In an article in the New York Times called "Why Sexism at the Office Makes Women Love Hillary Clinton", Jill Filipovic argues that older women who have had more experience with sexism, and different experiences than younger generations, are more likely to support Hillary Clinton. She says that women can relate to her when they see a qualified female candidate contested by what they feel is a less qualified male candidate, as it mirrors their work experiences.

Her target audience seems to be women in general, but seems to try to be persuasive to younger women who might be Sanders supporters. She lays out some statistics about the wage gap and gives personal experiences of her own growing up, graduating college and joining the workforce, and increasing exposure to discrimination. She compares people who claim they want to see a woman in the White House, just not Hillary, to discriminatory hiring practices who turn down qualified women.

Filipovic does provide lots of sources to back up her factual claims, although none of her claims are unbelievable or necessarily new ideas. The problem I have with her overall argument is that it is basically saying we should probably vote for Hillary because it would be some kind of feminist victory. That'll show all those men who talked over us at work! All of her talk about gender inequality in the workplace doesn't seem to me to be a valid enough argument to vote for someone simply because she's a woman. Gender inequality and the pay gap aren't unimportant issues but there are so many other issues just as important that I'm skeptical about Hillary's position on, and Filipovic seems to ignore all those other issues.

While the idea of a female president and an overall better place for women is certainly appealing, I think this particular argument is a bit short-sighted. I too would love to see a woman in the White House but gender is not the most important aspect of a presidential candidate and it seems sexist to suggest that.

Should the argument of state's rights along with the coal industry get in the way of legislation which many believe would lead to a greater good? As detailed in this recent article in The New York Times, that seems to be exactly what is happening.

President Obama had introduced a regulation to require states to cut back on greenhouse gases. The regulation was part of a U.N. pact on climate change which happened in December. At the urging of 27 states, the Supreme Court temporarily put a halt on the proceedings. According to the article, "the Supreme Court had never before granted a request to halt a regulation before review by a federal appeals court."

This article is a good modern example of some of the topics we've been learning about, including the role of the Supreme Court and state's rights. The decision was made 5-4, with all of the conservative justices supporting the halt and all of the liberal justices against the halt. It seems to be a somewhat historic decision, although short-sighted. The short-term financial interests are impeding long-term environmental interests, as usual.