National Security Revisited (Review of Documentary "Terminal F: Chasing Snowden")

From Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward to Chelsea Manning, whistleblowers and investigations against the wrongdoings of government have plagued media in recent years. Perhaps the most famous whistleblower in recent times is former NSA employee Edward Snowden.

His release of thousands of sensitive government documents lead to his subsequent flee from America and the NSA’s manhunt for the whistleblower. This journey is depicted in the documentary Terminal F: Chasing Edward Snowden.

From Edward Snowden’s father to General Michael Hayden, former NSA Director, to Sarah Harrison, a WikiLeaks journalist who accompanied Snowden from Hong Kong to Russia, to Snowden himself, the documentary draws from a variety of sources to create a compelling narrative of Snowden’s escape from America, to Hong Kong, and then to Russia.

Snowden is perhaps the name most associated with whistleblowing and government leaks. Because of the well-known fact that Snowden’s released files revealed many countries’ surveillance programs, the documentary acknowledges these files and their impact, but primarily focuses on the story behind Snowden’s motivations, and the reasoning for why some praise him as courageous, and others as cowardly.

Each of the interviews presented in the documentary is a single-person interview, but the way the documentary transitions from one person’s explanation to another is unique. The two primary juxtaposing figures featured in Terminal F are Edward Snowden and General Michael Hayden. Snowden believes that the discovery of such ubiquitous surveillance deserves to be recognized by the people; as seen in his explanation in the documentary, Snowden sees himself as the mere messenger, carrying the choice of the government to the people for judgement. Contrastly, Hayden deems Snowden to be “arrogant” and self-righteous.

In one particular sequence, Terminal F cuts into Hayden’s dialogue directly after Snowden, almost as if the two are conversing. Here is what they say:

SNOWDEN: “Michael Hayden… ran a program called Stellar Wind, where the communications of anyone in America could be collected en masse, under the pretext of preventing terrorism.”

HAYDEN: “It was the arrogance of an individual, who looked upon the activity of the NSA and believed that his legal and ethical judgement trumped the judgement of his co-workers, his leadership, the American President, the American Congress, and the American Court System.”

SNOWDEN: “I thought to myself: what kind of man is this? How can someone justify the violation of the rights of an entire nation?”

In addition to the clever editing of Snowden and Hayden, Terminal F also features clips from Snowden’s father, incorporating emotion and the physical treatment and deterioration of health of Edward Snowden into the film. Combining the almost banter-like dialogue between Hayden and Snowden along with the emotional and sentimental insights from his father give Terminal F -- and consequently, Edward Snowden’s story -- more depth and complexity.

The documentary presents both sides of the argument. Despite Snowden’s martyr-like intentions, Hayden makes a point when he claims that Snowden released sensitive information that affected not only the US’s war on terrorism, but also other countries such as the UK. For example, one document accidently exposed a government intelligence plan against terrorist group al-Qaeda. In support of Snowden, the documentary describes the controversial situation when the US government grounded a diplomatic plane carrying the Bolivian president, and appeals to the rights of the people.

In relation to this class, Snowden’s story and the documentary Terminal F question the line between liberty and safety.

World War II, the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the San Bernardino shooting -- all of these events were catastrophic, but none justify the violation of citizen rights. The internment of more than 100,000 American citizens because of their nationality, because of paranoia, is undoubtedly unconstitutional. The Patriot Act, which authorized the government to monitor phone calls, the exchange of emails, bank reports, credit trails, and Internet activity of innocent citizens is unconstitutional. The creation of a backdoor to enter Apple software in order to catch one terrorist at the cost of millions of Apple users’ security is unconstitutional.

In this same sense, the threat of terrorism, though decidedly reasonable, does not justify the many surveillance programs that Snowden leaked.

Moreover, the programs created in the wake of attacks on America, based on historical evidence, produce few results. Spying on the entirety of the American people stopped no significant acts of terrorism. The programs that Snowden released information on most likely are the same.

Granted, Snowden could have released the documents at a better time, and he could have been more selective and careful in his release of the this information. But there must be a compromise between security and liberty. During WWII, America was at threat from attack from the Japanese, but that does not justify the internment of Japanese Americans who were innocent. In the same sense, it is illogical that innocent Americans have their integral rights violated when a majority of them are innocent.

Moreover, if civil rights on the domestic front are being violated, there is no precedence for American treatment of foreigners and prisoners-of-war overseas.

The issue is that these problems and these violations do not go away. In 2013, when asked about the metadata the NSA was collecting on millions of American citizens, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied under oath, on camera, about the NSA surveillance. Clapper faced no repercussions. And overseas, from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib, there are many instances of American citizens -- American officials in high positions of power -- abusing power.

While there are whistleblowers like Snowden, in several years, the media and conversation dies down and the people forget. As a society, we have fleeting memory; our attention moves like whiplash, processing only what the media presents to us. Few go out and hunt for the truth, like Bernstein and Woodward.

The problem is not those abusive authorities in power, the problem lies with the people for their passiveness, for their inattentiveness towards these authorities; because there are no consequences for wrongdoing, these people stay in power. Because of this, Snowden’s exposure of secretive government surveillance is an act of heroism.

But the issue of the 2013 NSA leak cannot be simplified that easily. As Terminal F reveals, the debate between security and civil rights is much more complex, and will continue to be a source of contention in the years to come.

And Did Those Feet In Ancient Time

100 years ago, in December of 1917, British troops led by General Allenby took control of the city of Jerusalem from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. Though a decisive turn in Israel’s history, the capture of Jerusalem by the British Empire was preceded by many other pivotal battles over Israel’s rule and has been followed by a hundred years of fighting.

From ancient times of King David to the Byzantines, many cultures and ethnicities have valued Jerusalem and claimed it as their home. Consequently, the city has been a source of contention for centuries.

Most recently, on Wednesday, US President Donald Trump ended nearly 70 years of American neutrality by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital [1]. In a video released from the Diplomatic Reception room, Trump announced this and that he would also be moving the US Embassy currently in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as well.

There have been an outcry of reactions: Israelis are surprised that Trump hasn’t recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital sooner; political leaders from French President Emmanuel Macron to Pope Francis to Chinese officials disapprove [2]; the royal court of Saudi Arabia has claimed that the “decision goes against the… rights of the Palestinian people” [1].

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been a controversial debate for many years. In response to President Trump, many Palestinians believe that officiating Jerusalem as Israel’s capital terminates the two-state-solution that is favored as a compromise. In his speech, Trump claims that the US is still neutral and still overseeing diplomatic and peace-making processes; but Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas countered that this decision indicates “the United States is withdrawing from the role it has played in the peace process” [3].

Historically speaking, the US does not recognize Palestine as a formal state, though Presidents like Obama have made their sentiments towards the Palestinian people [4]. Previously, the neutral position of the US towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may have been diplomatic and politically correct, but the truth of the matter is that inaction equates to indifference.

Though many officials, authorities, and even Presidents have commented on the conflict, none have gone so far as to attempt to seriously rectify the situation. Trump claimed in his statement that he is acting decisively. This is true.

However, Trump’s actions have unleashed and will potentially unleash unrest and chaos. Already, Palestinian protests have taken to the streets in a “day of rage,” which has quickly turned violent on Friday [5].

Moreover, though Trump’s decision to make Jerusalem capital is decisive as he claimed, he has taken no further action to alleviate tensions in the Israeli-Palestinian area. Officiating Jerusalem as capital is a bold move, but does not substantiate any government claims, and does not propel or rescind the two-state solution. Even changing locations of the US embassy has little real effect: the new embassy in Jerusalem will be under plans for construction for several more years, and the embassy won’t be built for some time. Trump’s actions and words -- or specifically, lack of the word “Palestine,” rejecting even the idea of an Arab state -- have only fomented unrest.

The history of Jerusalem and Israel as a religious, cultural, and political entity is long and convoluted. The different peoples and nations associated with this city has appealed to me, which is why the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict is interesting to me.

It’ll be interesting to see how Trump’s administration deals with these conflicts in the Middle East.


Sources:

    http://www.firstpost.com/world/saudi-arabia-slams-donald-trumps-decision-to-recognise-jerusalem-as-israels-capital-calls-it-irresponsible-4246503.html

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-israel-capital.html?_r=2

    http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/WATCH-LIVE-Trump-delivers-much-anticipated-announcement-about-Jerusalem-517201

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dashanne-stokes/is-this-the-real-reason-why-us-wont-recognize-palestine_b_9777246.html

    https://nypost.com/2017/12/08/palestinian-day-of-rage-protests-turn-deadly/amp/

Relationship Between Soil Texture and Altitude in Three Conifer Communities at Lupine Meadows, Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming

Relationship Between Soil Texture and Altitude in Three Conifer Communities at Lupine Meadows, Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming

Melba Nuzen

Scripps Ranch High School, July 2017

Abstract: Though they are very different, abiotic and biotic factors are often involved  in intricate relationships; their interaction form the basis of many ecological communities. For example, previous studies suggest a relationship between soil texture and granularity and the flora that occupies it. Factors such as moisture retention and nutrient retention can be affected by different types of soil, and consequently hinder or help the growth of vegetation. To further study this relationship, particularly in forest biomes, this study examined abiotic soil and biotic conifer species. Samples of topsoil were collected from three conifer communities — Lodgepole Pine (Pinus contorta var. latifolia), Subalpine Fir (Abies lasiocarpa), and Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis) — all of which grow at varying altitudes: the Lodgepole Pine generally grows at the lowest elevation out of the three species, and Whitebark Pine at the highest. Samples were collected along the Lupine Meadows Trail near Grand Teton in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming during the summer of 2017. In each conifer stand, 25 grams of soil were collected and the ribbon test was used to determine soil texture. Ten ribbon tests were conducted along a 30 meter transect in each community for a total of 30 samples, ten from each conifer community. Although initial research suggested that increasing elevation correlates with coarser soil texture, the results from this study revealed the opposite. As elevation increased, data indicated that soil texture transitioned from being relatively coarse to fine (P < .005). Despite this contradiction, future research in this field can help further define the relationship between soil, flora, and possible human impact on these organisms.

Keywords: Soil texture, conifer communities, Jackson Hole, Grand Teton National Park

---

1 Introduction:

This study was conducted to further investigate the relationship between abiotic and biotic factors, specifically in the Jackson Hole area. Because of the interdependent nature of biotic and abiotic factors, there are many ecological connections that involve all three forest types of Lodgepole Pine, Subalpine Fir, and Whitebark Pine with the environment they thrive in. This relationship, which is only a small part of the larger ecosystem that includes abiotic and biotic elements interacting in tandem, sparked an interest in connections and broader understandings of the surrounding world.

Though all three trees are conifers, they thrive at different mountainous altitudes. The Lodgepole Pine grows at lower elevations, starting at around 6,000 feet above sea level, and the Whitebark Pine at higher elevations beginning at around 9,000 feet above sea level [1]. As the species differ in elevation growth, initial research suggests the species also differ in the type of soils they thrive in.

Previous research indicates that the Subalpine Fir thrives in medium texture soils, while Whitebark Pine lives in coarser soils [1, 2]. In turn, this suggests that coarser textured soils should be found at higher elevations since the Whitebark Pine grows at higher elevations. This conclusion is also supported logically: rain and other water run-off typically deposit heavier sediment first at higher elevations, leaving finer nutrients and minerals to trickle down and fall out later at lower elevations. Additionally, finer soils generally retain less moisture and more nutrients: rainfall and water in areas of fine soil are not absorbed as well as they are in larger, coarser soils, and consequently evaporate faster in finer soil [3]. The Lodgepole, which grows at lower elevations, is normally the first to regrow after forest fires [4]. This supports this study’s hypothesis that lower elevations with finer soils may possibly offer more nutrients for the Lodgepole to regrow quickly.

In this study, soil texture refers to the size of soil particles. Soil as a whole is composed of three main particles: sand, silt, and clay. The smallest and finest of these particles is clay, and the largest and coarsest is sand [5]. The amount of sand, silt, and clay found in any particular sample of soil determines the specific type of soil texture. See Figure 3 for more details.

All three of the conifer species provide valuable habitats and food sources for many animals - including Clark’s Nutcracker, a keystone species in the Greater Yellowstone Area - and protect soil from erosion with their root systems. However, the conifers and soils are at risk from human interference, particularly from outbreaks of blister rust and mountain pine beetle for the Whitebark. For these reasons, studies related to all these forest types, and specifically what textures of soil they thrive on, are crucial in understanding and preserving ecosystems surrounding Jackson Hole.

2 Materials and Methods:

Three sites were chosen within close proximity, along the Lupine Meadows Trailhead in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming.

Figure 1: Sample Collection Sites at Various Elevations

2.1 Site Characteristics

Over the course of two days, samples from the three sites were collected: Subalpine on the first day and Whitebark and Lodgepole on the second. For consistency, each site was chosen within 100 yards from the trail, and a 30 meter transect was drawn perpendicular to the trail. All sample sites were located on North-facing aspects — the aspect of a slope indicates the way the slope faces. North-facing aspects in the Northern hemisphere generally receive less sun and retain more moisture [6]. Because of this, vegetation growing on North-facing aspects in the Northern hemisphere typically thrives much better than South-facing vegetation.

2.2 Sampling Protocol

After arriving at each conifer stand, transects were drawn perpendicular to the trail, and ten samples were collected along the transect at three meter intervals. For each sample, 25 grams of soil were collected from four inches below the surface of the earth. Each hole was dug with a metal spoon and, after organic material was removed, the soil was weighed with a portable hanging scale to keep the samples as consistent as possible.

To determine the soil texture of the different communities, the ribbon test was performed. Other procedures such as sifting require heavier equipment and drying the soil. Thus, in the interest of time, the ribbon test was chosen for convenience and practicality.

Though subjective, the ribbon test is often used estimate soil texture, as affirmed by Colorado State University, the US Department of Agriculture, and the University of Michigan [5, 7, 8].

Figure 2: Ribbon Test

After collecting 25 grams of soil, the sample was placed into the palm of the hand, and water was added until the soil reached a smooth, plastic consistency similar to dough. Then, the soil was rolled into a ribbon shape, placed between the thumb and forefinger, and pushed by the thumb over the forefinger. The soil broke with its own weight, and the length of the ribbon broken off was measured. The generic soil type was determined by the length of the ribbon that broke off. The ribbon test key indicates the category of soil texture collected. Finally, to further specify the texture of the sample, more water was added to a small pinch of the sample soil, and the soil was placed back into the palm. The coarseness of the soil was determined by the tester’s touch. Together, the length of the ribbon and the texture of the soil in the palm determined the type of soil [5].

3 Results:

A total of 30 samples were collected at the three conifer communities. The raw data can be seen in Tables 1, 2, and 3:

Figure 3: Soil Texture Spectrum

4 Analysis and Conclusion:

4.1 Statistical Analysis

Initially, the P-values generated by a two-factor ANOVA indicated that there was no correlation between data. However, a chi-square with two factors through RStudio produced a P-value of .0049.

With a P-Value of .00049, the null hypothesis was rejected. In comparison to the standard P-Value of .05, there is a statistically significant difference between the soil textures of the three tree stands.

The two factors considered were vegetation type — either Whitebark, Subalpine Fir, or Lodgepole — and soil texture. Soil textures were further simplified into three categories: fine, medium-coarse, or coarse. Whereas in the ANOVA the three sites were viewed as three samples, in the chi-square, the data was considered as 30 separate samples.

Figure 4 indicates the visual representation of the RStudio chi-square: each block — coarse, medium, or fine — indicates the percent composition within each community. For example, more than half of the Lodgepole soil consists of coarse soil.

4.2 Discussion and Further Studies

The data gathered disproved both the proposed alternate and null hypothesis. Instead of soil transitioning from coarse- to fine-textured from high elevations to lower elevations, the opposite was found. This means that, based on collected data, soil texture actually changes from fine to coarse from high to low elevations, contradicting previous research conducted.

Figure 4: Soil Texture of Conifers (Visual Representation of RStudio)

Since the Whitebark Pine grows at high elevations, and has the least exposure to water, it has the most exposure to erosion, which could significantly reduce the particle size of the soil and explain the results of this study.

Although trees and soil are delicately connected, their relationship is affected by many other additional factors, which were not studied in this research project. With time constraints and limited equipment, this study only briefly addresses the complex relationship between soil texture and tree communities. Additional factors, such as soil moisture, pH, and slope, would almost certainly have an effect on the texture of soil found in different stands. For example, the transect drawn in the Subalpine community was drawn along a very steep slope: the beginning of the transect was 42 feet higher than the end of the transect, but this elevation change was not taken into consideration during data analysis.

In retrospect, there are several factors that could be improved for further studies. Firstly, due to time constraints, only one sample could be taken at each tree community. Had more data been collected, the data would have been more reliable. For example, the Lodgepole stand site was close to a stream, which mostly likely affected data due to the alluvial fan. In regards to consistency of sampling, as mentioned before, the slopes of the sites were varied. The samples themselves were collected only four inches from the surface of the earth; topsoil can be easily affected by weather, wildlife, and other factors. With more efficient equipment and more time, soil from deeper horizons can be collected for a more holistic study.

Human error also played a role in the research. Because of time limitations, the ribbon test was conducted by different students along the transect simultaneously. The subjectivity of the ribbon tests leaves room for error, possibly affecting the identification of soil textures.

Regardless, the null hypothesis was rejected: specific trees require specific kinds of soil. This information is crucial in human understanding of ecosystem fragility and ecosystem stability, especially when discussing trees as important as Lodgepole Pines, Subalpine Firs, and Whitebark Pines.

As mentioned before, these conifers play crucial roles in their forest ecosystems. They provide shelter and food for dozens of fauna and stabilize the community around them. For future studies, forest impact on other factors, such as the keystone species Clark’s Nutcracker, grizzly bears, or soil itself would prove interesting for further research.

As human influence spreads across the globe, even the smallest contributions can affect the interconnected systems already in place. This only reinforces the idea that every action has a consequence, and emphasizes the need for careful attention to human actions and further investigation in this subject.

5 Acknowledgements:

Many thanks to Teton Science Schools (TSS) for providing transportation, equipment, and references; to Roland Aranda, Anna Langlois, Victoria Lara, and Naomi Schulberg for help with sample collection and peer-editing; to the graduate students Clare Gunshenan and Peggie dePasquale for supervision and statistics guidance; to Grand Teton National Park; and to the Elementary Institute of Science of San Diego for a summer scholarship to attend TSS and make this research possible.

6 References:

1. Watts, T., & Watts, B. (2008). Rocky Mountain tree finder: a pocket manual for identifying Rocky Mountain trees. Rochester, NY: Nature Study Guild.
2. Arno, S. F., & Hoff, R. J. (1989, June). Silvics of Whitebark Pine (Pinus albicaulis. Retrieved July 10, 2017.
3. University of Hawai'i. (2007). Soil Texture and Soil Structure. Retrieved July 10, 2017.
4. Government of British Columbia. (n.d.). Lodgepole pine. Retrieved July 13, 2017, from https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/treebook/lodgepolepine.htm
5. Colorado Master Gardener Program. (2015). The Size of Sand, Silt, and Clay [Chart]. In Estimating Soil Texture (Vol. 214, pp. 214-1-214-5). Colorado : Colorado State University.
6. National Avalanche Center. (n.d.). Aspect. Retrieved July 15, 2017, from http://www.fsavalanche.org/aspect/
7. Thien, S. J. (1979). Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved August 13, 2017, from https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/edu/?cid=nrcs142p2_054311
8. University of Michigan. (2003). A Guide for Preparing Soil Profile Descriptions. Retrieved July 16, 2017, from http://www.umich.edu/~nre430/PDF/Soil_Profile_Descriptions.pdf

The Weinstein Effect

Roy Price, George H.W. Bush, John Besh, Hamilton Fish, Ben Affleck, Kevin Spacey, Oliver Stone, Brett Ratner, Dustin Hoffman.

Name after name rolls out in the news as more and more victims speak out against sexual harassment, particularly by men in higher, powerful positions -- Presidents, actors, directors, athletes [1]. It seems like an avalanche effect, or a “Harvey effect” [1]. From victims speaking out Twitter to the #MeToo campaign, the reveal of sexual harassment stories has flooded the Internet. Victims share their stories through Twitter, calling out offenders, recalling stories from as long as twenty years ago, or simply leaving the message: #MeToo [2].

But, if anything, sexual harassment has gone on long before this, in industry, at the office, and at home. In fact, last year’s Presidential election featured now-President’s Trump infamous “Hollywood Access” tape and many allegations of sexual assault from at least eleven women [3]. Despite Ivanka Trump, the President’s daughter, and her claim that sexual harassment of women should never be tolerated [4], the impact of Trump’s victims’ stories had little effect on the political campaign.

In fact, only several months later, after the Weinstein scandal, does the White House official reply to these accusations. On October 27, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated that all the women accusing Trump of sexual harassment are lying [5].

In light of these accusations and allegations, skepticism runs rampant throughout onlookers. Some claim that women are exaggerating or overplaying these accounts.

Regardless, if even half of these allegations are true, it’s important to realize that women still have much to gain in terms of respect and dignity in America and in the world.

Internationally, in Saudi Arabia, women will gain the ability to drive in June of 2018 [6], a groundbreaking piece of legislation passed this year. In India, though there are sex crimes and cases of sexual assault every week, there is still no national registry for sex offenders [7].

In the same way that gang violence is less about violence and more about power, rape and sexual assault is about power and control. In this case, the Weinstein scandal gained media attention because the women accusing Weinstein have status as celebrities [3]. These crimes become less about their mediums and more about the power associated with the act of the crime. This issue becomes more about self-control, and controlling others.

Because as the public is attracted to sensational and obscene news, these allegations and accusations flood social media. Yet bringing attention to these issues is not the same as mitigating these problems. Political leaders, men in power, and other authority figures are found across social media, and yet there are few repercussions for them.

The awareness of sexual misconduct is a step in the right direction for the protection and justice of women, but there is still progress to be made, particularly with figures in power. There is legislation against sexual harassment in the workforce but few times are accusations ever seriously considered [8]. New technology may bring attention to these cases, but the impetus for equality still lies with the people. In the future, it will be interesting to see whether these social campaigns and this spread of awareness affects the protection and rights of women.


Sources:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/11/is-this-the-upside-down/544655/

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/30/health/metoo-legacy/index.html

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/anita-hill-on-weinstein-trump-and-a-watershed-moment-for-sexual-harassment-accusations

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ivanka-trump-sexual-harrassment-speech-tokyo_us_59fc21a9e4b01b47404990b5

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/27/all-of-the-women-who-have-accused-trump-of-sexual-harassment-are-lying-the-white-house-says/?utm_term=.f2b67ee47c52

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-women-drive.html

    http://www.newsweek.com/2017/03/10/india-rape-crisis-sex-offender-registry-561757.html

    https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-sex.cfm

Gun Control

A woman scrambles for her phone. Her heart thrums in her chest, a rapid-fire rhythm she thought she’d only ever hear once in her life. Around her, people are screaming, running, ducking for cover. She sends an ominous text message, the same exact one she sent two years ago: “Active shooter.”


What are the odds of being at the San Bernardino shooting in 2015, and then at the Las Vegas massacre? Evidently, large enough [1].

Columbine. Sandy Hook Elementary. Newton, Connecticut. Charleston. Orlando nightclub. Boston Marathon. San Bernardino. Las Vegas. It seems as though the latest shootings are the deadliest; based on this data, the next mass attack will only be worse [2].

Though the discussion of gun-ownership and gun rights is highly debated and controversial in the United States, legislation is complicated: federal law has certain restrictions on persons who can transport and possess guns, but other caveats and nuances are found in individual states.

Federal law dictates the following: fugitives, illegal aliens, some criminals, and the like cannot own or carry guns; certain firearms, such as machineguns or unregistered ones, are illegal to all [3]. But even within federal law, there are many loopholes and vague provisions: small-scale firearms dealers aren’t required to have background checks, and the description of the mentally ill is ambiguous [4].

Across states, there are many variations in background checks required for owning guns and carrying firearms, as well as the locations to which owners may bring their weapons. Even in neighboring states, one state may require permits to purchase all types of firearms -- as seen in California -- while the other requires none -- like in Nevada. Similarly, California requires registration of all firearms while Nevada requires none [5]. The first step in gun-control regulation, though onerous, should be clarifying federal and state law to elucidate meaning and restrictions.

In regards to the right of citizens to bear arms, the debate is slightly more complicated.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” [6]. This is the line from the Second Amendment that many advocates for gun-rights quote. Many supporters of stricter gun regulation claim that the quote, referring to a militia, defends the collective rights of self-defense [6]. Both sides are well-backed by diverse sources: from news to books to essays entitled, “The Embarrassing Second Amendment” and “A Nation of Cowards.”

There’s a distinct line between safety and liberty; it’s impossible to be completely safe without losing much individual liberty. Traffic laws -- wearing seatbelts, stopping at stop signs -- limit an individual’s right to happiness (for some, this may be driving 95 on the freeway) but they protect most of society. There are violations of these laws, and consequently, accidents and deaths. The price paid for individual liberty is a perpetual risk.

Guns are dangerous: an equalizer, a weapon that can be wielded “effectively by almost anyone… not demanding great skill or strength” [7]. However, the right to guns is delineated in the Constitution, which is the single most important document in this country. Without following the parameters of the Constitution, there would be nothing upon which US laws are based. If citizens are to be restricted from owning or keeping firearms, then there should be a Constitutional Amendment to reflect that change. At the moment, legislation allows citizens to bear arms.

With that being said, legislation can and should regulate firearm possession. In the aftermath of aforementioned mass shootings, the first step should be regulating guns in public areas, prohibiting firearms in facilities where over 200 people may congregate. Of course, this is just an example; these numbers and rules need to be refined. But it’s obvious that guns prove more hazardous in concentrated areas. Especially when many Americans use guns for hunting or target shooting, there’s no need for firearms in public areas [8]. Removing guns from such locations mitigates risk.

Moreover, the banning of automatic guns and machine guns should be readily enforced. Current law leaves loopholes; for example, the Las Vegas shooter made his own semi-automatics [9]. Such methods of creating automatic or semi-automatic guns should be restricted, even if such machineguns are already banned in the US [3].

Citizens have the right to bear arms, but the government has the right to regulate this ownership -- to some extent. Again, having liberty means having risks; laws are in place to mitigate those risks, but only to a certain degree. This means previously mentioned inconsistencies in legislation should be changed to become more uniform: citizens are allowed to own firearms and carry them to approved locations, but all states should regulate the licensing and sale of such firearms, as seen in California.

Both sides of this debate will mostly likely agree that guns give their users power.

In his famous work, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes wrote that people were “naturally wicked” and should “not be trusted to govern” [10]. Accordingly, Hobbes thought that absolute power should fall to a ruler over these people. Opposing this is the belief that people are inherently good and law-abiding. Though it’s abundantly evident that this isn’t always the case, a government should set the latter conditions as standards, punishing those who are not law-abiding, rather than removing rights altogether. Trusting law-abiding citizens gives governments the ability to give people power. Those who abuse this trust will be dealt with accordingly.

As of October 18th, in 2017, there have been 286 incidents of mass shootings and 1,644 incidents of shootings or killings from police [11]. It’s clear that guns and firearms are dangerous. But American legislation prevents government interference between citizens’ liberties and their safety. To best protect the public while maintaining individual rights, the government needs to clarify and enforce legislation on gun-control, ensuring that while citizens are allowed to own firearms barring automatics, state legislation requires registration, licensing and thorough background checks.

Though this may be the best way to compromise between both sides of the discussion, there are many factors and subtleties that must be addressed in this issue. Gun regulation is hotly debated and highly controversial for a reason: this debate has moral, social, and economical repercussions, some of which may not be obvious yet. But this is for certain: the fight for public safety versus the respect of individual rights will continue, and ultimately will involve much of society in the process.

Sources:

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-las-vegas-firefighter-20171005-story.html

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-two-dead-in-mandalay-bay-casino-shooting-latest-updates

    https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/07/us/gun-control-explained.html

    https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

    http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

    http://news.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/04/did-las-vegas-shooter-get-arsenal-guns-easily-legally/

    http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/nature/hobbes-bio.html

    http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

Science and Society (A Look at US Government and Separation of Powers)

In 2013, Washington DC published a final version of Next Generation Science Standards, a new benchmark for students in elementary, middle, and high school to adhere to when studying sciences. Here are two of the many standards:

• Scientific inquiry is characterized by a common set of values that include: logical thinking, precision, open-mindedness, objectivity, skepticism, replicability of results, and honest and ethical reporting of findings.

• Scientists’ backgrounds, theoretical commitments, and fields of endeavor influence the nature of their findings.

The new science standards emphasize the required objectivity in science, but acknowledge that scientists are people with identities. These identities may influence research [1]. Though it is clear that quality scientific results come from procedural and objective standards, it’s impossible to separate an individual’s background from their research. However, the distinction is clear enough so that while identity may influence logic, reasoning, and exigence, scientific inquiry and results remain as objective as possible.

For example, in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia’s harsh deserts leave little arable land for sustenance farming. In South America, Belize’s coastline communities face poverty as the fishing industry declines due to overfishing. To compensate for this, there have been recent developments in the seaweed farming community: growing seaweeds in the ocean as a form of mariculture may provide another form of industry to these less fortunate communities [2, 3].

Researchers and scientists wanting to assist these countries may push for the benefits of seaweed cultivation, but ultimately are responsible for ensuring that such agriculture does not negatively impact the marine community close to the farming area (which, to my understanding, it actually does the opposite) [4].

Essentially, while the goal of science is to remain as objective as possible for replicable results, separation of research and personal influence is almost impossible, making some overlap inevitable. Even so, most science is objective enough so that personal influence does not completely change the results of an experiment.

This idea of influence, but not total control, of separate areas on each other resurfaces in many fields outside of science as well.

In the government, Federalist Paper 47 is James Madison’s examination of the separation of powers in the US government. Though objections in that day argued that the three branches should be completely “separate and distinct,” Madison employs logic and references the British Constitution and Montesquieu to rebut this complete separation [5].

One of Madison’s main points against total separation is efficacy. The primary goal of all governments is to be functional: for the US, as long as the branches can operate mostly independently, then they are serving their purpose. As long as the powers are separated enough, to the point that one is not in “danger of being crushed by… [the] other," then the branches are functional [5].

In regards to tyranny, the objection to the United States’ government is the fact that power -- whether it be in legislative, executive, or judiciary branches -- is still concentrated in the hands of the few, that it doesn’t matter if these representatives are still elected, power still remains concentrated. To this, Madison references Montesquieu in saying that the purpose of the branches’ distinction is to avoid complete and total power of “one department… exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another department” [5]. Again, this correlates with the notion of overlap, but not total separation: each governmental branch functions in and of itself; no power completely belongs to two or more branches so that a tyrannical law can be written, executed, and enforced by the same power. In the same way that human personality and identity may affect or instigate scientific research, the three government branches may influence one another but are still distinct enough so that they can each function and serve their purpose. They are still distinct enough so that a questionable law written by one branch may not be passed by another branch influenced by the first to execute it.

Finally, for all that the three branches are separate, they are all still part of the same government. All three branches belong to the same people and the same nation. If they were completely, totally separate, then there would be no common ground upon which to build a foundation to work upon; nothing would be accomplished. Yes, checks and balances and bureaucracy exist to purposely slow all work, but the main purpose of the government is to function for the people -- a common goal for all three branches. Having separate entities in the government defeats this purpose, because the “whole fabric of the constitution [requires] one indissoluble bond of unity and amity” [5]. The branches are connected and linked in some inevitable way, inseparable because they are all part of the same government. The human condition and personal thought are connected and linked to scientific research in the same inevitable way, because both are the product of people.

Another example: though the separation of church and state is an idea well-known, there are still many instances of church and state overlapping one another in America today. Marriage blurs many of the lines between church and state; in the courtroom, citizens swear over the bible; the pledge of allegiance every morning mentions “God” and the dollar signed is inscribed with “in God we trust.”

Though such overlap exists, for the most part, the two bodies are distinct enough. The church does not write policy and the state does not run religion. Citizens still follow their own religions, regardless of who is in office.

Of course, all of these examples are convoluted in some way -- some believe that is is possible to completely separate science from subjectivity, through hard facts or numerical measurements; some believe that the presence of religion in state (in courtrooms, the pledge of allegiance, the dollar bill) is already too much.

But in science, in government, and in the universe, all things are somehow connected, aren’t they? The question is not whether two spheres overlap; the question is how much they should overlap, and where the line between distinction and separation, between influence and control, should be drawn.

References

1. Next Generation Science Standards by Topic. (n.d.). Retrieved September 17, 2017, from http://www.nextgenscience.org/overview-topics
2. Andrews, S. (2016, August 09). Belize Seaweed: The Next Big Thing for Fisheries. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from https://thefishsite.com/articles/belize-seaweed-the-next-big-thing-for-fisheries
3. Al‐Hafedh, Y. S., Alam, A., Buschmann, A. H., & Fitzsimmons, K. M. (2012, March 07). Experiments on an integrated aquaculture system (seaweeds and marine fish) on the Red Sea coast of Saudi Arabia: efficiency comparison of two local seaweed species for nutrient biofiltration and production. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-5131.2012.01057.x/abstract
4. Duarte, C. M., Wu, J., Xiao, X., Bruhn, A., & Krause-Jensen, D. (2017, April 12). Can Seaweed Farming Play a Role in Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation? Retrieved September 17, 2017, from http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2017.00100/full
5. Yale Law School: Lillian Goldman Law Library. (n.d.). The Federalist Papers: No. 47. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed47.asp