The PPP Loan Program was created by the CARES Act and carried out by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to provide support to small businesses in maintaining their payroll during the Coronavirus pandemic. This program was approved for $350 billion, but this amount was expanded by an additional $320 billion to meet the demand by struggling businesses, since initial funding was exhausted under two weeks.<br/><br/>Significant controversy surrounds the program. In December 2020, the Department of Justice reported 90 individuals were charged for fraudulent use of funds, totaling $250 million. The loans, which were intended for small business, were actually approved for 450 public companies. Furthermore, the methods of approval are<br/>shrouded in mystery. In an effort to be transparent, the SBA has released information about loan recipients. Conveniently, the SBA has released information of all recipients. Detailed information was released for 661,218 recipients who have received a PPP loan in excess of $150,000. These recipients are the central point of this research.<br/><br/>This research sought to answer two primary questions: how did the SBA determine which loans, and therefore which industries are approved, and did the industries most affected by the pandemic receive the most in PPP loans, as intended by Congress? It was determined that, generally, PPP Loans were approved on the basis of employment percentages relative to the individual state. Furthermore, in general, the loans approved were approved fairly, with respect to the size of the industry. The loans, when adjusted for GDP and Employment factors, yielded a clear ranking that prioritized vulnerable industries first.<br/><br/>However, significant questions remain. The effectiveness of the PPP has been hindered by unclear incentives and negative outcomes, characterized by a government program that has essentially been rushed into service. Furthermore, limitations of available data to regress and compare the SBA's approved loans are not representative of small business.

The depiction of female action heroes in modern blockbuster films has become more accurate throughout the years; however, the representation of women is still not as progressive as feminist scholars, actors, and viewers would like. This thesis explores two recent blockbuster films, Wonder Woman (2017) and Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), and how each film deals with the representation of women. While one could look to many cultural forms to explore such issues, films, “the most accessible representations of the past, present, and future of our society,” are particularly fertile ground for exploring gendered representations and stereotyping (Haskell, 1974). For much of Hollywood history, action films have used female protagonists as either passive, venerated symbols of perfect femininity, or objects of fascination and sexual pleasure for their male viewers. Or, if the female hero does have a degree of agency that allows her to push the plot forward, she is subject to moral scrutiny and frequently masculinized. In fact, the representation of women often falls into binary categories: the angelic damsel in distress, or the morally reprehensible, often masculinized, female villain. While the history of women’s representation in film more generally and action films more specifically is a long and complicated one that is beyond the scope of this project, recent action productions have exhibited notable shifts, both in terms of female characters’ box-office and narrative strength. However, both Wonder Woman and Mad Max: Fury Road, present viewers with examples of female representation that break through many of the misogynistic tropes that have dominated the genre for far too long. The key distinction between how both films destroy gendered stereotypes lies in the degrees to which the films allow their central female protagonists, and more minor female characters, to dominate the narrative and inhabit the composition of the screen. Wonder Woman tells the story of one powerful woman, whereas Fury Road utilizes a multitude of women in its story to defy gender stereotypes. While both films can be interpreted as empowering for female viewers, Wonder Woman gives its audience an easily digestible example of female agency; this is due to Wonder Woman allowing its famous comic book hero to comment and reject traditional women’s clothing, but also insists Diana be limited to hypersexualized battle armour and implicates that women cannot have love, power, and family. On the other hand, Fury Road presents viewers with a more radicalized gynocentric world in which, after considerable struggle and not without compromise, female characters not only have power, but wrest it away from the men who have abusively held onto control in the past. These two films also paved new ground for women in Hollywood production terms: giving women more power at the box-office and destroying the old-aged notion that female-centric films do not sell and make money at the same rate as male-centered ones do. Both Wonder Woman and Mad Max: Fury Road, in their own ways, depict that there is space for female action heroes to be more progressive and feminist in future blockbuster action films.

Music streaming services have affected the music industry from both a financial and legal standpoint. Their current business model affects stakeholders such as artists, users, and investors. These services have been scrutinized recently for their imperfect royalty distribution model. Covid-19 has made these discussions even more relevant as touring income has come to a halt for musicians and the live entertainment industry. <br/>Under the current per-stream model, it is becoming exceedingly hard for artists to make a living off of streams. This forces artists to tour heavily as well as cut corners to create what is essentially “disposable art”. Rapidly releasing multiple projects a year has become the norm for many modern artists. This paper will examine the licensing framework, royalty payout issues, and propose a solution.