I land somewhere in the middle of this argument. I believe that impartiality should remain a focus of good news writing but that news also has a lot that it could learn from the opinion and column styles. Glenn Greenwald states "the only real metric of journalism that should matter is accuracy and reliability." If being open with the reader about the author's biases provides a greater understanding of the topic then it should be encouraged. This is why I think that an objective column that practices good journalism is intensely powerful in a way that news writing is not. If the columnist can lift the veil between themselves and the reader and display their own struggle for impartiality the reader gains a far better understanding of the issue than if the author either presented their personal opinion or a so called objective opinion. I believe that presenting the struggle for impartiality can teach the reader a lot more about the subject than either opinion or impartiality can possibly do on their own. For example if I were to write an article on the economic affects of immigration I could write an extremely biased article (which would not appear to dissimilar from other so called reliable reporting) that aligns with all the standard liberal position on immigration, which would only be read by other liberals and which would fail in its principle task to inform my audience on the issue because they would be receiving only one side of a highly partisan topic. If instead I wrote an article which confessed my own biases and struggle to come to terms with economic facts that do not support my position. It is entertaining for me to imagine an newspaper which draws equal numbers writers from all sides of political issues so that the goal of impartiality in that kind of environment would become eye opening for both the journalists and the readers instead of being "neutering" as Greenwald says.

Which side one falls on the question of raising the minimum wage often aligns more with a person's political stance than with their knowledge of the economy, i.e. its a very politicized issue and people tend to believe what they want to believe. As I understand it (I could be wrong) conservatives generally argue that raising the minimum wage has no actual benefit to the economy and actually has a negative impact by causing employers to higher less as stated in the article. The liberal argument generally is that the minimum wage should be above what is needed to live above the federal poverty and that it is an oversimplification of economics to say that raising the minimum wage reduces employment.

While I think there are logical reasons for both arguments I still think that it is a economic crime that the federal minimum wage is below the poverty line and that so many americans in the 21st century do not make a living wage. But maybe I am just letting my liberal bias effect my opinion...

This article makes a pretty strong point for raising the minim wage and is a classic liberal position ( that I agree with!)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sanjay-sanghoee/minimum-wage_b_2175801.html

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/C-W-Nevius-Racism-alive-and-well-in-S-F-2504634.php

I found this while doing research for my column. It's exciting that a study has proven this phenomenon. I'm slightly skeptical of the control method for race and socioeconomic status but that in no way makes this fact any less true only harder to prove. This study claims to have separated the racial and economical factors and I'm not sure if that is entirely possible. Either way I think this is a problem that needs to be addressed in the SF school districts, though how to fix it is an interesting debate onto itself.

Is the high school endorsing the separation of sexes and sexist traditions by holding an all girl prom? More likely it is a necessary compromise, these kids who would never have been able to go to prom now can have the experience.

It's interesting to note the article's description of how the girls "literally let their hair down for the first time" at this prom. In a society ruled by men that does not allow women freedom when they are out in the open it's interesting how a 'society of women' becomes the only time they can be truly free. This was probably an extremely powerful event for these girls and I wonder if the impact of this event could cause them to be more rebellious against the power dynamic in the future. So by conforming a little to a sexist tradition the school is actually promoting social revolution in an interesting underhanded way.

I think the Bachdel test often can provide an interesting statistic in analyzing films, however I do not think it should be used to grade movies for public consumption. While it is interesting for example that so many films fail to pass that test and are probably exerting a subconscious gender bias that should be fought however I can easily imagine making a film that passes that test simply by having two women talk about a stereotypical thing such as shopping. Grading films on their gender bias requires a much more complicated test than the Bachdel test as fascinating as its results may be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/world/middleeast/in-an-israeli-plan-bedouins-see-a-threat-to-their-way-of-life.html

The conflict over this issue brings up many interesting questions. Do the Israelis actually have the bedouins best interests at heart? (probably not) To what extent is this issue a clash of two very different cultures, one western and modern, the other Arabic and traditional, and do the two groups have a different understanding of the importance of land ownership and technology? Is it possible to imagine a nomadic modern society? It would certainly be fascinating place, where cell phones and solar panels combine with tents and traditional garb. The teacher Mr. Alamour seams to be on the way to living this kind of life.