Stuff YOU Should Know
SuperShe
Have you ever dreamed about being rich enough to buy an island all your own? Entrepreneur Kristin Roth has done exactly that. Plus, she has taken the idea a step further: her SuperShe Island is a place where no men are allowed.
Palm trees in the wind;
Credit: mrdoomits/Getty Images
That’s right: no men at all. Up to ten women at a time can visit the 8.4-acre resort island, which is located off the coast of Finland. The goal is for high-powered women to spend a few days relaxing, reconnecting with each other, and networking–much the same way executive men might traditionally do with a few rounds of golf. Roth sees this as a way to empower women across the globe. The experience emphasizes sisterhood: strong women lifting each other up, rather than tearing each other down. Also, because of its focus on health and wellness, the island is entirely substance-free.
But some people aren’t happy with Roth’s resort–and not just the men who are excluded from it. The price tag for a stay on the island is incredibly high (about $3,500 per week), and Roth herself hand-picks the women who are allowed to participate. Furthermore, although Roth says everyone who identifies as a woman is allowed to apply, questions have been raised about how inclusive the island will be for trans women.
Roth, who purchased the island last September, will begin accepting applications to the resort in July.
What Do You Think? Do you think it’s fair that Roth has created a space for women only, where no men are allowed? Why or why not? As always, please remember to be respectful with your response.
North Meets South
On Friday, North Korean leader Kim Jung-Un met with South Korean president Moon Jae-in. It was only the third time that top officials from the two countries have met since the Korean War began 68 years ago, and also the first time a North Korean leader has ever set foot in South Korea (the summit took place in the border village of Panmunjom).
So what was talked about at this historic meeting? The two leaders presented a united front as they discussed their eventual plans for a completely de-nuclearized Korean peninsula. They also talked about working with the United States (and perhaps China too) to set up terms to officially end the Korean War. (Even though an uneasy peace was reached with an armistice in 1953, the war technically never ended because the two nations couldn’t officially agree on a peace treaty.) In the meantime, the two leaders have agreed to open a liaison office on the border and to work to reunite families who have been separated by the border between the countries. Mr. Moon also plans to visit North Korea in the fall.
Some have criticized the summit for being a lot of showmanship without much action. For example, the leaders held hands as they stepped together over the demilitarized zone, the border that has separated the two nations for almost 70 years. They also shared a private 30-minute lunch without their aides present. All of these are great signs of hope, while plans to carry out the summit’s goals (de-nuclearization and a peace treaty) remained vague.
President Trump will meet with Kim Jung-Un next month to discuss North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.
What Do You Think? In your opinion, was last Friday’s summit a success? Why or why not?
Travel Ban 3.0?
One of the most controversial topics of the Trump administration has been the issue of immigration. Trump’s latest travel ban–the third version of it–is currently being debated by the Supreme Court. This latest ban would ban almost all immigrants from five predominantly Muslim countries, as well as travelers from North Korea and government officials from Venezuela.
Related Link: Click here to learn more about the immigration ban from the Election Central Web site.
And it looks like the Supreme Court might be in support of Trump this time around. The argument made by several of the justices is that if a president and his or her Cabinet decide that there is a security threat, the Court cannot interfere with that. This contradicts what many of the lower courts have said, which is that the travel ban is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and illegal.
Immigration reform has been one of the cornerstones of Trump’s presidency. If the Supreme Court supports this latest version of his travel plan–which Trump complains has been weakened by previous White House administrations–it will be a major victory for the Trump administration.
When coming to a verdict, the Supreme Court must consider all of the usual factors, plus 71 friend-of-the-court briefs, 54 of which were filed against the ban by people such as former national security experts, religious leaders, and ex-military figures. These critics of the executive action argue that the travel ban is unconstitutional because the Constitution rules against discrimination based on religion. But those in favor of the ban argue that it doesn’t discriminate: there are roughly fifty Muslim-majority countries, and most of them aren’t included in the ban.
What Do You Think? Write a “friend-of-the-court” brief in which you state whether you are in favor of the latest version of the travel ban or against it, and explain your reasons why.
A Dirty Past
Imagine that you are a scientist who wants to learn about what people ate in ancient times. What’s the best way to do it? Did you consider examining ancient feces?!
A team of European scientists has done just that, collecting DNA samples of excrement from the early 11th century to the 18th century. The samples were found in northern Europe, in what is today Denmark, the Netherlands, and Lithuania.
Here’s how it works. People back then were not able to practice the greatest hygiene habits. So, most of them contracted some kind of intestinal worm in their lifetimes. Today’s scientists are able to use DNA sampling to determine exactly what types of parasites people had, and from there, figure out what they ate. For example, in Northern Europe, we now know that people ate a lot of fish because there were fish parasites in their feces. In Denmark, people had tapeworms that come from eating raw or undercooked pork. Scientists also found the DNA of fin whales.
While this is all very interesting, other scientists have criticized the study for its lack of useful conclusions. For example, the findings don’t really tell us much about what life was like during that time period, how people migrated, or how diseases spread. Defenders of the study say that now that scientists have all of this raw DNA evidence at their disposal, it will be easy to draw broader conclusions in the future.