May 2018 Issue
Volume 6, Issue 5
What’s in this issue? TRUMP WATCH, 1 RUNAWAY PRINCESS’ STORY, 4 WHAT ABOUT PRIVACY, 6 SCIENTIST DISCOVERY, 7 POLUTION SOLUTION, 8 THE COST OF SAVING A LIFE, 9 NORTH AND SOUTH KOREA HISTORIC SUMMIT, 11 FAKE NEWS, 13 HOW FOOTBALL CAN CHANGE, 15 DAWN OF A NATION, 17
STAFF Editor-in-Chief Nicholas Accattatis Co-Editor Isabella Lovalvo Layout Editors Giulia Oosterwijk Jacqueline Obert
Artists Jacqueline Obert Grace Ihle Advisor John Pitonzo Front cover by Grace Ihle Back cover by Jacqueline Obert
TRUMP WATCH: THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL By Isabella Lovalvo In a special edition, Trump Watch takes an in-depth look at President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran Nuclear Deal.
Tuesday, 8 May, President Trump announced the United States’ withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal. In order to fully grasp the implications of this decision, it is critical to take a look at several aspects concerning the international accord. What is the Deal? The Iran Nuclear Deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the result of decades of negotiations between Iran and the West in an effort to curb the country’s nuclear development program. As a state party of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is banned from creating or possessing nuclear weapons.
However, the discovery of a previously concealed nuclear enrichment program in 2003, which Iran claimed was to be used for purposes solely relating to the creation of energy, sent the West into a spiral of fear and sparked the lengthy talks that eventually culminated in the agreement on 14 July 2015. Signed by Britain, France, Germany, the US, China, Russia, and of course Iran, the JCPOA implemented strict restrictions on every aspect of the country’s nuclear program. Before 14 July, Iran was estimated to have been around two or three months away from successfully developing a nuclear weapon; in the agreement, it must always guarantee that it is a year or more away from doing so.
GLOBAL 1
Additionally, the country has decreased its uranium stockpile by 98%, significantly reduced its number of uranium-enriching centrifuges, pledged to keep uranium enrichment levels at 3.67% (90% or more is needed for use in nuclear weaponry), and agreed to slow research and development concerning nuclear weapons. In return, the US, EU, and United Nations Security Council have lifted heavy nuclearrelated sanctions that had previously been imposed on Iran, draining billions from its economy and preventing it from conducting much business overseas, especially with the West. The deal, which lasts until 2030, with various aspects expiring before or after, has been strictly overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency, who have confirmed Iran’s compliance a total of nine times since 2015.
Trump has remained chief among opponents of the JCPOA, and first promised the United States’ withdrawal during the early days of his 2016 presidential campaign, calling it “the worst deal ever” on multiple occasions and arguing that Iran is “violating [its] spirit” by working against the US and maintaining a hostile attitude. However, his chief reason for opposing the deal is that certain aspects of it are finite; he hopes instead to ultimately create a better, permanent deal.
What are the consequences of Trump’s decision?
Critics of the JCPOA Though many heralded the JCPOA as a landmark agreement, with Barack Obama, US president at the time, going as far as to call it a “once in a lifetime opportunity,” it has not been without critics. Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, has criticized the deal for not being harsh enough, stating that since its signing, “Not a single nuclear facility [has been] shut down, including the underground facilities that [Iran builds] illegally.”
As the United States’ withdrawal was announced Tuesday night, it is too early to decisively state the consequences of Trump’s decision. However, one can speculate about a few different outcomes. As of now, the US has re-imposed sanctions on Iran, showing that Trump’s decision is definite and final. What remains to be seen, however, is the fate of the deal itself. It is very unlikely that Germany and the remaining UNSC members will withdraw, given their economic ties with Tehran that were established as a result of the lifting of the sanctions. More precarious is the situation in Iran, where conflicting accounts by various government officials make it difficult to know what action the country will take next. While Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has previously stated that his country would likely withdraw in the event that the United States did so, President Rouhani
GLOBAL 2
has conversely expressed Iran’s willingness to remain in the deal, assuming that “what [Iran] demands from the JCPOA is fulfilled by the nonAmerican parties.” In the event that Iran withdraws from the deal, the situation becomes much more uncertain. Trump, along with Macron and other leaders, would likely attempt to create a new deal, with conditions that appeal more to the former than the previous ones. However, comments from Rouhani have suggested that Iran may not be willing to do this. If the current deal fell through and a new one failed to be created, sanctions would be completely re-imposed on Iran, once again damaging its economy and stifling its foreign growth.
Iran, in the meantime, could continue developing its nuclear program without hindrance. As mentioned earlier, Iran previously denied using uranium for any purpose other than nuclear energy, but recent operations from the Mossad, an Israeli intelligence force, have in fact uncovered over 100,000 documents and files showing that Iran did originally intend to develop nuclear weapon, contrary to their statement. Should Iran decide to continue on this path, tensions in the Middle East would greatly increase and could perhaps culminate in an all-out arms race. What follows Trump’s decision remains to be seen, but it is clear that the president’s actions have launched the region into a state of uncertainty for now.
GLOBAL 3
RUNAWAY PRINCESS’ STORY IS NOT A FAIRYTALE By Anaïs Delagneau On the 4th of March 2018, Sheikha Latifa Bint Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, daughter of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum (ruler of Dubai and prime minister of the United Arab Emirates), vanished on the coast of Goa, India. Prior to being removed from the vessel she and a few others were traveling on, she had made contact with Detained in Dubai, a group of UAE civil and criminal justice specialists, telling them she was fleeing Dubai and providing them with evidence that confirmed that she was, in fact, who she said she was and provided her reason attempting to escape.
One of the pieces of evidence she sent was a thirty-nine minute video which was later released to the public, detailing the abuse she had to endure during both her childhood and adult life. She in fact reveals that she is not the first of her siblings to attempt to escape her father's iron grip. Sheikha Shamsa al-Maktoum, her older sister of four years, was able to seek refuge in the UK for a few weeks before being kidnapped by her father's men and being brought back to Dubai to be thrown into prison and tortured.
GLOBAL 4
Sheikha Latifa Al Maktoum then tells her story, detailing that two years after her sister's arrest, she tried to escape to try and get legal council elsewhere. She too was captured and tortured continuously for years on end. She was sixteen. Most of the video describes her father's cruelty and inhumane activity, making it clear to the audience that "He's the worst criminal you could ever imagine in your life… and he has this image that he's so modern and all this bullshit." She then, towards the end, says that she made the video so that if something bad happens to her, she will still be able to possibly make a difference. Having thought everything through, she explains her father will try to discredit her to protect his image and speculates on the means through which he may possibly do so. This video (which can be found on YouTube) has been verified by numerous sources, many of which believe the abuse she described needs to be brought to national attention and investigation. Minutes before her forceful removal from her vessel, she sent a distress call to Detained in Dubai, pleading: "...please help me, there are men outside. I hear gunshots."
Interpol and the UK National Crime agency have already confirmed that they have commenced an investigation, as it brings the oppressive side of the UAE regime into light. Upon her being reported missing, her social media accounts were shut down, and another royal family member with the same name was heavily featured in the press. This signals desperate attempts at a cover-up. Two others that were taken with Sheikha Latifa Al Maktoum, Tina Jauhiainen and Hervé Jean Pierre Jaubert, were released on the 20th of March, but there has been no word of the princess since her disappearance. The UAE has not directly responded to Sheikha Latifa Al Maktoum's status; the UN and other governmental, judicial, and news outlets are calling them to break their silence on the topic, as they are desperately worried that she is either dead, detained, or being tortured at this very moment.
It is only now that everything has become public, as it has been more than two months since the princess’ disappearance, and her identity and existence has been confirmed by multiple sources with photo and video evidence. Unlike the claims of the UAE, stating she never existed in the first place, the situation is not a hoax. Detained in Dubai is pleading for more widespread media coverage on the situation, as they argue that if the same had happened to Prince William of the UK, for example, there would be worldwide alarm and controversy, and that the same must be rallied for the Princess. EXTRA: For the full, unedited video of Sheikha Latifa Al Maktoum's story: Youtube: Latifa Al Maktoum - FULL UNEDITED VIDEO - Escape from Dubai - Hervé Jaubert Detained in Dubai has also released a petition for the Princess' status.
GLOBAL 5
WHAT ABOUT PRIVACY? By Ömer Pencabligil
Privacy is slowly becoming obsolete with the advancement of technology. Nowadays people are giving away their personal information to social media companies without any concern for what their information might be used for. Many of you might have heard about the ongoing scandal with personal data on Facebook being harvested by the data analysis company Cambridge Analytica, which has since been shut down. The company was accused of violating Facebook’s privacy policies in order to obtain personal information of up to fifty million users, who had no idea that their data was being harvested. Although most of what has happened is being uncovered now, the data gathered by Cambridge Analytica might have had an effect on the 2016 American elections. In short, the company allegedly gathered data on users to obtain an idea about their personalities. For example, the company would look at a user’s profile and according to the type of posts he or she generally “liked” they would gain an understanding of what type of person they were. After figuring out the type of material most likely going to appeal to them, the company would make political advertisements appear on their feed in order to subliminally influence them to vote for a certain candidate.
In the case of the 2016 elections, Cambridge Analytica allegedly influenced voters into voting for Trump, which could have potentially played a significant role in the outcome of the election, although it does seem like a fairly large accusation, being highly improbable that the fate of an entire election came down to a data analysis company. Facebook’s involvement in this mainly concerns the security of their data servers. Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder and CEO of Facebook, has repeatedly apologized for his company’s inability to protect personal data and has promised to enhance security. What seems to be the only path Facebook can take in order to regain some trust seems to be adding restrictions to developer access. However, this breach of trust will most likely not be overcome so simply. This scandal does not only concern Facebook users, as it shows us that no matter how much we think we trust social media companies, they are not completely reliable. In today’s world there is no such thing as being “off the grid,” as long as you have a social media account of some sort you are prone to being tracked or monitored. We must be careful with what information we publish about ourselves onto social media platforms, especially after this recent scandal. At the moment, it seems that our information can be used to potentially alter elections like Cambridge Analytica allegedly did in 2016, however as technology advances, who knows what our it could be used for. Rather than fighting for privacy, which is already ceasing to exist, we should fight for knowledge, so that we can learn how to live in a world where everything you need to know about someone will be accessed on a screen.
GLOBAL 6
SCIENTISTS DISCOVER FOUR STRANDED DNA ‘KNOT’ By Isabella Lovalvo To their surprise, normal human cells contain thousands of these structures that appear to alternately come and go.The function of the i-motif, however, remains a mystery. Researchers currently hypothesize that this configuration could play a role in gene regulation, that is, determining which genes are and are not expressed at a certain time, as the study found that the structures intermittently form and dissolve while genes are being transcribed.
Most of us who have taken a basic level of biology are familiar with what is perhaps the science’s most infamous icon: the double helix. Originally published in the journal Nature by Watson and Crick in 1953, the model has since captivated the scientific community and dominated the textbooks of millions of students globally. However, for the first time, scientists have observed the presence of a different form of DNA in human cells: a quadruple helix, knot-like structure known as an intercalated motif structure, or simply i-motif.
The i-motif’s quadruple helix structure is not the only characteristic that sets it apart. In typical DNA, nitrogenous bases adenine and thymine can only bind with each other, while the same is true for cytosine and guanine. However, in the i-motif, cytosine appears to be able to bind to itself, forming a substructure of solely cytosine that branches outwards and refuting decades of scientific belief. Though Watson and Crick’s (and Rosalind Franklin’s) historic discovery took place more than sixty years ago, discoveries such as this make evident the fact that so many elements of this vital structure remain shrouded in mystery.
First truly discovered by scientists in the 1990s, the i-motif’s various intricacies seemingly allowed it to only be produced in a lab, leading scientists to believe it could not manifest itself in natural conditions. To track the i-motif, researchers from the Garvan Institute for Medical Research developed an antibody capable of binding to the structure, additionally tagging it with a fluorescent chemical marker that would indicate the presence of the imotif with a glowing green dot under a microscope.
GLOBAL 7
THE POLLUTION SOLUTION: MUTATED ENZYMES By Anaïs Delagneau Plastic pollution is the accumulation of manmade plastic products in the environment that creates harmful consequences to wildlife and potentially human life. In a society where consumerism is a normality, this is becoming increasingly problematic, as more and more plastic is introduced into ecosystems where it can be mistaken for food or invade natural territory. The most troublesome objects of this issue is that plastic is almost always fully synthetic and therefore not biodegradable, and that many chemicals are used in plastic manufacturing, releasing toxic substance into the plastic and world.
Approximately 275 million tonnes of plastic are manufactured each year, about 9 million of those tonnes ending up in the ocean. In fact, floating plastic waste has accumulated into garbage patches in SubTropical oceans, causing 40% of the world's oceans to be covered by plastic wastage. Many have heard of the consequences that come along with this alarming number, such as decline in the turtle population due to mistaking plastic litter for food. Over the years, it seems the condition has become more and more drastic and that the only way to cut back on this negative phenomenon is
to cut back on consumption, which we all know will never happen. However, it seems there is still hope amidst all this negative garble. A very recent study accidently resulted in a mutant enzyme that breaks down plastics at an exorbitant rate. This discovery initially started with the study of an enzyme that had evolved to digest PET plastic, which is a plastic made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is commonly used to produce plastic bottles, food containers, and clothes. Professor John McGeehan from the University of Portsmouth and Gregg Beckham from NREL were studying the enzyme's crystalline structure to understand how it works when they accidentally engineered a mutant form even better at degrading plastic than the original.
The enzyme had evolved in what is believed to be a recycling site in Japan. The initially evolved version (pre-accidental engineered mutation) itself was a promising discovery for scientists who believed it could be used to break down industrial plastic. The mutated version provides even more hope to the scientific and environmental world, which is hoping to be able to engineer even more in order to test their effectiveness on a mass scale and possibly unleash them on plastic dumpsites around the world, potentially putting an end to, or at the very least decreasing plastic pollution.
GLOBAL 8
THE COST OF SAVING A LIFE By: Rita Byrne Loukisha Olive-McCoy is a forty-four yearold woman who has a rare disease called hereditary angioedema (HAE). She lives with her family in Chino, California. HAE causes her to have swelling attacks: she sometimes cannot breathe because her tongue swells at the back of her throat. Loukisha Olive-McCoy gets her medication from drug companies, and one drug alone will cost her $600,000 for this year alone. Drug charities help people with serious illnesses to get the right medication. In 2016, the bill for people in the U.S with these rare diseases was $140,000 per year on average. A report by Express Script Holding found that $2,000,000 was the average cost per year for HAE patients’ medication in 2017. Loukisha Olive McCoyot said when talking about the drug charity, It’s very uncomfortable. It’s like there’s one part of you where you’re grateful and you’re so happy. … Then, there’s that anxiety that comes, and you’re worried.” Why do pharmaceutical companies have so much power? The cost of these drugs is so high because they’re expensive to make, but it is unknown how much of this money is profit. These patientassistance charities are supported heavily by companies in their own interest - this is not purely about goodwill, said” Steven Joffe, chief of the division of medical ethics at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine. Health insurance companies pay the pharmacies to make drugs that will then be donated to ‘independent charities.’ Brand named drugs are medicines that are made by a pharmaceutical company to sell their own product. A brand name drug can become generic after the patent for it expires.
Pharmaceutical companies would argue that brand named drugs are more expensive because the pharmaceutical companies have to pay for the research and the failed trials of their product. The IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics said that generics have saved Americans one trillion dollars in health care savings over the past decade. since 2015, according C. Michael White, Pharm.D., Professor and Head Department of Pharmacy Practice at the University of Connecticut. Mental Health Costs Mental health is another illness for which it is expensive to get treatment. It is difficult to get therapy that is covered by an insurance plan. Mental health is not something concrete or easily diagnosable. “Insurance companies tend to see things more from a medical perspective - where if you get sick, for example, then you take a blood test, they figure out what is wrong with you, they give you a medication and then you are all better,” explained licensed psychologist Candice Ackerman. In 2011, a graph was made showing the comparison between doctors in different countries working in the ‘mental health sector.’ The categories for these professions were psychiatrists, psychologists, other physicians; and nurses and
GLOBAL 9
other health care workers. In Norway, the majority of professionals are other physicians; in France it’s other physicians. In Portugal it’s other physicians and psychologists, and in the US it’s psychologists. Researchers state that costs of psychotherapy in Canada depend on what the price is for each region, but some private psychologists can charge up to $200 per hour in 'major centers.’ Many people in different regions are not receiving help because the waiting list for public psychotherapy is very long and they can’t afford private sessions. Canadians with low incomes are three times more likely to have poor mental health. Research says that therapy is good because it requires engaging participation from the patient. People with mental health issues who don’t receive treatment don’t escape homelessness and poverty.
Why do treatments that benefit our health cost so much? Therapy for mental health is so expensive because it has been professionalized, which means that many professionals are more interested in making money and will only help you if you are able to pay them. In 2013 the journal JAMA Psychiatry published the following information, quoted by the New York times, 43 percent of psychiatrists accept Medicaid, which provides coverage for lowincome people, while 73 percent of other doctors do. This means that many psychiatrists will only help richer people who can afford to keep paying for sessions. If drugs and therapy sessions were more available to the public and a lot cheaper there would be fewer people suffering from mental illnesses or dying of diseases. It’s a shame that something that would benefit everyone is so expensive, because it has such impactful and positive outcomes on people.
GLOBAL 10
NORTH AND SOUTH KOREA MEET IN HISTORIC SUMMIT By: Isabella Lovalvo
In late April, North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in met in a historic summit in which they pledged to seek complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, as well as an official end to the Korean War. In the first time in over ten years that leaders from the two countries have spoken, Kim and Moon met at the Military Demarcation Line, with Kim first entering the South Korean side, then the two leaders, holding arms, passing briefly to the North Korean side before returning, a gesture meant to symbolize the countries equality. Continuing this theme of symbolism, the two then held a ceremony in which they planted a tree from 1953, the year the armistice that ended the fighting, but not the war, between the two Koreas was signed. Their visit characterized by friendliness, the leaders spent much time talking and even laughing at some moments. However, neither neglected to broach significant issues concerning the Koreas, with the summit culminating in the signing of the Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity, and Unification on the Korean Peninsula. The document, seen as a possible turning point in the ongoing conflict between the two countries, includes several important goals that their leaders have pledged to
work towards. The most significant of these are doubtlessly the measures to seek complete denuclearization of the peninsula and pursue fourway talks with China and the US in order to permanently end the Korean War. However, several other measures, once introduced, will do much to reduce the animosity that has plagued the Koreas for so long. These include the countries wishes to end hostile activities towards each other, reduce their number of arms, and change the DMZ into a peace zone. Previously, the DMZ served as an area of hostility, with propaganda from both countries blasting from loudspeakers at the border, a practice that the Koreas have since promised to cease. A more emotional issue, the leaders have also agreed to resume the reunion of families separated by the Korean War. Expected to take place 15 August, the anniversary of the Japanese surrender in World War Two, many will be reunited for the first time in more than sixty years. Out of the 130,000 family members that are estimated to have been separated, only half remain living, with 12,000 of them over ninety years old. Finally, the two leaders pledged to connect and modernize railways and roads across the border, showing a willingness to reconnect and inspiring hope in many that the countries might one day reunite, resulting in a permanent reunion of these families. China and the
GLOBAL 11
United States have welcomed the talks, with Chinese Foreign Minister spokesman Lu Kang stating, We hope and believe that the North and South Korean sides will be able to implement the consensus reached by their leaders and continue to push for reconciliation and cooperation. United States President Donald Trump has also praised the countries, stating, I want to congratulate the Republic of Korea on its historic summit with North Korea, and we’re encouraged by President Moon and Kim Jong-un’s expressed goal of complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Trump, who has accepted an invitation to meet with the Korean dictator on 12 June in Singapore, has also expressed hopes of reducing US-North Korean tensions. In a diplomatic victory for the President, North Korea released three Korean-American
prisoners, reported to be in good health, ahead of the summit. Kim has additionally stated his wish to open a new area of co-prosperity and his readiness to display commitment to peace. Though no actions have yet been expressly taken in accordance with the Panmunjom Declaration, it is evident that the talks signal a new chapter in the history of the two countries. However, caution must be taken in being too optimistic, as agreements such as these have previously fallen apart. Whatever the case, the developing situation between the Koreas has proven itself a globally significant issue whose results remain to be seen.
GLOBAL 12
FAKE NEWS: LA CENSURA È DAVVERO LA SOLUZIONE? By: Pietro Righi Recentemente, durante un discorso annuale di auguri alla stampa all’Eliseo, il presidente francese Emmanuel Macron ha annunciato la proposta di una legge anti-fake news, per combattere l’apparente invasione di notizie bufala in circolazione su internet. La legge che verraÌ€ presto discussa in Parlamento  include misure per rendere trasparenti la pubblicazione di contenuti e autorizzare il governo a cancellare "false notizie" da Internet o addirittura a bloccare completamente i siti web sospetti durante le elezioni politiche. Siamo in preda a un'epidemia di notizie false generate da potenze nemiche come la Russia, che sta avvelenando la nostra politica e mettendo a rischio le nostre democrazie liberali. Questa eÌ€ l'impressione che si ottiene osservando i tweet dei grandi e dei buoni dopo Brexit e la vittoria di Donald Trump negli USA. Le fake news esistono dall’inizio della storia e se una bufala su un sito internet eÌ€ abbastanza per distruggere la nostra democrazia, qui abbiamo un problema ben piu serio. Tuttavia e anche vero che i nuovi mezzi di comunicazione di massa come Facebook o Twitter accrescono enormemente le possibilita di queste notizie false, che spesso sparse con l’intenzione di condizionare gli elettori, riescono quindi ad influenzare un numero molto piuÌ elevato di persone: in particolare soggetti deboli come bambini ed adulti, che non hanno strumenti culturali adatti per filtrare e rielaborare le informazioni a cui sono esposti. Il problema pero, e assoluta mancanza di un dibattito sui possibili rischi per le liberta individuali posti da leggi come quella proposta da Macron, che consentirebbe a un governo in
carica di intervenire durante le elezioni e di limitare la liberta di espressione dei suoi oppositori, siano essi cittadini che scrivono sui loro blog o giornalisti accreditati che scrivono per importanti testate giornalistiche. Chi decide quali sono le informazioni false e quali quelle vere? Come attualmente succede in Germania, se lo stato minaccia milioni in sanzioni a un sito internet se esso non rimuove un contenuto considerato offensivo o falso, è ovvio che esso subira una censura per evitare le multe. Il fatto che le fake news vadano censurate viene dato per scontato e i media disinnescano il dibattito sulle liberta individuali che dovrebbe essere centrale e intanto attaccano Putin. Cio non toglie che esiste un problema delle informazioni false e truffe online, ma non sono state le fake news dei Russi a far perdere la Clinton.
Nessuno invece sembra essere preoccupato dalla capacità di filtraggio delle notizie che possiedono i social. Essi decidono le informazioni alle quali siamo esposti sulla base di quello che sanno su di noi (tutto). Il rischio vero è che si sia esposti solo a cio che ci vogliono fare vedere. Una news feed in cui ognuno e esposto solo ad informazioni e notizie che rafforzano il proprio punto di vista eliminando il contatto con idee contrastanti, necessarie per un dibattito democratico e la formazione di una coscienza politica, è un problema a mio parere ben maggiore.
LOCAL 13
Tuttavia, oggi in preda al panico appiccato dai
quali contiene spesso un pizzico della verita, anche
media sulle fake news, lâ attenzione sembra venire
quelle apparentemente piu bizzarre. E impossibile
posta solo sul rischio che il web diventi un veicolo
per una sola persona comprendere l’interezza della
di bugie, che vi sono sempre esistite. E cosi si
realta e ogni ricostruzione è dunque limitata.
cercano soluzioni giuridiche a un problema in
Al posto della censura dovremmo discutere sulla
realta molto piu complesso che alla fine,
possibilita di regolamentazioni che non limitino la
propongono in un modo o nellâ altro la censura.
possibilita d’espressione di utenti del web, ma che
Recentemente anche in Malesia il governo ha
incrementino la trasparenza di piattaforme come
passato una legge che conferira al governo poteri
Facebook. Per esempio la richiesta di un documento
per colpire coloro che ritiene colpevoli di aver
per la creazione di un account, cosi da verificare
creato o diffuso notizie false con pene detentive
l’identita di chi lo usa in modo che le persone
fino a sei anni. La mia preoccupazione è che
mettano la faccia dietro a cio che scelgono di
venga creato un Ministero della Verita Orwelliano
mostrare al mondo, accettandone le responsabilita
che decida quale sia la verita e stabilisca quali
che cio comporta senza nascondersi dietro ad
informazioni siano degne di essere viste. Inoltre la
account fasulli e username inventati.
verita, esclusi i casi di menzogne sfacciate, e
In una comunita che valuta la liberta e la giustizia, e
spesso molto difficile da scovare, poiche ogni
meglio lasciare la circolazione di fake news che
situazione ha migliaia di sfaccettature che possono
imporre la verita attraverso la censura.
essere viste da varie prospettive, ognuna delle
LOCAL 14
HOW FOOTBALL CAN CHANGE By: Niccolò Platt To many, football may seem like twentytwo men running around a field kicking a ball, but to millions around the globe, it is much more than that. To these people, football is life, as they would do anything to see their team win a trophy. The sport has taken over a very important role in culture, creating connections between fans everywhere. In most cases, fans have an unbreakable bond with the team they support, as they sit through rain, travel hundreds of kilometers, and do not miss a game in order to help the team out. Initially, this may sound amazing, as it makes the connection between sports and culture really stand out, but it is not always a positive thing, as the endless love for a single team often converts itself into violence and discrimination. The period between the 1960s and the 1990s is considered the golden age of hooliganism, as British firms, or groups of fans, clashed with one another ahead of and after games. It was a brutal era for football, as fans became scared of following their teams in away matches. The British government was able to reduce the massive amount of football related violence, however clashes have not stopped completely, and are still happening to this day. For some time now, soccer games have been treated internationally with extreme caution: on match days, groups of armed police officers occupy the stadium and surrounding areas, streets are closed off to the public, and visiting supporters are only allowed in small portions of the stadiums. All these precautions are implemented to maintain peace between the factions and prevent clashes, but they do not always reach their objective. When thinking about violence in football, several different events come to mind. During the first leg of the Champions League semi-finals this year, for example, a Liverpool fan was severely hurt, and is now held in a medically induced coma. This was only the most recent attack. In 2014, before the Coppa Italia final between Fiorentina and Napoli, a Neapolitan man was shot and killed
by a Roma supporter. During the European championships held in France in 2016, several riots were reported all over the country between the supporters of different nations. In Greece a few months ago, the owner of PAOK F.C. entered the field with a gun after his team’s late goal was disallowed. These events paint a terrible image of the most popular sport in the world, as the individuals who claim to be football aficionados, ultras, or hooligans use the sport to create chaos and disturbance. However, with some care and commitment, these crimes against the sport could be easily stopped, as has been done already in the UK and Brazil. In Britain, hooligan activities were interrupted by criminalizing all violent attacks. Meanwhile, in most countries, aggressors are usually expelled from stadiums for a certain amount of time. Obviously, by using the method adopted some time ago in the United Kingdom, football related crimes would decrease, and there would no longer be a need for barbed wire, fan enclosures, or armed policemen. In Brazil, the club SC Internacional, from Porto Alegre, requires fans to agree to spend the match with a fan of the opposing team. This initiative promotes respect and friendship between supporters of different sides, and would help decrease violence everywhere. The English team Fulham is also known for doing something similar. They offer mixed, non segregated seating in one end of their stadium, which contributes greatly to the creation of a peaceful atmosphere. Though violence is still a major problem at the moment, hopefully, in the years to come, things will begin to change. When fans start treating each other like peers and not enemies, the sport will evolve. Only then, football will have a chance to become the well respected, inclusive, and uniting sport it used to be, but without action, it will continue being the dark, violent game we see today.
LOCAL 15
DAWN OF A NATION By: Niccolò Platt When asking a tourist about the reason they chose to visit Florence, I always expect them to say the Uffizi or the David. Most of the time, I hear exactly what I had imagined. Obviously, I don’t blame them. Florence is the heart of the Renaissance and home to some of the greatest artists of all time, who created their masterpieces thanks to the economic prosperity of the era. However, it would come as a surprise to many sightseers if they heard that not far from the artworks we all know and love, were an exhibit about another more recent and less famous Renaissance.
The exhibit Dawn of a Nation, held in Palazzo Strozzi, explores the political, cultural, and social situation in Italy between the end of the Second World War and the late 1960s. It features artists like Manzoni, Fontana, and Schifano, and will be open until July 22nd. The exhibition presents the idea of massive change in the country in the 50s and 60s, and focuses on art’s connections to politics during the period. Italy’s industrialization, with the rise of FIAT, Esselunga, and other major Italian brands, is the starting point for the movements on display in the exhibit. In Palazzo Strozzi, images depicting Italian history and culture illustrate the development of the “Italian Economic Miracle.
After the end of the war and the decline of fascism, Italians felt the need for social change in the country. A great amount of citizens turned to communism, making the Communist Party the main political opposition. Along with political debates, the party also discussed art’s role in society, creating a dispute between realist and abstract art. Though a prominent member of the Communist party, Palmiro Togliatti, defined abstract art as scarabocchi e mostruosit or doodles and monstrosities,, the movement gained followers quickly, contrary to realism. The rise in importance of abstractionism was no coincidence. It gave artists the freedom to start over and create the rebirth of Italian art, as well as the opportunity to experiment with different concepts, textures, materials, and colors. The torn posters of the fascist era in Rotella’s The Last King of Kings, the Marshall Plan-type sacks held together by string in Burri’s compositions, and Fontana’s artwork made out of copper sheets demonstrate how artists used new materials, such as metal and burlap, to express modern ideas and concepts.
CULTURE 16
With experimentation also came the questioning of art. The room entitled “Monochrome as Freedom, which features artists Piero Manzoni, Enrico Castellani, and Agostino Bonalumi among others, only contains one color: white. This color, or absence of color, was seen by the artists as an opportunity to start from scratch and launch the rebirth of Italian art and identity. Manzoni’s provocative works Achrome featuring ordinary objects, such as bread rolls or pebbles, dipped in white paint, blur the line between what is art and what isn’t, bringing forward the concept that everything can be art. Meanwhile, Castellani and Bonalumi followed Fontana’s trail focusing on spatialism, as their artworks go beyond a bidimensional canvas.
Apart from altering the perception of art, artists also had the objective of criticizing and denouncing the political turmoil of the period with their work. The end of fascism, the wars in Korea and Vietnam, and the conflict between the USA and the USSR served as inspiration for Italian artists, who condemned these events through evocative images. In Stelle by Franco Angeli for example, which contrasts communist hammers and sickles with capitalist stars, art is converted into a criticism of society, showing once again that it cannot be defined or contained. As an Italian, I know that often, Italian art is considered boring, old, and outdated, even though it is very beautiful, as many tourists claim. Dawn of a Nation shows the opposite, as it displays how complex, modern, and dynamic this country’s culture actually is. Although the Renaissance will continue to be at the center of our culture, being able to show the world that we are much more than just that makes me prouder of my origins than I have ever been.
CULTURE 17