America’s first forty-four presidents all won the White House with diverse cultural backgrounds and lifestyles. Though the first forty-three share a similar bond as Caucasian males, the precedent was shattered when Barack Obama won election in 2008 as the nation’s first African-American president. He may be more culturally diverse than any of his predecessors, but there is speculation that his successor could topple yet another historic diversity barrier. Number 45 – the next United States president – may very well walk in heels and carry a purse.

The first “Year of the Woman” in American politics may have been in 1992, but there is reason to believe there could be a second coming soon. Americans believe the country is ready for a female president now more than ever before, according to a recent poll showing 86 percent believe the timing is right. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the popular wife of former President Bill Clinton, is the overwhelming favorite female potential presidential candidate in 2016. If she pursues the Oval Office, she would likely secure the Democratic nomination early in the race. Clinton consistently tops internal Democratic polls and bests potential GOP rivals in many vital state match-ups, clearly solidifying her position as the potential frontrunner. When asked if the nation is ready for a female leader, however, she responded by saying, “I do want to see that glass shattered. I don’t think it has to be any particular person.” Her comments sustain the possibility that she could choose not to mount a second presidential bid, allowing room for other female candidates to pursue the most powerful position in the world. The candidate bench is deeper than one might imagine.

While most view Clinton as the dominant female presidential contender, the alternative candidate pool is rich in talent should she choose not to run. Potential candidates on the Democratic side include freshman Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a liberal crusader leading the charge against Wall Street, and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), a relatively moderate marriage equality advocate who replaced Clinton in the Senate after her confirmation as Secretary of State in 2009. Potential female Republicans include freshman Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), whose expertise in foreign affairs could frame a powerful campaign, Governor Susana Martinez (R-NM), an effective Hispanic governor who is known for reaching across the aisle, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a popular African-American diplomat with high popularity ratings.

But there is a deeper phenomenon at play. Building momentum for female candidates across the state of Georgia is the looming potential that a major female presidential candidate will run in 2016. The preemptive coattail effect is illustrated by the emergence of multiple female candidates pursuing public offices across the nation, noticeably in Georgia. This is an effect other female political role models were not able to accomplish when they emerged on the national stage, including neither former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in 2006 nor former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) in 2008.

Interestingly, all female candidates within the state are pursuing open seats where the incumbent is either retiring or pursuing a higher office, congruent with the notion that females disproportionately pursue seats without an incumbent on the ballot. The retirement announcement by two-term U.S. Saxby Chambliss has sent shockwaves through Georgia’s political landscape. As of now, there will be four open seat races in 2014 – a Senate seat and three U.S House seats – since three members of the state’s congressional delegation are running to replace Chambliss.

State Representative Donna Sheldon (R-Dacula) became one of the first to announce a District 10 candidacy to replace outgoing Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) who is running to replace Chambliss. Also running is Tricia Pridemore, the former executive director of the Governor’s Office of Workforce Development. She is pursuing the Republican nomination for the eleventh congressional district currently held by Congressman Phil Gingrey who is also vying for the vacant Senate seat. Both women will likely face contentious primary battles, but are considered serious candidates nonetheless.

Karen Handel, the former Republican Secretary of State, became the latest announced candidate hoping to replace Chambliss in 2014. She ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2010 against eventual victor Nathan Deal, and subsequently served as public policy Vice President for Susan G. Komen. Rumored to be considering a Senate bid is Michelle Nunn, the CEO of Points of Light volunteer organization. She’s the daughter of former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat from Georgia who served four-terms as a foreign policy and defense expert. Nunn is considered the leading Democratic candidate.

The prospect of a major female presidential candidate in 2016 has catalyzed a movement not only in Georgia but across the nation heading into the mid-term election cycle. More serious female candidates are now pursuing higher office, likely because they believe the gender norm has diminished. These ladies believe the electorate will be more receptive of a female candidate and that their probability of victory is high given the speculation of a female presidency. We know that more females are running for higher office – but will they win?

Aung San Suu Kyi received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her efforts to promote human rights and democracy in Myanmar.

By: Emily Fountain

“To be forgotten. The French say that to part is to die a little. To be forgotten too is to die a little. It is to lose some of the links that anchor us to the rest of humanity.”

These words were spoken by Aung San Suu Kyi, known to many simply as “The Lady,” at the Nobel Lecture in 1991 when she accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for her nonviolent struggle for democracy and human rights in oppressive Myanmar.

The forgotten groups she spoke of were Burmese migrant workers and refugees. For Suu Kyi, receiving the Nobel Peace Prize meant the world had recognized the plight of these people and acknowledged “the oneness of humanity.” Her personal victory that day was not a tangible prize, but rather a change in attitudes and perceptions

Much of her success in peacekeeping efforts have stemmed from her ability to see not only the diversity but also the equality of humankind. Despite what has now become a common narrative, it is her identity as a woman that has aided her ability to empathize with these vastly different groups of people.

The Lady’s life provides an interesting framework for a story that often goes untold. With her success in peacekeeping endeavors, it would only be reasonable to assess that women are capable of not only filling, but also succeeding, in these global security roles. Yet, despite this assessment, such a conclusion has yet to be agreed upon. In her remarks at the U.S. Institute of Peace, Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer relayed a quote from a governmental official. The official said, “I don’t get it. They’re [women] not governmental officials. They’re not armed combatants. Why would they be included in [peace] negotiations?”

Beyond the simplified rhetoric, this official addresses a commonly held viewpoint— if women are not actively involved in the conflict, they should not be involved in the resolution. However, the United Nations is working to change these perceptions.

In October 2000, the U.N. passed Security Council Resolution 1325, targeted at increasing representation of women in peace negotiations and all levels of decision making regarding security. These areas include: disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration efforts, inclusion in post-conflict reconstruction, increased protection from sexual violence, and an end to impunity for crimes against women.

This resolution, however, was not the first. Five years prior the Beijing Platform for Action was passed with 189 countries pledging to strengthen “the participation of women in national reconciliation and reconstruction and to investigate violence against women in armed conflict”.

Despite women like Suu Kyi and governmental efforts to expand the role of women in peace and security, women remain severely underrepresented in global conflict resolution. Given that women account for half of the world’s population, this is alarming. Without their perspective, efforts to build a lasting peace are futile.

A special report issued by The United States Institute of Peace in January 2011 found that more than half of all peace agreements fail within the first 10 years of implementation and moreover, 31 out of the 39 active conflict zones see conflict re-emerge after peace settlements have concluded. And in all 31 cases, women were excluded from the peacemaking process. In fact, the United Nations states that women make up less than 3 percent of all signatories to peace agreements.

For some this statistic paints a picture of women’s unwillingness to enter this field. For others who understand societal implications more clearly, this underrepresentation is not due to lack of willingness, but to a lack of access. Women in countries such as Uganda and Liberia are clear examples of those who have been active in fighting injustices, but yet were not allowed to do so in a formal capacity.

This lack of formality is especially devastating given that many of these areas remain the most dangerous places for women. Though more importantly these places also remain the areas of greatest threat to international peace and security, and employ specific violent tactics to target women.

Sexual violence, most notably rape, has become a common weapon of war in many countries. Most recently, the gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman in Delhi, India garnered international attention as women’s groups sought justice from the attackers. In addition, they questioned the Indian government’s role in the provision of women’s security. The case in India however is the exception, not the rule. The harsh reality is that cases such as these occur frequently in various countries, but those are met only with impunity and injustice.

While it is tempting to view these women as victims, such stereotyping only exacerbates the larger problem and prevents the world from seeing women as the change agents they have proved capable of becoming. In order to end this vicious cycle, it becomes a categorical imperative that the perception of women must change, and that is one that Resolution 1325 and the U.S. recognize.

In December 2011, the United States became one of twenty-some nations to adopt an action plan to fulfill the resolution. In support, President Obama released the National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security and signed an Executive Order to see to its implementation.  The U.S. Plan outlines five high-level objectives: National Integration and Institutionalization, Participation in Peace Processes and Decision-making, Protection from Violence, Conflict Prevention, and Access to Relief and Recovery. The plan also stresses the importance of coordination between international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and legislative bodies.

Though still in its infancy, President Obama’s plan has arguably already failed to meet some of its most specifically stated objectives. With the failure of Congress to pass the Violence Against Women Act at the beginning of this year, the idealistic notion of the gender equality and accessibility has clearly been relegated to the back burner as partisanship takes center stage— a partisanship that is mostly male. Though a version of this bill has now been passed, party goals clearly took precedence leaving a legislative void from the time of the bill’s expiration in 2011 to its reauthorization. This failure to achieve a timely congressional compromise does not bode well for future initiatives, though perhaps an outcry is coming.

In recent years the numbers of platforms showcasing the voices of women have risen. TED Talks abound with the thoughts and ideas of feminist giants. Hillary Clinton is considering a presidential run for 2016. This past summer The Atlantic dedicated a cover and a multi-page spread to Anne Marie-Slaughter, who sparked a national conversation addressing the issue “Can Women Really Have it All?”  Perhaps as these voices coalesce around a common goal, the efforts targeted by Resolution 1325 and the U.S. Action plan can finally be met. Maybe then, when the “oneness of humanity” is achieved, and only then can we truly hope to foster a stable and lasting peace process.

However, if the progress made so far is indicative of that which is to follow, then it will be the words of Aung San Suu Kyi that will ring true. If half of the world’s population remains left out and forgotten in these roles, then The Lady is right. We, as a nation and as a global power, will inevitably die a little. We will lose a vital link that connects us to the rest of humanity and perhaps even further, we may lose some of ourselves along the way.

As both sides of the U.S. political spectrum begin to stir over how the government should best protect its people from each other, the citizens of North Korea are stirring over how best to protect themselves from their own government. Reports from the highly isolated and mysterious land on the other side of the Demilitarized Zone depict a penal system that vaguely recalls scenes from the Nazi Germany death camps during World War II.

Shin Dong-hyuk, one of the few prisoners to ever escape one such camp and live to tell their story, recently interviewed with CBS News’ 60 Minutes and told of his experience being born and raised in the brutal conditions of the North Korean Labor Camps. According to Shin, the camps are like their own backwards society where children are taught to rat on their parents and peers, are beaten mercilessly (sometimes to death) by their teachers and classmates for hoarding a couple grains of rice, and are brought to the brink of starvation by being fed meager portions of gruel. His testimony also explains the camp protocol of executing people who plan to escape or who knew of a planned escape and did not report it, as well as murdering women that became pregnant without having been granted the rare permission to enter into an arranged marriage.

Another North Korean defector who now speaks about his experience in a labor camp, Jung Gwang Il, recalls having been tortured for ten months straight until he finally agreed with the government’s accusations. He was then subjected to three years at the Yodok concentration camp.

Aside from the testimonies of escaped prisoners, though, not much solid evidence can be linked to the accusations of the atrocious conditions of these camps. North Korea denies the existence of the Yodok concentration camp as well as the four other political labor camps supposedly operating in the country. North Korea’s firmly sealed borders and stringent control over foreign access to the nation make it impossible to know for sure whether or not the camps do indeed operate in the way they have been described.

There are those who believe that some South Korean human rights’ groups have ulterior motives for popularizing the stories of North Korean refugees. Depicting the North Korean regime as horrible human rights abusers would indeed increase legitimacy and domestic support for South Korean arms’ investment and military build-up. Global knowledge of the conditions of these camps is also based solely on a very small handful of people who have admittedly been brainwashed and suffered immense torture, so it is wise to question the validity of their accusations. Even Blaine Harden, the man who helped Shin Dong-hyuk write a biography of his experience in the camps, felt the need to add a disclaimer in his book Escape from Camp 14 because, in interviews, Shin Dong-hyuk himself admitted to having previously lied about certain events. Harden notes, “In writing this book, I have sometimes struggled to trust him.” He warns that the veracity of Shin’s claims should not be automatically assumed.

Though the details of camp conditions cannot be confirmed aside from testimonies of escaped prisoners and guards, satellite imagery has allowed the international community to pinpoint the exact locations and general details of the penal communities. These images have also allowed people to keep track of the recent expansion of these sites, which presumably draws from a desire to stem the flow of defectors and crack down on political opposition during the initial years of the reign of Kim Jong-Un.

Four months ago, Navi Pillay, the UN special reporter on human rights first raised a call to investigate possible Crimes Against Humanity in North Korean labor camps after interviewing two former inmates. Her request was granted in March as a UN Commission of Inquiry has officially been charged with a one-year investigation into the human rights abuses of the country. Though this investigation marks a small victory for the human rights groups that have fought to draw international attention to the issue, it is not likely to have much of an effect on the conduct of this country, considering its long history of being unwilling to yield to international pressure.

So, for now, while the United States government is reevaluating its stance on Article Two of the Bill of Rights, the North Korean government continues to neglect the rights of its people altogether. Though bitter arguments and political polarization may be the repercussions of the debates going on in the US Congress, they revolve around a basic and fundamental precept of the American Constitution which allows the citizens of the United States security from their own government.

Though so often taken for granted by U.S. citizens, this guarantee of security from one’s own government is a luxury forever denied to the people of North Korea.

Guest Writer

Women have been fighting for equal rights for the past 150 years, and although they have made great strides towards egalitarianism, the struggles and deficiencies are still evident all around the globe. Approximately 80 percent of men in Middle Eastern and North African countries agree that “men make better political leaders than women do” and that “when jobs are scarce men should have more right to a job than a woman.” This will not come as a huge surprise to most of us, but what about the fact that approximately 20 percent of men in industrialized countries believe the same? Although many consider America to be the most progressive, egalitarian country in the world, there are still huge gaps between the treatment of gender in our society.

The Steubenville rape case earlier this year is an example, proven most notably through CNN’s discourse and the online community’s response. Mainly, this was a case of victim blaming: “she shouldn’t have gotten drunk underage,” “she shouldn’t have gone home with them,” the perpetrators “had such promising futures.” This is not such a far cry away from marital rape cases protected under Islamic law, in which the defense is that the wives brought it upon themselves. While most citizens of “developed,” industrialized nations will watch major news networks, cringing at and criticizing the treatment of women in so-called “backward” cultures, they fail to recognize that the gender gap is still very much alive and thriving in their own communities.

At the international level, the statistics are overwhelming: 70 percent of the world’s two-billion poor are women, two thirds of illiterate adults are women, and employment rates for women are declining after increasing during the World Wars. The global gender pay gap is at 17 percent. Shifting the view toward the industrialized world, surely there must be less of a difference: Women earned 81 percent of the income of their male occupational counterparts in 2009. For those thinking “Well, the United States must be different; our entire political culture is based on the aggressive promotion of democratization and egalitarianism abroad” –  only 24 percent of CEOs in the United States are women, and they earn only 74.5 percent as much as male CEOs. In terms of national governments, there are only 23 countries where women comprise over 30 percent of the lower house of their national parliament. As a result, about half of the world’s countries currently use some type of electoral quota. Only fourteen women in the world were either head of state or head of government in 2010, and on average only one in six cabinet ministers in the world is female.

The gender gap in the developed world is the result of many complex issues, such as socialization and stigmas, and also from its proliferation by those who would profit from it. Women are pushed or socialized into jobs that are paid less than typically male occupations, while at the same time men are socialized into staying away from them, i.e. nursing, nonprofit work, and childcare. On the other side of the spectrum, in the same types of jobs, women are still paid less. Women are also given fewer opportunities to climb the professional ladder and even to enter certain occupations, sometimes because of employment restrictions or socialization into certain types of education. A main theme of these occurrences is not legality. On the surface, most United Nation member-states (members of which include the developed world) adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “…in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” It is instead an issue of socialization, which is in turn a problem of the culture itself.

There is no surefire method to solving the gender gap; the problem is that it is an ingrained, socialized mindset of society, and most citizens are not aware or do not care enough to alter the reality of it. But the first step is admitting the problem. The United States must stop deeming itself the “land of freedom” if these prejudices still exist, if the laws themselves are still not equal. Women have been given just enough freedoms and guarantees of equality that some members of the population do not even realize that this is still a large, cyclic problem. The country toes the line between oppression and true equality, living life according to established standards instead of true egalitarianism, unwilling or sometimes unable to make that last push into true equality. This is not just an issue we can stand on the sidelines about anymore, shaking our heads and wagging our fingers at other nations. We must actively pursue equality and seek to close the gender gap. This can, and indeed must, be done through education—informal and otherwise, as parents, teachers, or even little-known associates.

To further shorten gender gap, people must be aware that language is a part of a nation’s culture—derogatory terms are different across borders. Change the language and one will change the stigmas. True justice cannot be achieved by the Steubenville rape victim while name-calling and victim blaming still occur. For instance, in American culture, it is unfortunately common to insult a man exhibiting too much emotion by calling him a “girl.” Gender stereotypes are just as harmful to men as well as women. For example, unemployment can undermine a man’s ability to prove himself the “breadwinner.” They are socialized to be the tough, unemotional sex. Observational studies have shown that men that feel that they cannot fulfill their assigned gender roles have increased rates of alcoholism, domestic violence, and suicide.

Gender is not the same as sex—we live in a society of assigned gender roles, and those individuals who attempt to demolish them or engage in activities outside of their assigned spheres are stigmatized. A boy may play with dolls just as well as a girl may play with airsoft guns. Is it so inconceivable to imagine that the majority of women go into careers in the public health and education fields because they are swallowing propaganda at every turn that their gender is the “kinder, gentler, more compassionate one,” the one more suited to be a healer instead of a game-changer? For example, in political cartoons, Hillary Clinton is “framed in many inappropriate terms and criticized endlessly for being too masculine,” and it shows in the portrayal of her caricature. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is depicted as the ideal woman, though she ostentatiously has much less political experience than Clinton. What if it was instilled in women at an early age that they are “strong, assertive, and powerful?” Would it be too far of a jump to assume that more women would be interested in, even think that they were capable of, going into politics?  What if women’s math scores are lower on average than males’ because we are consistently told that we are poorer at math, and should focus our academic efforts on reading comprehension and analysis? And is it not possible that maybe women on average score lower on IQ tests because we have always been told that we are the less capable sex? In essence, if one changes the language of society, one can change the course of the society. Gender, after all, does not equate to sex; the two are not interchangeable. Gender is an arbitrary role that society has forced upon a specific sex. To change the mindset of a people is not easy, nor will this change occur exponentially. Just as it took enormous effort to overturn racist laws, and even then racism has not evaporated, it will take generations to fully convince people that women are as capable and efficient as men. But changing the mindset of just one person will begin a chain reaction reaching into the next generation and beyond. This is the uphill challenge that every fighter for equality must take. One does not have to be in the top echelons of policy and decision making to incur change; one must simply be the individual willing to offer a different perspective.

There is no second place. The threshold between first and last can be infinitesimal, but the consequences are always substantial.

On the morning of June 28th, 2012, time stood still. For one of the first times in the 21st century, all eyes were on the Supreme Court, the greatest arbitrator in all the land. This was not any morning, but the morning that the Affordable Care Act would be raised up as law or cast down as a mistake. No case that had come before the Roberts Court had ever been so controversial. Divided, the country waited with baited breath for a decision. CNN, the trusted source in non-partisan news, was the first to tell the story.

Tragedy loomed over the now-infamous Boston Marathon. The innocent sense of security that had been held so dear would be torn by two men, early in the afternoon. As fast as it began, all eyes descended upon Boston. The story developed, and the news reported it. CNN, racing for ratings, proclaimed that a suspect had been apprehended.

When the news breaks, the only way to win is to be first. This unfortunate culture has led to the decline of quality. This new trend was no more obvious than during the coverage of the Affordable Care Act ruling and the Boston Marathon bombing. Accuracy was sacrificed in the name of being first.

Whenever the healthcare decision was set to be released, a plethora of news agencies circled the steps of the hallowed court striving to be the first to report. CNN fought its way into being the first report of the case. The guillotine had fallen, and the President’s signature piece of legislation was overturned. The story was over, and Democrats across the country had no chance to dispel the specter of failure before the November election. The news read a sad story for liberals, but the decision did not. CNN, it its haste to grab viewers, had neglected to check their facts.

That morning was filled with shame for more than just CNN, however. This culture permeates the industry. FOX, a more conservative alternative to CNN, found itself misrepresenting the story as well. The Affordable Care Act had been upheld, but FOX and CNN were among the last to find out.

The attack upon the Boston Marathon is one that will not soon be forgotten. In any situation like this, speculation emerges far quicker than facts, and as a result, untrue things often swirl around as though they were the truth. It is not uncommon for the first 24 hours of a news story to be riddled with the inaccurate. CNN, again, exemplified this dangerous overstepping of responsible reporting.

Within hours, several news agencies had picked up the story that “dark skinned” man had been brought into custody as a suspect. This development would have been a dramatic and speedy response to the tragedy. , But it was not true.. The man brought in was not there based on his involvement with the attack, but rather as a witness. The story was eventually corrected, but with the sweeping away of falsehoods, the credibility of the sources should have disappeared as well. They did not.

The problem is not necessarily that the information is false. Everyone is capable of mistakes, and when dealing with innumerable people, mistakes are unavoidable. The problem is that there are very few consequences to these mistakes. Integrity has become a secondary quality in news, falling far behind the importance of simply being first.

Rather than being punished by viewers, who, when misled, should have changed to another source, CNN found itself with more and more of an audience. The motivation for truth and accuracy is lacking. Whenever a news agency can repeatedly misreport the news, intentionally or otherwise, and continue to be trusted, there is a serious issue.

The spirit of news has not changed. While the problem may just be coming to light, there have always been inaccuracies. The advent in technological capabilities and real-time information should have ushered in a change from guesses and speculation to concrete facts. The unfortunate side-effect of gaining new speed in reporting is that, while the news can be verified more quickly, the misinformation also flows at the speed of zeros and ones.

In a time of digital news, there is no room for accuracy. Audiences flee as facts are being checked. The trap for news agencies is not being the worst at reporting, but rather the slowest. There is no second place. The threshold between first and last can be infinitesimal, but the consequences are always substantial.

Ron Paul received 60 thousand votes in the Georgia Republican primary.

Ron Paul has endorsed Paul Broun for Georgia’s 2014 U.S. Senate race. If that turned your head, you are not alone. Should Georgians be excited for such an endorsement from a high-powered political actor such as Paul? Will this endorsement impact the Georgia Senate race in 2014? Broun surely hopes so. His opponents do not.

Broun and Paul have shared what Broun likes to call a “longtime friendship” for some time now. Their politics are similar. Both have called for audits of the Federal Reserve and constantly pushed the envelope on non-partisan voting against fellow Republicans in Congress.  Neither man is scared to push the limit against the establishment or fight for what he believes in. That is not to say that Broun and Paul are different candidates. They have different views regarding various policies. Broun will not likely govern like Paul in the future, but one has to admit that their against-the-grain styles of politics are somewhat similar.

Paul was an interesting actor in the 2012 election. He had a very loyal following and fought the good fight in the election process up until the almost bitter end. His Libertarian mindset, down-to-earth sense of humor, and sometimes-controversial beliefs created one of the strongest fan bases in the election; however, it was not enough to secure him the nomination. In Georgia’s Republican presidential primary, Paul received a mere 60 thousand votes – only 6 percent of the total votes cast. He was not able to win the establishment vote in the primaries. He did not excite the true Republican base with his Libertarian ideas. His push-the-limit attitude was not admired by some and thus exiled him within his own party. His anti-party tactics did not work in Georgia or the rest of the country and caused his campaign to fail on Election Day, but will his endorsement help Broun?

Paul’s endorsement of Broun may have done nothing but hurt Broun even more. We all remember some of Paul’s attention-grabbing statements that caused great controversy. For example, he once said that Abraham Lincoln was not one of the country’s greatest presidents, 9/11 was the United States’ fault, and the United States should eliminate the FBI altogether. All these statements, along with many others, isolated Paul even more from voters. His controversial politics did not excite voters, and that was reflected in the ballot box. Both men hold some interesting beliefs on policy, and Georgia Republican voters will not appreciate them combined or used in their party. Paul is seen almost as an outlaw in Republican politics, and Broun should not want to be associated with that idealist attitude in such a Red-Establishment state such as Georgia. Since Broun has now associated himself with Paul, it may be too late for the 2014 senate candidate, and Georgians may turn their backs on Broun like they did on Paul.

That’s not to say that Broun does not have a chance at winning Georgia’s U.S. Senate race simply because Paul endorsed him. Since it is so early in the election cycle, and many people simply are not paying attention to this election quite yet, Broun still may have time to think about how far he wants to take his Paul endorsement. Broun needs to be wise and use caution when flaunting his endorsement from Paul to such a state like Georgia. Georgia is not a hotbed of Libertarian ideas. As seen in the 2012 presidential primary, Georgia is very much a Republican establishment-based state, and should be campaigned for that way. Voters in this state do not get excited for Paul and may not get excited for Broun if they think he is a similar politician.

Broun should work on securing some more establishment-based endorsements before his fellow opponents take them away. Paul will only get a candidate so far in this state, maybe 60 thousand votes, but his endorsement will not be enough to win a seat; however, maybe Broun thinks it will. Maybe that is just the candidate Broun believes he should run as, one with anti-establishment beliefs and a fighting mentality. Broun must remember that he will have to face potential opponents such as Phil Gingrey, Jack Kingston, and Karen Handel who will do nothing but try to isolate him from the party, and if Broun clings to Paul, that is exactly what will happen.

This is a major endorsement early on in this election. It may be too early, but its effects will certainly be seen in the coming months. It will also be very interesting to see what Broun does from here on out. Will he try to lean on the establishment or will he continue to lean the other way? How will his opponents use this endorsement against him? It is early, but the race is on in Georgia. Buy your tickets now folks, its going to be a show.

A series of repetitive questions dominates college social interactions. Questions about your major, hometown, and spring break plans all neatly punctuate different times of the year. After the end of spring break, the one question that seems to reign supreme is “What are you doing this summer?” For many career-minded students, the answer to this question will entail an unpaid internship in their field of choice. The end goal from a summer on Capitol Hill, at the local law firm, or shadowing a doctor is generally the same, to pave the way to a job after graduation. Universities and advisers enforce this belief by telling students to pursue internships in order to establish career connections and possibly find a full-time job. While the logical connection between an internship and paid position seems explicit, the data on such a relationship and the questionable legality of unpaid internships cast doubt on this assumed relationship. Current students consider the eventual benefits of an unpaid internship, but post-recession graduates find themselves more vulnerable than their younger counterparts.

Unpaid internships have existed for decades but the Great Recession of 2007 vastly increased the prominence of these positions in the American workplace. In fact, in 2012 around one-third to one-half of all 1.5 million U.S. internships were unpaid. These positions are widely touted for their ability to help students transition from academic to professional environments and to get a foot in the door of top employers with the end goal of a full-time position. A 2012 memo by the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) showed that the percentage of students receiving full time job offers after graduation was 36% for all students and 37% for students had completed unpaid internships. In stark contrast to this negligible difference, however, is the fact that 60% of paid interns in the study received full time offers. In addition to these unpromising employment statistics, recent investigations into abuse of interns by employers cast additional doubts about the legality of unpaid internships as a component of the American labor force.

Currently, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the labor protection act that introduced a maximum workweek, overtime, and an established national minimum wage, does not protect unpaid interns. A 1947 case interpreting this act draws a distinction between unpaid “trainees” and paid “employees” by establishing a list of six criteria to establish when a worker is a trainee. Under these criteria, the trainee receives more benefit from the internship than does the employer and the internship is performed without expectation of a future job or compensation. To respond to growing concern over abuse of unpaid interns, the Department of Labor further clarified these criteria as they relate to modern unpaid interns but no policy change has yet occurred. Recent lawsuits such as the class action suit against Fox Searchlight Pictures allege that despite the existence of these criteria, many companies are using unpaid interns as a source of free labor with no expectation of teaching these interns specific industry-related vocational skills.

The case against Fox illustrates the conflict that many unpaid interns face when they are asked to perform menial tasks of little benefit to them but of reasonable benefit to the employer. In the Fox case, this inappropriately uncompensated work included janitorial duties, bookkeeping, and production assisting. Most unpaid interns named in the suit, like most students, fear that they will face negative reputational effects if they decline to perform these basic tasks. In an uncertain labor market, unpaid interns often choose not to report illegal labor abuses but to continue working in hopes that their efforts now will yield future benefits.

Unpaid internships also present equity concerns as only students with sufficient economic resources may take on unpaid work for extended periods. Socioeconomic class disputes aside, unpaid internships do allow for students to gain a varying degree of experience with the slight possibility of career advancement. Although recent statistical and legal analysis of unpaid internships suggests that these positions are not a worthwhile time investment, close to one million interns will still accept such opportunities this summer.

If one does decide to take such an offer, then a list of criteria should be considered to determine whether the internship is legal and if it will be of future benefit to the intern. A potential intern must consider who will gain more from the internship, the intern or the employer? If the true answer to this question is the intern and expectations are discussed at the beginning of such an experience, then one will have the chance to gain an enriching educational experience in a vocational setting. If not, then an intern would likely be better off spending the summer in one of a multitude of alternative opportunities such as study abroad, part-time work, or community service. Unpaid internships remain legally ambiguous areas that present both risks and measurable benefits. With so much variation in the internship market, the responsibility falls on both the intern and employer to set reasonable and legal expectations to ensure that such an internship provide the benefit so badly needed by students in this difficult economic period.

Andrew Jarnagin is a freshman majoring in Political Science and Arabic.

Question: On what issue (domestic or foreign) do you think a polarized Congress can actually agree? What policy progress do you think could be made on this issue?

The United States has an incarceration problem. The federal prison population alone has grown by 790 percent in the past 30 years.[1] After the statistics are expanded to include state and local jails, the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world[2], and when the number of those on probation and parole are added, 1 in 31 American adults are on the rolls of the criminal justice system.[3]

It seems more than a little ironic to call America the “land of the free.” Incarceration is the very antithesis of the rights to life, liberty, and property that form the basis of any just government. This addiction to imprisonment has raised more than a few flags: as Maria McFarland of Human Rights Watch says,“This is one of the major human rights problems within the United States, as many of the people caught up in the criminal justice system are low income, racial and ethnic minorities, often forgotten by society.”[4] Thankfully, criminal justice reforms contain elements that politicians of both liberal and conservative leanings can support.

There are a plethora of arguments from American liberals against the criminal justice system as it exists today. First and foremost, there is a logical inconsistency in demanding better human rights in foreign countries (notably China), while here at home the incarceration rate is second to none. Taking a closer look at the figures shows that the current system disproportionately affects minorities and the poor. Michelle Alexander, a legal scholar, has gone so far as to call the American prison system a new form of Jim Crow laws, noting that “today there are more African-Americans under correctional control – in prison or jail, on probation or parole – than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began.”[5] The numbers are stark: blacks are incarcerated at 5.6 times the rate of whites, and one in nine African-Americans are currently in jail.[6] Historically, laws have been targeted minorities: penalties for crack cocaine, which is prevalent in poor neighborhoods, are 100 times as stringent as those for powder cocaine, which is more common in middle and upper-class areas (this disparity has recently been reduced to a less astronomical but still unjust 18-to-1 ratio).[7]

In addition, the American mindset values punishment over rehabilitation; therefore, released convicts encounter huge barriers to re-entering society. They face continuing addictions, and can be barred from voting, restricted from housing and education benefits, and legally discriminated against in employment. American society as a whole would benefit more from making it easier to reintegrate criminals into society by providing ways to live within the law after their release, rather than getting “tougher” on crime and perpetuating a cycle of recidivism that is both costly and ineffective.

Traditionally conservative Americans can find much to fault in the current system as well. Government debt is a major theme in Republican discourse, and prisons consume a significant amount of taxpayer funds. There is a huge economic cost to imprisoning and supporting the American prison population. Each inmate costs the state or federal government $29,000 a year, and state spending on corrections alone tops $51.7 billion a year.[8] In a time of fiscal crises at both the national and state level, it hardly seems wise to continue locking up our own citizens at this rate. Republicans like Georgia Governor Nathan Deal have recognized this, stating that “we must focus on transforming our corrections system into…a place where low-level offenders are reclaimed and restored by society as functioning members of the community, working to support their own families, and paying taxes.”[9]

Despite the rhetoric of law-and-order politicians, the prison system is welfare at its worst: inmates have all of their necessities provided for, and there is no incentive for personal initiative and self-improvement. The addiction to incarceration threatens to bankrupt us as well as tarnish the American image abroad. The work ethic that has created the American dream is nowhere to be found in the justice system, and legal barriers to employment post-release creates no incentive for ex-convicts to seek legal means to improve their position in life.

Numerous reforms have been proposed to alleviate the problems enumerated above: Congress needs only to act. There are signs that change may be on the horizon. Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has signaled his approval to changes in sentencing, calling federal mandatory minimum sentencing laws “a great mistake.”[10] More resources could also transferred from apprehending and prosecuting low-level drug offenders towards treatment and rehabilitation efforts – in Norway, where rehabilitation is the goal of the justice system, only 20 percent of inmates return to prison.[11] Similar programs to treat drug addictions, counsel criminals, and develop useful business skills should be more widely implemented in the U.S. as well.

Americans jailed for non-violent drug offenses (now over 25 percent of inmates[12]) could be put to work repairing our crumbling infrastructure. This would both fulfill a desperate need around the country for upgrades to roads, bridges, parks, and utility systems, and provide inmates with a productive outlet of energy and an opportunity to gain valuable skills for their futures after prison.

The state of the criminal justice system today hurts both the average law-abiding citizen and the average criminal. We are paying exorbitant sums to house and feed inmates, while a system that does little to prevent recidivism hardly makes us safer. Convicted criminals face excessive punishment, due to mandatory minimum sentences, and the prison environment does little to allay the root causes of criminal behavior. It is reasonable – and necessary – that Congress reform the criminal justice system, both in the interests of those who respect the law and those who break it.

Brian Underwood is a junior majoring in Political Science and History.

By: Brian Underwood

Question: Contemporary culture in America emphasizes being an individual as more important than being a citizen. Do you agree or disagree? 

It is paradoxical that the United States, a nation thought to pride itself on its fierce sense of individualism, should be considered a general opponent of the individual man. Certainly this is not to say that the United States, on its whole, rejects man’s rights as an individual – at least not consistently. Nevertheless, the current cultural tenor of the United States is one which, more often than not, seeks to temper man’s liberties and interests as an individual with the constraints of social and civic “duty.”

The “individual” in this context is best understood as Marx’s egoistic man, the man “withdrawn into himself, wholly preoccupied with his own interests.”[1] Alternatively, citizens are not just legally recognized nationals, but are instead men who “come to identify themselves in some way with this larger whole [of civil society]; to feel themselves to be members of the homeland;… to elevate their soul perpetually toward this great object.”[2] Essentially, the individual serves himself while the citizen serves his country and his countrymen.

In a given society, “culture” is identified by its ideas and the persons shaping them, naturally allowing for the existence of various subcultures and countercultures depending on the scope of one’s observational lens. Here, it is the broader culture of the entire United States that is under scrutiny, rather than the culture of any subdivision of it, and so it is the preeminent ideas in America’s culture which ought to be examined.

The present culture of the United States most commonly exalts the citizen over the individual. This is especially true in America’s political culture, where these ideals are professed in their most visible and explicit forms: the rhetoric and policies of America’s political leadership. Politicians from both parties make frequent use of the phrases “common good” or “greater than ourselves” when campaigning to constituents or garnering support for their policies. “Appealing to the citizen” is certainly not a recent development in American politics, as a glancing look at the presidency of Woodrow Wilson will demonstrate (“There is no higher religion than human service. To work for the common good is the greatest creed.”).[3] Still, the preference exemplified in the political culture of the United States toward the citizen over the individual is so pervasive that one need scarcely search to find a plethora of instances in which politicians invoke the supposed virtue of service and sacrifice.

In 1995, a younger Barack Obama spoke to the Chicago Reader about the importance of participating in collective action, since “individual actions, individual dreams are not sufficient.”[4] During his famous keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Obama praised Sen. Kerry for understanding the ideals of “community” and “service.”[5] In his 2013 State of the Union Address, President Obama stressed the importance of “giving our young and brightest minds new opportunities to serve.”[6] President Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel echoed similar sentiments during his commencement speech at George Washington University, imploring students to give themselves “to a cause greater than” themselves and reminding them of their “great responsibility” to serve their country.[7] Similar statements by other members of the left are equally prevalent.

But again, proclamations of service and civil duty are not at all unique to the left or the Democratic Party. In a commencement address of his own to Colgate University, Sen. John McCain told students that the means they “must use to prevail” are their “good character put to the service of a cause greater than [their] self-interest.”[8] During his speech at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference, Fmr. Rep. Allen West stated that “conservatives believe it is our moral duty to serve our fellow man.”[9] Even University of Georgia President Adams, himself a Republican, maintained in a letter to the editor that the interests of society in providing public education take precedence over the individual’s interest in not paying taxes to fund that service, “for the good both of one and all.”[10] Again, further examples abound.

The principle disagreement between right-leaning and left-leaning appeals to service and civic duty is the form in which the service should take place. Conservatives, per Allen West’s statements, believe their service as citizens should be handled privately, while the left tends to believe it should be directed by the government. These, however, are disputes over merely concrete matters. The principle remains the same across both sides: one man putting himself into the service of something “greater than himself,” be it society, the country as a whole, or simply his fellow man. In any case, it is imperative to remember that the question at hand is not a normative one (meaning, what should American culture emphasize) but is instead an empirical one (what does it emphasize), and the most readily available information at hand lends credence to the assertion that it is not the individual which American culture generally esteems, but the citizen.

April 27^th saw the culmination of a month-long political battle of words. More importantly, the day also marked the successful execution of a plan devised by four students at a Wilcox County high school. Wilcox County, located in southern Georgia, has a high school with two proms. One prom is for white students. One prom is for black students.

Despite the expected outrages of morality, these events are not technically illegal; not being officially sponsored by the school, they are considered “private” parties because parents fund them. The four girls from Wilcox County made the decision to raise the funds for and organize an integrated prom, which occurred yesterday. The effort garnered significant national media attention, ranging across many sources such as Jezebel and the Huffington Post. The integrated prom’s Facebook page, as of this writing, has over 26,000 likes. The first-ever integrated prom was a well-covered story, told from many differing perspectives. While some authors were outraged and surprised that a Georgia community still had a type of de facto segregation, others took a more positive spin. Regardless of the community’s history, no article on the integrated prom is complete without sincere commendation for these girls. The four of them certainly took a gutsy stand, represented their values in the national spotlight, and demonstrated strong citizenship and commitment to democratic values. In spite of the difficult (and still young) teenage years, the nation should be proud.

The emphasis in these stories should be that of the first Wilcox County integrated prom and the actions and citizenship of the four girls. Yet, within Georgia, coverage from this angle was sorely underrepresented. While the national discourse focused more so on the laudatory actions of the students, this type of coverage was subsumed in a petty back-and-forth between Georgia’s political groups. Bipartisan bickering degraded the standing of both sides, led to even greater entrenchment, and provided insights into the future of Georgia’s political landscape.

As the story of the integrated prom was breaking, the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s Georgia politics reporter predicted, “A rare bipartisan agreement is forming among Georgia’s political class.” Following a challenge issued by Better Georgia, a liberal political group, asking Republicans to come out in support of the integrated prom, the reporter foresaw Republicans to be particularly outspoken in their support of the Wilcox County teenagers’ endeavor. On the same day, a right-leaning Georgia blog urged Republicans to score easy political points by supporting the integrated prom. The comments to this blog post foreshadowed the developments of the next two weeks.

Just a few days later, it was clear that this project would not bring the parties together. In fact, it would drive them further apart. As the issue received widespread public attention, Governor Nathan Deal issued this statement to Macon news agency: “this is a leftist front group for the state Democratic party and we’re not going to lend a hand to their silly publicity stunt.” A few days later, Governor Deal, more delicately, stated that while he would not support two segregated proms, he also believed it to be an issue left to the local government. Essentially, Governor Deal would not publicly support the efforts of teenagers to hold an integrated prom because he did not want Georgia’s Democratic Party to gain from the event. Governor Deal’s response only increased media attention and redoubled Better Georgia’s efforts to shame the majority party and force their hand.

The media frenzy surrounding four teenagers’ effort to have an integrated prom brought both of Georgia’s political parties into dialogue. A seemingly positive story of casting off a shameful racist heritage was reduced and used as a political battleground. There was no celebration of Georgia’s youth moving the state in a positive direction. Instead, the charges of both sides were accurate. Better Georgia, as the Republicans claimed, were reducing the teenagers’ effort into a political tool, used to score media attention and to shame the Republicans. But the Republican retort was a significant misstep. The Republican Party failed to endorse the integrated prom, steeping itself in a petty partisan conflict. Furthering its mistake, Governor Deal and his spokesman resorted to archaic stock lines, casting a dichotomy between the local and “outsider” and perpetuating racial politics. From a casual observer’s perspective, the Governor turned a blind eye to remnants of institutionalized racism, partly to spite Democrats and partly to maintain support from voters basing their decision on racial lines. In this episode, neither party won. Democrats are guilty, as are Republicans.

This also carries implications for the future of Georgia’s politics. Republicans stood to gain much by endorsing the integrated prom. Although the Democrats lost, the Republicans lost more. In the changing demographics of Georgia, Republicans could have used the media attention to resist the latent stigma of racist charges. Yet, they withdrew into their beliefs, entrenching themselves against the Democrats. As challenges emerge to Georgia Republican hegemony, particularly when Georgia is in play in 2016 and 2018, will the Republican Party successfully maneuver to capture the changing face of the state? If they respond to challenges as they have done in the last few weeks and do not recast their rhetoric, the next few years could prove problematic.

Any reflections on the integrated prom must conclude with a note of what coverage on this issue should be. Cheers to the four teenagers in Wilcox County; even if your politicians will not stand up for you, you were successful, the integrated prom happened, and many of us with smaller voices are proud.