go again with Hannah only selecting bits and pieces of a report, only outlining what is beneficial and relevant to how she thinks and not the whole story. Yes, Politico reported a survey that states 49 percent of single women hold a negative view of the Republican Party, but it also says that 39 percent view Democrats unfavorably. If you go deeper into the article you also see that 48 percent of married women prefer a Republican to a Democrat. It isn’t a very positive article for Republicans but at least it is the truth and they are trying to do something about it.

Yes, the Republican Party has been perceived as the “good ole boys” party and women were neglected in some respects. But there are still plenty of Republican women in the country and I’m sorry but the idea that Republicans support rape and domestic violence is just vile. Does Hannah see all Republicans as toothless, alcoholic, wife-beating-if-they-step-out-of-the-kitchen inbreds? Referring to conservatives as ‘conserva-turds’ is almost as ridiculous as your girl, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, making the comment that “What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back.” Maybe you and Debbie get together in the last few days and brainstormed creative ways of calling the Republican Party abusive? Even people in the Democratic Party are distancing themselves from that foolish woman and her hideous remarks.

Nowhere in any Republican initiative or in that specific poll does it say that Republicans are planning to tell anyone that they are wrong. Nowhere. The report says that it is a “lack of understanding” between women and Republicans that “closes many minds to Republican policy solutions.” But let’s be honest, we don’t need a poll to tell us that there is a lack of understanding between the American people and politics. Not many in my generation or in younger generations take the time to understand politics, they just go with what they hear on television and we both know that is not an accurate depiction of politics at its core.

Hannah claims that Republicans will basically shake their fingers at all women, tell them they are wrong, and expect them to go out and vote for the GOP. What exactly are you reading that says any of that? Oh right, it is all based on opinion, not fact. Let’s go back to the Politico article where it states that the group that took the poll suggests “Republicans deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, and then move to other issues.” Again, the report suggests this for Republicans. On the upside, there have been several Republicans who have come out in support of over-the-counter birth control, and many conservatives in general are Pro-Choice. Yes, Republicans should deal with the abortion topic with real facts, solutions, ideas, and then move on. Unlike Democrats who are still ignoring the facts of the IRS scandal, the Benghazi issue, ISIS, and most importantly Obamacare.

R.R. Reno made valid points in his opinion piece on the dilemma facing social conservatives, but my dear Hannah took what she wanted and neglected the rest. She assumes that this piece is to attack single women, assuming that they live with 12 cats and are terrified that they will end up alone so they recognize the strengths of getting a hand out when they are older and thus support the Democratic Party. What Reno was doing was quoting a statistic about marriage and vulnerability and then putting his two cents in on why McKinsey, a fictional character, may feel judged when someone “opposes gay marriage, because she intuitively senses that being pro-traditional marriage involves asserting male-female marriage as the norm — and therefore that her life isn’t on the right path.”

That is a valid argument and a valid way of thinking. I know that I was raised to believe that the order of life is to graduate high school, go to college, get a job, get married and have kids all under the age of 30. Guess what? I’m 29, I have two degrees (working on a third), and two jobs, but I am not married or have kids and it is a scary idea sometimes. Our parents’ traditional ways were engraved in our minds as young children, but the path our parents and older generations took is not what our generation wants to take. It will take time, but not everyone feels supported in their ventures because we aren’t doing what we were “supposed” to do. I’m glad I messed up and took a different path. I’m a better person for it. Reno was simply putting those ideals in a simple statement and showing that McKinsey chose to reject the norm so that she could feel accepted in her choices, and nothing is wrong with that.

I hate to break it to you, Hannah, but if you think women are voting Democrat because they “want to have control over their own bodies, their own reproductive systems, and their own lives. They want to be able to support ourselves. They want to lead lives that aren’t wracked with violence,” then you should probably vote for the unrepresented party. Democrats are taking away more of your rights than Republicans. Remember that tiny thing called Obamacare? Yeah, do some research and you will find there are more restrictions than advantages. You want to live your own life without someone dictating what you can and can’t do? Should probably take another look at the Democratic Party and its belief in big government, controlling every aspect of our lives and making people believe that they are entitled to handouts instead of working hard for what they have in life. Democrats would rather rich people do the work and hand the benefits to the less fortunate and lazy. Democrats believe in helping everyone but also in accruing more debt — that doesn’t help the economy, it hurts it.

At least Republicans are trying to fix their issues, listen to the people, and change (slowly) with the times more so than Democrats. Not to mention they are taking responsibility for their errors.

If you think Hillary is going to be in the White House in 2016 you’ve got another thing coming. The same “what difference does it make?” Hillary who was so flustered and frustrated about being questioned on the topic of Benghazi that she lost her cool? The same Hillary Clinton who admitted to leaving the White House with her husband President Bill Clinton, personally $10 million in debt? I’m not sure that is someone I would want in the oval office. Let’s be truly honest. We all know that while President Clinton was busy getting blow jobs in the Oval Office Hillary was really running the country. So she’s been president, just behind the scenes, and we don’t need her again.

I’ve said this before, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but the moment that opinion turns into something disrespectful I have an issue with it. The holier than thou, self-righteous, talking down to anyone who doesn’t agree with you tone is not cool. I enjoy Hannah’s quick wit and sarcasm but sometimes she crosses the line. Republicans are people too and in most cases highly educated people who just don’t share your views. Ease up on the conservative detest because you are simply putting yourself in the category of abuse that you talk so much about hating.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Wolf via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Response: Let’s Stop with the Republican Bashing appeared first on Law Street.

According to a statement released by the Department of Defense on August 27, 2014, United States Army General Officer Michael T. Harrison was forced to retire recently with a reduced rank after being found to have mishandled reports of sexual assault. As I read the article published by The New York Times, I was expecting to find that some form of criminal action had also been taken and that there would be some recognition of sympathy for those victims whose cases had been mishandled. Instead, the consequences of this general’s actions were to retire as a one star general, as opposed to a two star. No criminal action was taken, and no justice to the victims was given.

If you have seen the eye-opening documentary ‘The Invisible War,’ then you know that it raised awareness for the appalling number of victims who are involved in sexual assaults in military settings, but also that it spurred legislation ensuring investigations of abuse were handled efficiently, and justice was given to the victims. As can be seen with Harrison’s case, these incidents are still occurring and as a woman myself, I still do not feel like enough is being done.

Susan Brownmiller, an American journalist, describes sexual assault in military settings as an unfortunate but inevitable by-product of the necessary game called war. Quite frankly, the punishment Harrison received is nothing short of a joke. After the amendment of federal policies regarding sexual assault in the military two years ago, I question Congress as to why this is still happening? This game we call ‘sexual assault in war’ is unacceptable. According to “The Invisible War,”

‘Since 2006, more than 95,000 service members have been sexually assaulted in the U.S. military. More than 86 percent of service members do not report their assault, and less than five percent of all sexual assaults are put forward for prosecution, with less than a third of those cases resulting in imprisonment.’

These figures should be enough to not only change punishment for the mishandling of reports of sexual assault, but to help victims come forward and receive justice for their traumatic experiences. As of 2014, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, federal law now defines Military Sexual Trauma (MST) as one of the most frequent diagnoses given to veterans of warfare. If we know that so many individuals suffer from such traumatic experiences, why isn’t policy being changed? Even more importantly, why aren’t those who are meant to protect us doing their jobs properly?

Each military force dominates the way reports and investigations of assault are handled. This ‘in house’ shambles of a system is essentially allowing officials to get away with their own wrongdoings. We are allowing individuals to commit acts without fear of punishment or consequence. In order to lower the rates of sexual assault in the military, the focus needs to be on controlling the environment, and providing an alternative system for report of misconduct. I am no expert in changing legislation, and I am no intellectual genius on the makings of policy, but I am certainly no fool to being aware that victims are suffering, and legislators need to wake up and realize that this type of consequence is normalizing military sexual assaults.

Our common coping mechanism for crime is imposing laws to regulate punishment to those who inflict pain and suffering. By imposing taking someone’s gold sparkly badge away and giving him or her a silver sparkly one instead because they essentially ignored someone’s suffering, is unacceptable. Sexual assault and abuse is not normal, regardless of the situation, regardless of the setting, and regardless of the perpetrator. In order to enable victims to report their abusers, and in order to protect future men and women from the pain and suffering so many veterans go through, something needs to change!

Now more than ever, I cannot wrap my head around the fact that our same country who is fighting to protect us from terrorism, our country who is fighting for the rights of the thousands of innocent individuals losing their lives in the Middle East, can also be the same country that contains individuals being sexually violated and then silenced by the same exact people who are meant to protect us.

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Military Sexual Assault Remains a Major National Embarrassment appeared first on Law Street.

College students are kind of stupid. As this groundbreaking and Pulitzer worthy (LOL, just kidding) Fox News piece showed us recently, they like to get drunk and high and occasionally both.

Because, you know, Spring Break is a new thing. No one has ever done this exact piece before. Never.

And apparently we are constantly finding new ways to get messed up. Every couple years there are new, crazy trends to get all screwed up. Now these trends that media outlets inevitably have a mental breakdown over are rarely legitimate or widespread. Instead, they tend to be the product of one or two weird and unfortunate hospitalizations or arrests.

One recent particularly disturbing/amusing/curious trend is “butt chugging.” For those of you who don’t know what that is, it’s exactly what it sounds like. This is much too civilized of a forum for me to go into too much depth, but if you’d like more information, you can read an account of some brave soul attempting butt chugging here. A kid at University of Tennessee was hospitalized with a BAC of .4 after supposedly butt chugging at a Pi Kappa Alpha party. The frat was eventually suspended from campus. If you need a quick laugh, please watch the press conference their lawyer held. It’s hilarious. This poor man with a law degree had to say the word butt chug about 398792 times.

In a similar vein, apparently vodka tampons are a thing. I will not describe the process of this trend, because again, I would assume it’s self-explanatory. Again, also probably not a widespread trend, but it’s still something for our concerned news outlets to get their panties in a proverbial bunch about.

And most recently, teens are apparently smoking coffee, although why anyone would demean my beautiful and vivacious friend coffee that way is unknown. Here’s a first hand account of someone trying it. Unsurprisingly, it didn’t go well because smoking coffee is incredibly stupid.

OK, so some Americans, particularly some young Americans, are incredibly stupid. They make reckless decisions and experiment with dangerous ways to do drugs and drink alcohol. OK. But my question is, does this happen in other countries? Because here’s my logic — you would think this happens in the countries that are similar to us. Canada, right? The UK? Australia? France? Spain? Anywhere?? Does anyone else butt chug?

From what I can tell the answer is no. Now don’t get me wrong, European kids party. They party hard, probably harder in some cases. But they don’t appear to butt chug, or use vodka tampons, or smoke coffee grounds — maybe because they have more respect for the glorious caffeinated mecca that is coffee.

Brb, Starbucks run.

So why are we so stupid? Well, there are a few possible reasons. Let’s start with the least probable.

Possibility #1: We’re dumber than kids in other countries. 

I highly doubt that this could be true. The United States has only been around a couple of centuries, and we’re a melting pot. I don’t think there’s any sort of gene, or lack thereof, that makes American kids look at a beer and say, hey, maybe I’ll shove that up my ass in an attempt to get drunk more quickly.

And if that is the case, Americans are going extinct anyway, so this article is for naught.

Possibility #2: The American culture of consumption. 

As Americans, we consume things. A lot. We are 5 percent of the world’s population, but use 24 percent of its energy. On average, Americans have larger house sizes than Europeans by quite a bit — we average about 2,300 sq. ft.; the French are at about 1,216 sq. ft.; and British houses average 818 sq. ft. We also consume a lot more food than our European friends. In general, we have a culture of consumption in the United States, that isn’t absent from other countries, but is certainly not quite as pervasive.

And that culture of consumption kind of tells that moderation is bad. Think back to that Fox News “expose” on Spring Break goers. Those kids were unabashedly telling the camera that they wanted to get as messed up as physically possible. They were drinking cheap alcohol, obviously not for the taste, but for the pure and unadulterated purpose of getting hammered. They were consuming to excess, because that’s the culture of those Spring Break trips.

But that still doesn’t answer my question. Why does this happen here, but not evidently, other places? I mean obviously Europe has Ibiza, and giant music festivals, but in searching, I can’t find a single example of butt chugging, or vodka tampons, or anything else that ridiculous. I also can’t seem to find any concerned media exposes on young drinking culture.

And that brings to me to my most likely theory:

Possibility #3: It’s a product of the US drinking age. 

Anyone who’s been to Europe can see that drinking is, for the most part, a facet of the culture. Depending on where you are, having a beer or glass of wine with dinner is not uncommon, even if you’re a teen. Teens are eased into it, and allowed to test their limits. Unlike in the US, there’s no awkward period of time between 18-21 when you’re a full adult in every way, except for the ability to order a glass of wine with dinner. Drinking isn’t treated like some secret exclusive club.

I think that’s why ridiculously stupid things like butt chugging happen. Drinking underage in the US emphasizes getting drunk as cheaply and quickly as possible, because there are limited resources. If an underage kid is going to a bar and wants to drink, they know that they will have no access to alcohol there, so they take as many shots as physically possible before going to make sure that they’ll be on the same level as others. There’s no emphasis on learning what you actually enjoy, or learning limits.

Now there is danger in lowering the drinking age, of course. But I think the issue we have is one that resides in the murky intersection between law and culture. Our culture teaches us to consume as much as possible, but our law restricts said consumption until a seemingly arbitrary birthday. I think there’s value in the European approach.

So next time you meet a European, please ask, “Have you ever butt chugged?” I bet you 5 bucks they’ll just look at you like a crazy person, and probably file a restraining order.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dear American Underage Drinkers, Why is Butt Chugging a Thing? appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like every week we see a new headline about an incredibly insensitive theme party — usually involving a college Greek Life chapter. One of the greatest hits includes this incredibly racist “Mexican Party” by the lovely ladies of Chi Omega at Penn State University.

Or one of my personal favorites, this Duke University Kappa Sigma party. It was first called “Asia Prime,” but then got changed to “International Relations.”

I have good news though: racist fun isn’t just limited to Greek Life members! Check out this picture from a UConn Law School MLK Day Party dubbed “Bullets and Bubbly” back in in 2007.

These are by no means isolated incidents. When I googled “racist party” for this article, there were dozens of examples from which to choose. This is a rampant problem, no doubt, and every time a new incident makes it to the national press, I join the legion of outraged observers.

Then I stumbled across a Buzzfeed article yesterday called, “This is what American Parties Look Like Around the World.” Apparently American parties are a thing in other countries. They feature red solo cups, American Flags, popcorn, sports jerseys, and backwards hats. With a few exceptions, all pretty accurate and innocuous stereotypes. Well, except for the popcorn thing. I don’t get that. Do other places not have popcorn???

Here’s another one. They seem to like our solo cups, but I don’t think they’re using them correctly:

I found the Buzzfeed piece to be entertaining and charming. Most of the “American” stereotypes were funny. With the exception of a couple military references, nothing else, at least to me, was offensive. And then I scrolled down to the comments. Most people seemed to agree with me. They applauded the parties, and left comments about how the stereotypes are kind of accurate. A few others offered rather defensive explanations about why we use red Solo cups.

And then there were some commenters who were really offended. Some posed questions about how those same countries would feel if we poked a little fun at them. And one commenter really interested me, because he compared these parties to the very offensive ones I discussed above.

So that got me thinking, why am I so offended by Mexican, Asian, and MLK Day parties, but not really at all by the “American Parties?” And the reason is that these are apples and oranges; they are unequivocally, hugely different. And here are three reasons why:

3. We need to look at the context. 

At no point has the culture of the United States been the butt of offensive and destructive stereotypes. Part of this has to do with the relatively short history of our nation, or maybe our status for many years as a superpower. But with the very limited exception of perhaps political prisoners or POWs, I cannot think of a single instance in which an American has had his or her rights taken away simply for being American. Sure, we occasionally face prejudice or suspicion when we travel to other countries, and there are parts of this world that are not very safe for American travelers. But at no point has our culture been used to disenfranchise us.

That’s one of the main things that sets this party apart from the offensive parties above. Sure, the symbols at the “American Parties” are poking fun at us, but that’s all. I think you’d be hard pressed to see an American genuinely disenfranchised because he’s wearing a cowboy hat. That’s just not true with the symbols — sombreros, ponchos, and others — used by the girls at the Mexican Party.

2. The symbols they chose are pretty mild and pulled from pop culture. 

Red Solo cups? Basketball jerseys? Popcorn? Those aren’t historically important and engrained parts of American culture. In fact, all three of those things are relatively recent phenomenons. Fifty years from now, I bet we won’t even be using red Solo cups because we’ll have found a much more efficient and climate-friendly alternative. Contrast that with the clothing of the girls at Duke’s Asian-themed party. Those are historically-loaded garments. They have important cultural significance. Red Solo Cups, in the long run, do not. We have a silly song about them, for God’s sake. Go ahead and mock, world.

1. There’s no issue of race or culture.  

The U.S. is a melting pot. We don’t have historical clothing, one distinct religion, or defining racial characteristics. And that’s part of what makes this country great. I guess you could say that it’s also what makes us pretty hard to make fun of on a deeply offensive level.

But it’s possible. We do have symbols that are deeply ingrained in this culture, for example, the American flag. If one of these “American Parties” had cut up or degraded our flag in some way, I would probably be offended. Some of these parties do feature the American flag, but on a wall, the same way it would be in the U.S.. But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re not attacking us for the way we genetically look. They’re not making fun of the beliefs that we harbor, or historical events in our history. These parties are full of stereotypes that don’t put us down as people.

It’s doable to have a party about a nation that isn’t offensive, even if it is in jest. For example, I once attended a French-themed birthday party. It featured French refreshments, large pictures of the Eiffel Tower, and I believe we all said “c’est la vie?” and “voulez-vous couchez avec moi?” many a time. I see these “American Parties” in the same vein.

I’m not encouraging stereotyping, I’m not encouraging people to poke fun at Americans, but I think it’s important to point out that there is a real and concrete difference between malicious and innocuous stereotypes. Those first three parties, they crossed the line. Look at the girls in the first picture. In case you didn’t notice, one is holding a sign that says, “Will mow lawn for weed and beer” while adorned in a poncho and fake mustache. That’s a harmful stereotype, because it’s exactly that kind that propagates racism and prejudice in our country today.

On the other hand, this spread, from an “American Party” just looks delicious.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [hobvias sudoneighm via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stop Calling Blatantly Racist College Bashes “Theme Parties” appeared first on Law Street.