The Interview draws people to the cinema during the most wonderful time of the year

 

Despite the forwardness of the North Korean government, many people refused to be deterred from seeing the controversial film "The Interview" starring Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg whose characters plot to assassinate Korean dictator Kim Jong Un on Christmas Day. The cyber attack and hacking of Sony did in fact prevent some cinemas from premiering the movie since there were also threats of terrorist attacks in movie theaters. In the D.C. area of Virginia, the Manassas 4 Cinema became increasingly more crowded as people there for the first showing left the building showing a great amount of enthusiasm. Bunny Khorana, owner of the movie house, was thrilled by the unexpected turnout and even claimed "It's great that the big boys aren't showing it. I'm going to cash in." He, unlike many others around the country, was not phased by the threats of the North Korean government. Many viewers of the R-rated comedy showed up with defiant attitudes towards the dictatorship across the world. Many acknowledged the freedom of speech and the ability to say what one wants. Others saw the movie purely on the quest for entertainment. People who had not yet witnessed the realities of what is happening in North Korea even learned something about the gruesome truths.

I understand what infuriated the North Korean government. Kim Jong Un was portrayed as a buffoonish character, humiliating in the least. While the movie was created based off of comedy and light heartedness, it was clearly also meant to poke fun. I have yet to see it, but I have heard some impressive views. However, the depictions of starved people in North Korea are all too real. The conflict and struggles people have to face due to the abusive dictatorship should not be portrayed as comical. I can understand how that is a matter of controversy since the fictional movie does depict the entire situation as differentiable from reality. That can be the power of cinema and it can be very negative in some ways.

Controversy Over "Morality" of the Death Penalty

The death penalty is one of the most controversial political topics now a days due to the past inefficiencies of lethal injections. Clayton Lockett's execution went gruesomely wrong when his lethal injection failed to end his life until after almost 45 minutes of him struggling in pain. Joseph Wood's execution lasted nearly two hours before his actual time of death. Eight months later, the concerns about drug protocol are still being evaluated. The use of lethal injection has been questionable when it comes to constitutionality. However, the use of a combined three separate drugs to cause unconsciousness, paralysis, and cardiac arrest was ruled as not violating the 8th Amendment banning cruel and unusual punishment. After the first cases of complications during executions, the drug midazolam became the suspect. The drug that caused unconsciousness in a series of medications used in a lethal injection had experienced a cut in production. Therefore, midazolam, a sedation and anti-seizure medication, had replaced it. Lawyers of inmates on death row claimed that the drug is being used on an "experimental basis" since it is not FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) approved. Besides the questionability of the drugs used, courts have also stopped executions due to health issues of inmates on death row that could complicate the process. In Florida, a margin of error in IQ tests has made it harder for the state to execute inmates who are potentially mentally handicapped. Charles Warner, who was convicted of murdering and raping an infant in 1997, was not an exception, however. The Supreme Court has allowed the execution to proceed even with the use of midazolam.

Despite the horrific crimes many convicts have committed, no one deserves to die by the hand of some experimental drug. The fact that the drug has been known to have irregular effects and that it is not even FDA approved makes the government look unprepared and lacking thoroughness. I have never been in favor of the death penalty, this being one of the reasons why. The inhumane deaths of killers does not make up for the inhumane deaths of their victims. All the death penalty does is teach that killing is appropriate in some cases. But is it? Murder is never the right answer. In no way am I saying felons should not be punished. Rotting in prison serves as a better punishment. Morally, what does knowledgeably submitting a person to drugs with unknown effects portray? Very few morals at all in reality.

Battle Over Speaker of the House

Even with a Congress  completely controlled by Republicans, incumbent Speaker of the House John Boehner is not safe from rebellion. Coup attempts against him had occurred before in the year 2013. An anti-Boehner faction has indeed risen up. Hard right conservatives were disappointed in Boehner's lack of dealing with Obama's over use of executive power. In the recent election for speaker of the house, many conservatives challenged Boehner for the position in order to split the votes so no one came out on top after the first round of voting. Dissatisfied republicans hoped to humiliate the long standing speaker. Among these challengers were Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, Rep. Ted Yoho of Florida, and Rep. Ted Webster also of Florida. After the votes were tallied, Boehner was once again announced the winner and his opponents once again failed to deny him another term. Reps. Webster and Richard. B Nugent were removed from the House Rules Committee after voting against Boehner.

It does not surprise me how easily dissatisfied the Republicans are. I did not realize their outcry for change would reach as far as deliberate attempts to overthrow a member of their own party, however. The recent events in the House of Representatives just further emphasize the hard right conservatives motives for moving up in the chamber. They have no problem unseating "inadequate" conservatives who do not oppose Obama to the extreme. As speaker of the house Boehner has the power to select members of the Rules Committee. The fact that the two reps. who voted against him were removed makes Boehner appear juvenile. Yes he is attempting to remove the threat of rebellion but I can't help but notice an "in your face" aspect to it all.

The new Congress of 2014 has wasted no time addressing the hard pressed issues regarding immigration within the United States. The Republican run House of Representatives has voted on legislation that puts millions of unauthorized immigrants at risk of deportation. Furthermore, these amendments coincide with the necessary funding of Homeland Security. The Department of Homeland Security is the leverage the Republicans need to pass legislation revoking rights and protection of immigrants in the United States. If President Obama disagreed with the attached amendments regarding immigration, he will appear unconcerned about the nation's security at the same time. Senator Harry Reid claims the Republicans in power are "picking an unnecessarily political fight that risks shutting down the Department of Homeland Security." The Republicans have since then been seen as a manipulative, immoral party throwing their weight around. In 2012 Obama passed executive action permitting immigrants who entered the country illegally to remain in the US. This action was undone when the amendment to reverse his decisions was passed on Wednesday due to 218 votes yes in the House. Many Democrats in Congress disagreed with the splitting families apart and deporting children that came to America as infants. Even some Republicans claimed that the sponsored amendment was a step too far. Others defended the action by saying they did not intend to be malicious, rather address the President's boldness in writing immigration law without receiving Congress's consent. The bill with the attached amendments now heads to the Senate where it will again be evaluated.

This strategy of tacking amendments onto completely necessary bills is far from new and actually quite effective. It clearly puts the president between a rock and a hard place and the Republicans have used that to their advantage. This specific bill funding Homeland Security forces President Obama to choose. The Republicans hope Obama will look at the big picture since the nation's security is the main concern. However, by approving the bill, Obama will have to push aside his values and morals when it comes to immigration. It is not an easy decision to make and he has the entire world watching him under a microscope. Which ever way the bill heads, President Obama will certainly receive heavy criticism from one side or another due to the controversy of it all.

Liam Neeson Bashes Gun Ownership

Famous actor Liam Neeson is well known for starring in thrilling, action flicks such as the "Taken" series in which his teen daughter is kidnapped by human traffickers and the recent film "Non Stop" that depicted him attempting to foil a terrorist attack aboard an airplane. A former government operative in one and a US Air Marshal in the other, Neeson handles firearms as props countless times. There are no lack of gun fights in his movies. However, the 62 year old actor has no problem voicing his dissatisfaction towards gun ownership in the United States. After all the recent school shootings, Neeson came out into the open saying there are "too many f****** guns" in America. Well aware that many of his movies feature firearms, Neeson continued to defend that the violent imagery does not persuade people into purchasing guns, rather that it simply adds to the fantastical thrill of the plot that revolves around revenge. He states that he also watched films including gun violence during his childhood, but was never transformed into a killer because of it. The fact that there are over 300 million privately owned guns in America disgusts the actor who claimed the amount of ownership is a "disgrace."

I have always been a fan of Liam Neeson and this makes me respect him even more despite the irony. Besides his prime acting skills, his favorable opinion towards gun control impresses me. I agree with Neeson, it is shocking how often we see "Yet another few kids have been killed in schools." Perpetrators of these shootings have usually obtained their guns legally. How much longer are we going to allow children to be shot down in elementary schools?  A gun is meant for one thing, to kill or destroy something else. And here they are being distributed throughout the nation with great ease and little restrictions. It did slightly surprise me that Liam Neeson holds such a strong opinion; in fact he doesn't seem like a huge opponent of gun rights due to his career in the action film industry. But that goes to show cinematography does not necessarily dictate your values.

Demographics of Congress

The new Congress of 2014 is one of the most diverse America has ever seen. It is still, however, dominated by white, male, Christians. The percentage of women in both the House and the Senate is pathetically low when compared to males. Almost 80 percent of the House of Representatives is white and in the Senate, 94 percent falls under the same category. However, racial and gender composition trends show a gradual increase in the number of females and non-white members in Congress. The religious composition of the Congress is not too surprising seeing that we live in a mainly Christian society, thus 92 percent of the Congress is religiously affiliated as Christian. Unlike the racial and gender demographics however, diversity among religious affiliation is decreasing. The Congress of 2014 is less Protestant but still more Christian overall.

The lack of diversity in such a vital branch of our government is highly disappointing, but not too surprising at the same time. When looking at the statistics, it appears that one group of people with  similar backgrounds is better suited for positions in Congress since it dominates both houses. The fact that one group of people, white, Christian males, is running the government is alarming, however. Clearly, power in numbers makes it so that major federal decisions are influenced by bias. In the most diverse nation in the world one would think that power could be evenly distributed among race and religion. That way, interests of all sorts of people in the United States can be addressed. Without diversity in government, only one group of people is catered to. Is that what liberty and justice for all means?

Count Dracula Makes a Comeback as a Deer

The Kashmir musk deer sports a very interesting characteristic, two pointed fangs that extend from the upper jaw. The tusks are only found on the males and they serve the purpose of fending off competitors during mating season. Classified as an endangered species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List, this type of deer has been sighted for the first time in Afghanistan's Nuristan province after nearly 60 years of hiding. This strange creature inhabits the Himalayas in northern India, Pakistan's Kashmir region as well as northern Afghanistan. Over the years, poachers have targeted the musk deer for its scent glands, which have become highly demanded on the black market for their pharmaceutical properties. While the deer usually take shelter in the steep cliffs and mountainous forests, deforestation and urbanization has driven them to near extinction. Many wildlife organizations such as the Wildlife Conservation Society's Asia Programs have made it an objective to stop the destruction of the musk deer's habitats and to conserve the ecosystem as a whole. They race against the hunters and human settlers that continue to claim their homes and lives. This is very unfortunate since the "rare species, along with better-known wildlife, such as snow leopards, are the natural heritage of this struggling nation," according to Peter Zahler, deputy director of the Wildlife Conservation Society's Asia Programs. The musk deer's reappearance is a hopeful sign, such wildlife must be preserved in its admirable, natural state for future generations to be in awe. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/11/05/deer-with-vampire-fangs-spotted-for-1st-time-in-decades/


As an animal lover, I have always had a lot of respect for wildlife. This article fascinated me, I had never even heard of the musk deer. When I was little, I loved reading books on different species within the animal kingdom, so apart from the extremely bizarre I could at least recognize most animals. Now, I am a huge advocate for the humane treatment and protection of species. Yes I get criticized, but I see nothing wrong in wanting to protect animals from the detrimental consequences of human actions. This article emphasized the scarcity and rapid disappearance of a species due to humans driven by self interest and personal gain. Poaching is a disgusting and highly reprimandable offense in my opinion. It is one of the major reasons an endangered species list even exists. I find it very sad that people do not achieve satisfaction through admiring nature from a distance. Hopefully, societies all around the world will see how much it is worth before it is too late.

Execution on the Grounds of What??

The recent execution of an Iran woman has caused wide spread controversy amongst human rights groups. After being on death row for 5 years, 26 year old Reyhaneh Jabbari was hanged for the killing of Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi, a former intelligence ministry employee, in 2007. It is reported from Amnesty International that she was not only kept in solitary confinement for two months without seeing a lawyer or her family but also tortured before her death. Many Iranians saw injustice in her sentence to death since the killing of Sarbandi was a result of attempted rape. Aside from that, Jabbari was convicted of murder after an unfair trial and the disregarding of evidence after a confession was made. Jabbari's actions were those of self defense but even when the community rallied together to beg for her pardon, the public outcry was disregarded and the execution was not called off. This case and these specific circumstances have emphasized the United Nation's disapproval with the death penalty. Iran has executed at least 170 people this year after setting a record last year of the most people executed in any country. Human rights groups look towards first year president Hassan Rouhani as suspected cause for the amount of executions. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated in July that the death penalty has no place in the 21st century. The morality of it all has become a main focus. Members of the UN confirm that such unfortunate actions towards the convicted impede on the process of building international trust.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/25/world/meast/iranian-woman-execution/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews

This was a very unfortunate sequence of events that, in my opinion, took a turn for the worse when Reyhaneh Jabbari was executed. Even after an unfair trial in which presented evidence that could have possibly spared her life was not taken into consideration, she was still hung. While I have never been in favor of the death penalty, this specific case makes it so much more horrible. One would think that self defense could exempt a person from being put to death. The startling frequency of executions shows how easy it is to be convicted and put on death row. I agree with Ki-moon, in such an affluent and quickly advancing world, killing as a punishment should no longer be allowed. It is very uncivilized and primitive. There are other forms of punishment that do not end lives. Sarbandi was only 26 years old and if at some point the evidence needed to exempt her is properly examined, it will be too late. So many executions in Iran does in fact make the nation appear more on the aggressive side, not something that helps promote international peace. Hopefully, what people take away from this is the favorable concept of abolishing the death penalty in all nations.

Containing Ebola Through Quarantine

After Ebola has claimed the lives of an estimated 4,500 people this year, travel to West Africa has become highly unappealing. Volunteers still continue to risk their health with intentions on providing aid to the victims, a commendable act in an ailing country. However, upon returning to the United States, health care workers in states such as Illinois, New Jersey, and New York have been sentenced to a mandatory quarantine period of 3 weeks, the window period of the virus. This was in response to Dr. Craig Spencer's diagnosis of Ebola in New York City. A great amount of controversy has arisen from this situation, specifically amongst Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the state governor's who imposed the quarantine. Dr. Fauci claims that the mandatory quarantine is an unnecessary measure and could possibly discourage those with the intentions of helping people effected by the disease in West Africa. A preferable course of action in his opinion would be a volunteer quarantine. The rather unpleasant experience of Doctors Without Borders nurse Kaci Hickox supported Dr. Fauci's argument after Hickox claimed she was treated like a criminal upon arriving at Newark Liberty International Airport after being in West Africa. She was escorted to the University Hospital in Newark by eight police officers as well as flashing lights and sirens. New Jersey governor Chris Christie and New York governor Andrew Cuomo are in agreement about the taken course of action. Christie states a volunteer isolation period does not cut it when the health of the public is at risk. The disease is easily transmitted through contact with infected bodily fluids and in a state with such a dense population, the utmost protection is completely necessary. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/26/fauci-doesnt-support-new-state-level-mandatory-quarantines/

Clearly, this disease is nothing to underestimate. After so many deaths in West Africa and even the United States where we have a much more affluent health care system, Ebola must be contained in any possible way, even if it means restricting the freedoms of those returning from such an admirable cause. The symptoms of Ebola do not show until after 21 days, but even if the victim undergoes treatment as soon as they are apparent it could be too late. The disease could have already spread. My opinion, why risk it? I agree with both governors Christie and Cuomo. If the health of your loved ones is at risk, why not take some initiative? Be safe rather than sorry, even if the risk is miniscule. In no way should those returning from West Africa be stigmatized or mistreated during a quarantine after such a valiant deed, however. That is completely uncalled for and not the response that is deserved. It is the job of both the state and federal governments to protect the people and keep the nation safe. The quarantine is therefore necessary despite it's inconvenience towards the daily life of a civilian. It is better to inconvenience one rather than put a whole city at the potential risk or Ebola.

Overjoyed same sex couples finally meet at the altar

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-declines-to-review-same-sex-marriage-cases/2014/10/06/ee822848-4d5e-11e4-babe-e91da079cb8a_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

Same sex marriage has long been a topic of controversy in the United States. Laws banning or prohibiting it have been created and repealed. Monday the 6th was a day of great joy for many gay and lesbian couples in more than 30 states. The good news of the rejection of an appeal that had sought to ban weddings of gay couples was cause to rejoice around the nation. The Supreme Court stepped out of the way and allowed the states of Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin as well as states that had formally banned the unions of same sex couples (Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina) to embrace the right to marry. The court did not take on the appeal to declare the constitutionality of gay marriage meaning that the cases were not 100% settled all over the nation, which allowed the decisions of the lower courts to stand. This said that for now, gay marriage could be legal. The expectations were for the court to evaluate the controversy and hopefully make a move finalizing the constitutionality/unconstitutionality of the state courts decisions. This, obviously, was not the outcome. Clearly, not everyone was happy about the Supreme Court's decision to decline review on the marriage cases. Indiana governor Mike Pence had always supported "traditional" marriage and was very frustrated by the court's refusal to hear the "importance" of his arguments. Republican governor Gary Herbert of Utah promised to uphold the law even though it displeased him to see the state lose the right to create laws on marriage. On the other hand, democrats like Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia recognize that this sort of action was long over due. Nevertheless, the opinions of government officials was of no importance to many happy couples that were finally able to legally join in matrimony after a long wait.

I personally can not define a "traditional" marriage. I do know, however, that a man and woman should in no way differ from a woman and a woman or man and man. A marriage is about love, nothing else; it is not defined by what it is physically made up of, but what is made out of it. This all boils down to morals in a way, but it is despicable that an individual, or law for that matter, can come between two people of the same sex that want the same thing that every straight couple wants. In no way does their union effect me or anyone else, I have no right or audacity to interfere. I believe the Supreme Court did well in not interfering with the decisions of the lower court, allowing them to stand with their rulings in favor of same sex couples. Still, I see many states marked "gay marriage banned" on the map. This shouldn't even be such a struggle in my opinion. While very good news, it's really disappointing that this has so much publicity. Gay marriage should not be so controversial, bottom line. They should be allowed to live the same lives as any other American. Steps towards this have been taken today. No, the fight is not over but it is my hope that one day, the Supreme Court embraces what truly makes us American and our map becomes a clean slate.

Anti-american vs. Anti-education?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/changes-in-ap-history-trigger-a-culture-clash-in-colorado/2014/10/05/fa6136a2-4b12-11e4-b72e-d60a9229cc10_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

Controversy in Colorado has flared due to the upholding resistance of the Jefferson County school district against College Board. The mainly conservative Board of Education is taking a stand against the new AP US History curriculum that has been initiated. Two new topics have been added to the course material, including conflict between Native Americans and European settlers from 1491 to 1607, and 1980 to the present which addresses touchy social issues like abortion and the terrorist attacks on September 11. America's past conflict, internal and external, proves that we are not perfect. This bothers the conservatives who believe that putting such knowledge in students heads will condone or encourage civil disorder. A new founded committee meant to ensure censorship of the material exposed to students has been organized, run by the district's very conservative board of education. Teachers, students, and parents are all highly disturbed and disapproving of the new committee's intentions. The community of Jefferson County has rallied together in protest, staging teacher "sick" days, marches in the streets, and even face to face confrontation at board meetings. One student even presented a signed petition of 40,000 names from across the country, clearly demonstrating that the committee had gotten under the skin of people all over. Still, republicans defend their arguments with claims that the course is so "anti-American" that graduating students will be ready to join the Islamic State and that the removal of such uncomfortable subtopics of American history is necessary. Some parents with children enrolled in Jefferson county schools agree with such actions too, saying that American exceptionalism should be a main focus and that the new curriculum deprives students of that knowledge. I say, extreme much?


I have been taking courses in US history since 6th grade and not once have I turned my back on America due to learning about past negative actions. These mistakes and conflicts must be learned from. Avoiding the problem is never the answer, something that we have been taught since elementary school as well. Also, I recognize many of the things that we as Americans enjoy daily and take for granted, such as food, a roof over our heads, and clothes on our backs. In that way, I know that where I live is exceptional, I am safe and comfortable and happy. But when I sit through a history class, I expect to learn the history of America, not a curriculum that has been picked through and scrubbed clean. We have no shortage of accomplishments that we can brag about, but at the same time it is imperative that we get to know the entire story of our past. It all boils down to one question: With such a censored curriculum, are we as students truly LEARNING? No, we are being spoon fed a nonsensical load of lies. As high school students, we need to be educated and aware of our nation's past and present, opposed to what a "censored" education would bring us. Going off to college with a completely different set of knowledge compared to those who have actually been informed of ALL aspects of the United States of America would not do us well in the real world. Patriotism does not come from what we learn, it comes from who we are as Americans in the present and what we chose to become. We need to learn from our mistakes, know what NOT to do again, admit we as a nation are not flawless but work to maintain order through unity AND awareness.

Patriotism Under Pressure?

Act Patriotically to Fix the Pledge

In today's society, patriotism tends to express itself in many different ways, from displaying the American flag outside the front door to shooting red white and blue into the air on Independence Day. One of the most familiar ways, to elementary and high school students more than anyone, is reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Now, it has come to the nation's attention that not everyone chooses to say the pledge. Does this mean that those who do not are disloyal? Communists? Or just down right disrespectful. And what is so controversial about saying the pledge every morning in homeroom? The answer to that is most commonly the appeal towards separation of church and state amongst the US population. Though we live in a society in which a large percentage of the population follows Judeo Christian values, not everyone agrees that "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance. Some school children do not stand during the pledge at school and are heavily reprimanded by teachers or peers. An atheist adult at a town hall meeting was kicked out after refusing to rise as well. Clearly, sitting during the pledge resembles dishonor to America. However, in such a religiously and morally diverse nation, people are bound to have different opinions. Steps have been taken towards reverting towards the original Pledge of Allegiance that did not include the  phrase "Under God," prior to 1954, such as campaigning and organizations unifying in order to rid of the religious expression. The question is which is more patriotic, school children militaristically reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in homeroom every day, or improvement by protesting unjust laws with hope for change.

I am the granddaughter of two United State's veterans. They both served the country valiantly during the second world war. They were never all out, gung ho flag wavers during or after battle, would you call them disloyal to America? Talk about disrespect. When I am criticized for not standing and reciting the pledge or when I am called disloyal, I find it highly more disrespectful than me not saying it at all. Everyone has their own way of portraying patriotism. No one has the right to pressure or compel another person into reciting the pledge. Whether it be for reasons based on the religious aspect of it or some other personal reason, refusing to say the pledge should not be worthy of punishment. Most young school children do not even fully comprehend what the pledge states, yet their teachers call home when a child does not want to say it. I never said it when I was a child, I thought it was illogical to pledge alliance to the FLAG, instead of the actual nation. Plus I never believed in God from the start so I was confused. I did get criticized but as I grew up I realized that I don't care what others think because we all hold different values, who are we to judge others. We can only try to listen and understand. Personally, I still will not be affected if God remains in the pledge or not. I will not be affected if others around me quietly sit or stand and recite.  I just know either way, one person is no more patriotic than the other.

Harrassment in the High Court

Go to Article

Sexism has been increasingly more current in the workplace. The chronic situation of female harassment throughout political industry has been dually noted after Senator Kirsten Gillibrand claimed to be harassed by fellow male colleagues. Unprofessionalism is just an understatement when it comes to the comments of United States political leaders. After recently giving birth, the New York State Senator received rather inappropriate remarks regarding her post-pregnancy physique from male counterparts. One claimed that she was "even pretty when she's fat." An older senator grabbed her by the waist and said he likes his women "chubby." Gillibrand, astounded, held herself in state of decorum by refraining from responding to such comments with profanities. I, myself, do not know if I could have that amount of self control. This situation furthermore emphasizes how being undermined is a daily occurrence for women in the workplace. While this specific case has been brought to light, regarding women as of lesser value is too common in today's society.

Should a woman be subject to such degrading and humiliating comments, nevertheless in the work place?? Of course not and it does not take a super feminist to see that. No woman should have to experience such social injustices. Just because you are a political leader does NOT mean you have the "authority" to lay your hands on another person or make crude comments about their appearance, man or woman!  In America, we most often view discrimination as a problem already dealt with in the past. But has it really vanished as much as we believe? Lower salaries than males, prejudice, plus misogyny continue to victimize women to this day. Though it is SEEMINGLY more passive than other misconducts in the work place, such as Senator Gillibrand's case, sexism should not be disregarded in America. I think it was wise for Gillibrand to publicize such acts. Women, take a stand, don't just simply shake it off. Writing an angry letter to your harasser and throwing it out won't cut it here. Assertiveness and confidence are key. We are just as valuable to society as men. And to men, a real man treats a woman with respect and as an equal. Think about that next time you choose to a pervert.