Bernie Sanders' Consistant Career in Politics

Bernie Sanders made a bold move by launching his 2015 democratic presidential campaign by labeling himself a "democratic socialist". This is especially true considering that people have been negatively using the word "socialist" to describe our current president, Barack Obama. Starting a campaign in the same shoes as Barack Obama, a not very well known "unelectable" senator with odd characteristics vs. an established career politician(actually same one; Hillary Clinton), he seems to have purposefully put up hurdles to jump over. This bold move, however, is not the first time Bernie Sanders believed he could overcome such obstacles. In fact, he has been winning out of nowhere elections for the past thirty years.

Though not a politician, Bernie started forming civil rights activist groups in the 1960's. There have been comments that Bernie's affiliation with civil rights in the '60s and marching to see Martin Luther King speak are irrelevant because he was white. Some blogs actually say that it is irrelevant because that's what you were supposed to do as a liberal. His activism towards a goal should not be dismissed because of his race, though. His interest in helping minorities at an early age shows commitment to moral character. This is in stark contrast to Hillary Clinton who was president of the Young Republicans Club at her university and was campaigning for Barry Goldwater in 1964 who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Though Hillary shortly after changed her views on civil rights and left the republican party, this early flip flop is a first of many for the current democratic candidate.

On voting, Bernie Sanders is highly consistent on his tough decisions. He highlighted in a speech at the Iowa Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson Dinner a large number of times in his career that he made the moral call that turned out to be the right one, while his challengers failed. Some of these key and unwavered decisions on the Gulf War, The Iraq War, NAFTA, DoMA, the wall street crash and bailout, citizens united, the TPP, the keystone pipeline, the patriot act, the NSA, and the privacy of our personal information as citizens of The United States of America. I do not believe that it is possible to criticize somebody's record for voting so consistently with his beliefs for a career of politics.

A large part of Bernie's successes so far have been due to his grassroots campaign strategies and youth engagement. His opposition to the use of super-PACs that allow companies to give unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns puts him at a large disadvantage, though his fundraising is almost on par with his competition in the third quarter gaining 26.2 million vs. Hillary's 29.9 million. This is due to his small dollar donors that average at about thirty dollars per donation. His campaign has excited enough people to feel the bern that he has already hit a record of a million donations well before Barack Obama had in 2008, which was the previous record.

A large part of his message is that he can't win the campaign alone, but has excited the hearts and minds of hundreds of thousands of volunteers of all demographics to spread the word of his campaign. Another campaign objective is to get young people involved and voter turnout to be at a record high. As a supporter of the "end youth apathy movement", I am very excited to see a candidate not only running a successful campaign, but also running many underlying campaigns underneath. Even if Bernie Sanders does not win the campaign to be the next President of the United States, he has already won by spreading his message of ending super-PACs, engaging youth in political involvement, and spreading awareness of his key issues. In my thesis, I will go further into detail of how Bernie Sanders has already won the election by pushing Hillary left on progressive issues in the case that she does win. I will, however, focus on the fact that Bernie Sanders will be the next President of the United States by running the most morally sound and "on the issues" campaigns that we've seen in a long time.

How Do Organics Par With Non-Organics?

Contrasting Data For And Against Organic Yields Dissonance

When it comes to produce, the line is drawn; Will you dish out the extra money to buy organic produce, or is non-organic the same thing? There are even different aisles grabbing your attention pertaining to different markets. Perhaps the biggest question in organic vs non-organic produce, though, is whether organic produce is sustainable enough to feed the world. Do we really need pesticides and genetic modification in order to feed our constantly growing global economy? An article in Scientific American asks that exact question with a no: Can organic agriculture feed a world of nine billion people? I found this cited as a source in an argument by Monsanto regarding sustainable farming practices and feeding global populations. Monsanto seems to be the company that people point fingers at in response to arguments on genetically modified foods or pesticide usage, so what they trying to argue is important to note.

The lead scientist in the study cited in this article is Verena Seufert. The study shows 5%-25% yield differences between organic and non-organic dependent on the crop tested. Although the article seems to lean towards the fact that pesticide use is necessary in feeding global populations, both sides are presented and there is a nod that organic farming is idealistically better. 

"Conventional farming requires knowledge of how to manage what farmers know as inputs—synthetic fertilizer, chemical pesticides and the like—as well as fields laid out precisely via global-positioning systems. Organic farmers, on the other hand, must learn to manage an entire ecosystem geared to producing food—controlling pests through biological means, using the waste from animals to fertilize fields and even growing one crop amidst another. "Organic farming is a very knowledge-intensive farming system"

The question that arises while reading this is, if both require knowledge, then why can't we teach the more environmentally sound option just as if not more effectively? The article seems to be questioning this for the scientific audience which tends to lead to the message "trust science" that backs genetic modifications and agrochemical research.

Rodale Institute located in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, however, has been collecting data from a Farming Systems Trial for the past 30 years that goes head to head with conventional farming practices. This trial claims to be America's longest running side-by-side comparison of organic vs. conventional farming and has produced some contrasting results to research done by Scientific American. Rodale Institute is a historic organic research farm that frequently tests organic and conventional practices separately and together.

Their research can be concluded by several fast facts:

Organic yields match conventional yields. Organic outperforms conventional in years of drought. Organic farming systems build rather than deplete soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system. Organic farming uses 45% less energy and is more efficient. Conventional systems produce 40% more greenhouse gases. Organic farming systems are more profitable than conventional.

Although an organic research farm may have a bias towards promoting organic products, the research was presented in a fair tone. There is a dismissal towards conventional practices in a "we don't need this" message, but that is expected. The underdog in any scenario must always dismiss the incumbent in order to make their case. Nobody can argue that ideally not using pesticides yielding the same results as using pesticides is a better option, yet this case study seems to argue just that. The study argues that in organic farming, oxygen and nitrogen retention is stronger during drought and soil remains healthier over time. Perhaps this study alone is the key to understanding the argument of organic vs. non-organic. It seems that there is a threshold of when organic soil can outlast non-organic during droughts and retain more moister after pesticide soaked soil can't absorb any more nutrients.

Each argument is persuasive, yet opinionated and biased. A more public knowledge of this information is key to understanding the actual answer to the question of whether organic or non-organic is the solution to our global produce needs. When more research is presented and more studies are conducted, the world will benefit over time. Until then, the decision is yours to make.

TGI Offensive

Today on Facebook, I stumbled upon a distasteful breach of persuasive ethics. I'll admit that it seems to have worked as I stopped scrolling and was thrown off by the mashup advertisement of TGI Fridays and Ashley Madison (A website where married men are paired up with girls in hopes of cheating on their wives). The website that is being satired is disgusting in its own right, but it seems that there is an entire marketing campaign taking anti-femenist pop culture references and replacing women with food. TGI Fridays seems to have taken a boardroom joke too far and made it into reality to the point where there is even a website and domain name dedicated to "dating profiles" for their overpriced frozen food appetizers.

Ashley Madison, for a little backstory, is a "hookup website" for married men who want to cheat on their wives. Their tagline is "life is short, have an affair". Recently, the website was hacked and all of the emails used to sign up for this website were leaked. Among many emails, there were a few interesting people of power that seemed to be members including legislators, members of the church, and military officials. There were several instances of divorce and suicide following the leak as it ruined many people's lives, while their secret was revealed.

This breach of ethics is playing upon the collapse of a cheating website, and using infidelity towards ordering appetizers at TGI Fridays. I am not sure where the correlation comes into play, but I am not hungry enough to find out. 

Upon further research, whoever's idea that objectifying food, not women is a message that TGI Fridays needs to get behind there seems to be more to this disgusting campaign.

A lot of people will remember a video posted last year of a KU alumni walking through the streets of New York City wearing a tee shirt and jeans getting catcalled 108 times. The video was a strong statement of what women go through on a daily basis and put a strong spin on ending catcalling culture. TGI Friday's, however, decided to turn this message into a "Nobody likes a catcaller, but who can blame somebody for #appcalling?" message. Not only does this take away the original message of the video, but washes the message away into a pop cultural reference. This violates ethical standards by making fun of a truly important message in order to sell mediocre product.

I am not the only person that feels this way. Time Magazine did a story on the impact of this campaign and the viral outcry against it. People are taking to Facebook and social media to call TGI Fridays out for a poorly construed message.

The responses are all cookie-cutter as well as lacking. "While we may make light of objectifying apps, we do not condone adultery." By ethical standards, this is a complete lack of disrespect for the sensitivities of the consumer (or former consumer).

"The promiscuity of appetizers, not people" shows as well that their food and service has declined to a point where the hopes that sex sells is their last resort. People are taking notice, though. Look on their facebook page. Almost every comment is regarding poor service or poor food. It's no wonder TGI Fridays is turning to such desperate measures to sell overpriced frozen garbage.