Johnson's Gaffes Don't Compare to Trump and Clinton

This piece was originally published in the OC Register. Visit the link to read the whole article.

Three words were all it took for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee for president, to finally get his due coverage from the mainstream media. Three words, spoken on a morning talk show helped to awaken the members of nationally syndicated newspapers everywhere from their decades-long third-party hibernation, ears perked up like a bloodhound having just caught wind of a rabbit rustling in the bushes some 300 yards away. The three words, “What is Aleppo,” gave Johnson the attention he’s deserved since the beginning of the election, but not the coverage he would have wanted.

In the simplest use of the word, Johnson blanking on the war-torn city at the center of Syria’s refugee crisis was a gaffe. It was a mistake – a mistake that shouldn’t have happened, but a mistake. Johnson is familiar with Syria. He’s familiar with the refugee crisis, with the constant gas attacks, bombings and civilian deaths that occur within its boundaries. But in just a moment, he forgot the name of the city that has become the symbol of Syrian crisis, opening the door for the media to pounce. It was the perfect opportunity for people to play the “told you” game.

The man who has been largely out of the limelight the entire election was finally thrust into it for all of the wrong reasons.

Johnson himself said there was “no excuse” for his brain cramp. It was a gaffe in the purest sense of the word, and allowed many to point to a seeming lack of foreign policy understanding on his part.

Johnson’s Aleppo moment was called the end of his campaign and offered as proof he wasn’t “deep enough” to run for president. Perhaps unbeknownst to many, though, is how deep and agreeable his foreign policy actually is. The restrained approach that Johnson advocates for closely aligns with not only the current White House policy, but the belief held by 41 percent of Americans that we do too much abroad.

The Face of Philanthropy is Growing Younger

The generation that we often criticize for being the selfish, engrossed in technology, bratty, spoiled or entitled generation may be taking on a new title: the philanthropic generation.

That’s right–philanthropy has a new face, and it’s younger than you probably imagined. According to reports from Entrepreneur and NBC, among others, millennials are actively trying to buck the trend of the “selfish” label that has been following them in recent years.

An incredible 84 percent of millennials donated money to a charitable cause in 2014, and 70 percent spent at least one hour doing volunteer work–two of the largest means of contributing and giving back to the community imaginable.

Among the negative connotations often associated with the millennial generation is the almost insurmountable burden of student debt they have racked up. This has become such a large issue that it’s been discussed thoroughly in presidential politics and has made its way into mainstream media: the average student graduates with almost $30,000 in student loan debt. And what generation is the one that’s currently graduating (or getting there, or having just graduated): the ever-generous millennials, of course.

Though weighed down by student loans, part-time work and an unimpressive job market, Gen Y-ers managed to contribute an average of $481 dollars per person, per year in recent studies.

In a totally different sector of generosity, millennials outshine all other generations in terms of their propensity for crowdfunding. A relatively new concept that was ushered into the spotlight as technology has continued to advance, crowdfunding seems to fit the millennial build almost to a T. It’s web and internet-based, allowing for the technology-enhanced giving model that millennials have quickly adopted to come into play. According to Entrepreneur, “Millennials are a whopping three times more likely than Baby Boomers to donate to a crowdfunding campaign and 70 percent more likely than Gen Xers.”

Although older generations tended to give more money per person in the grand scheme of things, the tendency for younger people to continue the trend of philanthropy could be pointing to a good sign for the future. If millennials who are in debt and potentially making meager salaries are inclined to donate to philanthropic causes now, the future of philanthropy could be in for increased donations as Gen-Y grows older and more financially secure, while maintaining a charitable outlook on life.

It's Becoming Easier and Easier to Raise Money

It seems that there is a stark divide within this country at this moment. A divide that, at the present, pits generation against generation, traditionalists against modernists, old against new. Whether you fall into the camp of “technology is ruining us as humans” or “technology is bringing about positive change,” it’s tough to debate the effect that new tech has on philanthropy.

While phrases like “I’ll text you” may be debatably sullying our ability to communicate interpersonally as human beings, less-spoken but often-read phrases like “click here to donate” or “support the Johnson family” are having a large-scale effect on how we support charitable causes.

Online fundraising isn’t exactly a “new” means of raising money for positive causes, but with the advent of social media, mass-sharing and more secure online money management methods, the concept is taking on legs of its own in recent years.

Take, for instance, GoFundMe. In essence, GoFundMe is an online fundraising platform–simple, easy to use and effective. But diving deeper and exploring the platform itself lends insight into just how powerful a tool as simple as GoFundMe can be. On it, you’ll find college fundraisers for students who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford a higher education. You’ll find fundraisers to help the elderly retire, help cover expensive medical costs or help feed the homeless. You’ll also find sombering fundraisers, those that collect money to help a family pay for funeral expenses for a loved one, or start a memorial scholarship in the name of a tragically passed friend.

All of the above lend credibility to the fact that technology has had a monumental impact on how we help others. With a click of a button or a tap of a smartphone screen, philanthropists can give $25 to help a student pay for textbooks, or $5,000 to help a terminally ill child receive the care they need. This wouldn’t have been possible without the intersection of technology and philanthropy.

Facebook has also jumped on the bandwagon, adding the ability to add “Donate” buttons to the pages of certain charitable causes to facilitate online donations. In the second quarter of 2016, Facebook–often named as a “fading” social medium–had about 1.71 billion users. Imagine a single platform–even an amalgamation of numerous platforms–that could possibly reach an audience that large without technology.

The next time you go to chide someone for using their phone too frequently, consider how large an impact that simple technologies like a smartphone or a reliable internet connection could have on the people who need it the most.

To win black voters, Trump must fight despair with a job plan

By Yuri Vanetik & Thomas Tucket, originally published in the OC Register.

Donald Trump’s effort to woo black voters has gotten off to a rocky start. The GOP nominee’s main argument – that black communities have been poorly served by Democratic leaders – is certainly powerful. But, as recent polls have shown, this strategy has yet to move the needle with African Americans.

What’s missing from Trump’s appeal is a positive vision for how he will improve the lives of black Americans. And a Republican proposal for creating stable inner-city jobs is exactly the plan the Trump campaign needs.

From Detroit to Washington, D.C. and Chicago, years of progressive policies have produced black communities plagued by dismally high levels of unemployment and crime.

Look at the West Baltimore neighborhood of Sandtown-Winchester. This is the birthplace of Freddie Gray, the young black man whose death while in police custody sparked the riots that ravaged the city last year. Half of the households in this area earn less than $25,000 a year, and the local murder rate is double the citywide average.

To continue reading, click here.

---

Yuri Vanetik: Where Do the Candidates Stand?

Where Do the Candidates Stand - Part I from Yuri Vanetik

A presentation pulled from Yuri Vanetik's Slideshare account. The presentation reviews the social, economic, business and education related platforms of Gary Johnson, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Video below:

How Giving Gives Back

Yuri Vanetik: How Giving Gives Back

From Yuri Vanetik's YouTube page.

When, And Who, Will Be Arts Next Big Thing

This post was previously published on Yuri Vanetik's blog.

We all know the names of the world’s greatest artists–the ones who were famous for breaking new ground, delving into new realms and forcing the eyes and the mind of the art fanatic to bend, twist and reshape with them.  Their names come to mind easily and roll off of our tongues effortlessly.

Vincent Van Gogh.

Pablo Picasso.

Claude Monet.

Andy Warhol.

Whether you like their forms and styles or appreciate what they did for the world of art is neither here nor there. They are the names of the people who will be remembered, whose who will last on in fame forever (or at least as long as our written records survive). They are the names of the people who defined generations of art.

So why hasn’t that happened recently? And who does decide who is and who is not worth having his or her name enshrined among the greatest artists who ever lived?

Well, the answer to that second question is largely critics and those who buy the pieces. Art fairs and exhibits and galleries are, right now, everywhere. Exposure is no longer an issue, and we don’t have to lament about artists not being discovered until after their deaths. With social media and the ubiquitous nature of the internet, artists are posting new content and creating new “revolutionary” content every day. People are branching out and making sure their creations are seen. But they’re not breaking new ground. They’re not recognized as “great” artists. They’re not immortalized in museums. At least not yet.

The first question–why hasn’t this happened just yet in the recent past–is largely based in who does and who does not use their art to push new boundaries and create new forms. Will those like famed comic-book creator Stan Lee be recognized and lauded 100 years from now? What about 500? Lee broke new ground in the comic book field and helped to bring what could now be a dying medium to the masses. But just because the comic book field could see a decline in the relatively near future does not take away from what the art is.

Have we already seen the names and the work of the next big artistic thing–perhaps. My bet is that a name like Banksy will be remembered for centuries and centuries for his influence on street art, even if his real name is not.