Yellow Vest Protests Continue in France

For almost a month now, France has been experiencing protests from the "Yellow Vests" (as the protesters are known), who, as can be seen from the picture, wear bright yellow vests with high visibility. Originally numbering around 100,000, the protesters have swollen in size since the inception of the protests.

The protests were originally initiated to object against a fuel tax increase, but the movement has later morphed into calling for things such as higher wages, lower taxes, and better pensions. Many protesters are disappointed at President Macron for not fulfilling many of the promises he made when he was elected. Many protesters are middle class, claiming that they have been forgotten.

President Macron has announced plans of eliminating taxes on overtime pay and increasing the minimum wage. However, many protesters are still not satisfied; some even call for his resignation. Violence has also broken out.

It seems to me that the Yellow Vest Protests will continue to grow in strength. The goal of the protest has evolved into addressing a much larger problem than a fuel tax increase, and I believe it will continue to evolve as such. As of right now, I'm not sure how the situation will resolve.

As in many countries, a small percentage of the population (the 1%) hold majority of wealth and power over the remaining 99%. The Yellow Vest Protests have demonstrated a call for action against this disproportionate distribution of power.

Questions:
1) How do you think the situation will be resolved?
2) Could this movement spread to other countries?
3) Why do you think the movement has so much support?

Sources:

1) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46513189

2) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/world/europe/macron-france-yellow-vests.html

3) https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/yellow-vests-protesting-france-181206083636240.html

4 people sentenced to prison so far in Mueller's investigation

Special counsel Robert Mueller's recent investigation into the Russian election interference has led to four people being sentenced to person so far. The investigation has prompted Mueller to submit a set of written questions to Trump and it has been reported that the written set of answers has been submitted to the legal team. The four people convicted are Michael Cohen, George Papadopulos,
Alex van der Zwann, and Richard Pinedo.

Cohen pleaded guilty to evading taxes, and violating campaign finance laws, and was sentenced to three years in prison.

Papadopulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and was sentenced to 14 days in prison. He has already served his punishment and was released.

Van der Zwann pleaded guilty to lying to investigators and was sentenced to 30 days in prison.

Pinedo pleaded guilty to identity fraud connected to Russain interference during the election and was sentenced to six months in prison.

This connects to other events in US history where there are investigations into the White House when affairs or scandals come out. For example, Ronald Reagan was also questioned during the Iran-Contra Affair in 1987. Another prominent example is the Monica Lewinsky scandal, as an investigation pushed for answers from President Bill Clinton about his relationship with the White House intern.


1. Do you agree with the sentences that each person was given? If not, what do you think their sentences should have been?

2. Mueller's investigation has included questions posed directly to President Trump. If Trump responds, how will his answers affect his presidency?

3. Judging from their crimes and punishments given out so far, what sentences do you expect the other Trump associates to receive?


Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/12/politics/robert-mueller-sentences/index.html

Trump’s Baseless Claim That Mexico Will Pay for the Wall Through the New Nafta

Article Link

Trump plans to have Mexico build his wall, early Thursday morning Trump tweeted about a a new deal with Mexico and Canada (USMCA) that would replace NAFTA, while forcing Mexico to pay for the wall he intends to build and border Mexico and the US. After signing his deal in November, he awaits ratification for Congress. Some new key provisions would include new rules on automobile production, intellectual property rights and American access to Canadian dairy markets. Mr. Trump claims that the new agreement will increase economic activity in the United States, therefore generating enough tax revenue to offset the cost of his wall. However, there is a lot of skepticism as many believe that if this were to pass, the money being gained from this deal won’t actually go towards the building of the wall. There still question to how much economic growth, and how much revenue it would generate, as most trade agreements actually lead to lower federal revenue from tariffs. There just isn't enough evidence of how his plan will work.

Questions:

1)Do you think that the USMCA agreement will be approved by Canada and Mexico, along with being ratified by Congress?

2)Do you think that there will be enough money gained from Mexico to pay for his wall?

3)Do you think the overall idea of creating a border wall between Mexico and the US, while having Mexico pay for it all is a possible realistic goal?

Ahead of Yemen Vote, Trump Officials Warn of Harming Ties With Saudi Arabia

Summary: The Senate will hold a vote on Thursday in order to determine whether or not the United States will continue its military intervention in Saudi Arabia to fight a war against Yemen. There has been much tension in this vote due to the death of a Saudi journalist. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have advocated for the United States to continue supporting Saudi Arabia with military advising, logistics support, and intelligence. The main reason for opposition against Saudi Arabia's cause is because their campaign against Houthi rebels has killed thousands of civilians and brought famine to Yemen. Trump has argued that it is important not to overreact to every foreign situation otherwise the United States would have no allies. A few top administrative officials fear that the investigation of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman will damage the United State's relationship with Saudi Arabia. However, according to Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, "There needs to be action...We need to hold everyone accountable." Therefore Steve Scalise believes that the Saudis should be punished.


Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, leaving a closed briefing with members of the House on Thursday.

This connects to world history to events such as the United States involvement in Afghanistan after 9/11 because the U.S. is still intervening in foreign countries today. Similar to the past, the decision is not unanimous as there has been heated conflict in the desire to withdraw from Saudi Arabia or at least limit the military.

Questions:
1. Should the United States cut off its military support for Saudi Arabia in its war against Yemen?
2. If the United States does not support Saudi Arabia against Yemen then will this permanently damage the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia?
3. Is Trump correct in saying that we should be more lenient in foreign affairs in order to keep our allies?

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/politics/yemen-saudi-war-pompeo-mattis.html

Trump Announces Attorney General Nomination

Last Friday, President Trump confirmed William Barr as his pick for attorney general, a 
replacement for Jeff Sessions. William Barr previously served as the Attorney General 
during the first Bush Administration. He has also taken several leadership positions in
 the Justice Department. Due to Barr’s comments on events such as the Russia investigation 
and Trump in general, Senate Democrats are apprehensive of his nomination. Based on 
Barr’s previous experience, I believe that he is qualified for the job. However, he will face
 opposition in the Senate due to his political views. I am unsure about how this will affect the 
United State’s international relations.

 

Questions:

1. Do you believe that William Barr will become the Attorney General? What opposition will he face?
2. If Barr is confirmed, how do you think the Department of Justice will change in terms of what
    issues they focus on and what stance will it they take?
   Sources: 
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/06/trumps-new-top-attorney-general-pick-
   once-called-more-clinton-probes-downplayed-trump-russia-collusion/?utm_term=.
   d9e545865139
   
   
   https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/07/opinion/william-barr-attorney-general-trump.html
   
   
   
    

Ada Hegerberg Won the Ballon d’Or; Then She Was Asked if She Knew How to Twerk.

Article Link

On December 3rd, Ada Hegerberg was pronounced the first woman to ever win the Ballon d’Or, a prize which determines the best European soccer player in the world. However, when she went up on stage to receive her prize, the host - French DJ Martin Solveig - asked her if she knew how to twerk. Hegerberg quickly dismissed the question and moved on, but the situation has caused a controversy on social media with many celebrities and fellow athletes commenting on the situation that occurred.

Due to the political climate we are currently in, as well as the female empowerment movement that is going on, many pointed out the sexism regarding Solveig’s comment. Solveig has addressed the idea as a joke, but many are still appalled with the concrete example of sexism, something that is often presented in female athletics. Hegerberg herself tried to focus on the achievement and the progressiveness that is demonstrated through this prize as the male Ballon d’Or has been reserved for male players only since its start in 1956. Solveig has apologized for his comment, and Hegerberg has accepted his apology.

Even though Solveig’s intention might not have been to offend someone, it is clear that the stereotypes regarding male and female athletes are different as male athletes are often more respected than their female counterpart. I believe that it is important that this has been pointed out, and that people are realizing it as a sexist comment.

Discussion questions:

1. Do you believe this was an okay joke to make regarding the context of the situation?

2. If you were Hegerberg, how would you address the situation?

3. How do you think the #MeToo movement plays a role in this event?

Banning of "Baby It's Cold Outside"

            In 1944, Frank Loesser wrote, "Baby It's Cold Outside" as a duet with his wife for LA parties. The song now has become a classic of Christmas music. But people are beginning to truly see the underlying meaning of the song. A Cleveland radio station Star 102 recently removed the song from being played in their Christmas mix due to concerns about its lyrics. The host of the radio station, Glenn Anderson, commented about the banning of the song by saying, "Now, I do realize that when the song was written in 1944, it was a different time, but now while reading it, it seems very manipulative and wrong.  The world we live in is extra sensitive now, and people get easily offended, but in a world where #MeToo has finally given women the voice they deserve, the song has no place." To those who haven't heard the song or don't know the lyrics here is part of the first verse to the song.

"The neighbors might think (Baby it's bad out there)
Say what's in this drink (No cabs to be had out there)
I wish I knew how (Your eyes are like starlight now)
To break this spell (I'll take your hat, your hair looks swell)
I ought to say "No, no, no sir" (Mind if I move in closer?)
At least I'm gonna say that I tried (What's the sense in hurtin' my pride?)"

The line, "Say what's in this drink" has caused the most controversy of all due to its possible reference of spiking the woman drink. But others have a different take on the line. Slay Belle, a feminist blogger from Persephone Magazine commented about the lyric by defending it. "A well-used phrase that was common in movies of the time period and isn’t really used in the same manner any longer. The phrase generally referred to someone saying or doing something they thought they wouldn’t in normal circumstances; it’s a nod to the idea that alcohol is “making” them do something unusual. But the joke is almost always that there is nothing in the drink”

Question:

1. Do you think that this song is portraying a negative or positive message?

2. If you were a radio station host, would you allow the song to be played? Why or why not?

3. Should we be analyzing lyrics in depth and coming up with possible theories or should we just enjoy the song for what it is?

Wisconsin Republicans Defiantly Move to Limit the Power of Incoming Democrats

Article link

Early Wednesday morning Republican legislators in Wisconsin passed legislation intended to limit incoming Democrat Tony Evers' power. Among the proposals were restrictions on early voting and measures to prevent the governor from banning guns in the state capitol without lawmakers' approval. 

At a Christmas tree lighting ceremony on Tuesday, Governor Walker was booed and protestors held up signs reading "All I want for Christmas is Democracy" and "GOP Grinch Steals Democracy." A high school choir's songs were drowned out by chants from the audience. 

During debate on Tuesday evening, doors were closed on the public as shouting protestors disrupted the debate. 

Lame-duck sessions such as these are not uncommon. In 2010 the Democats held an unsuccessful lame-duck session in Wisconsin attempting to enact labor agreements. The proposals in Tuesday's session, however, are more drastic than in past cases. 

Although I believe that this lame-duck session undermines democracy because it deliberately restricts Evers' abilities to enact his policies, I think it's a complicated issue that raises important questions, such as,

1) Should there be regulation on how easily a current leader can undo a past leader's work?

2) Are leaders entitled to a guarantee that at least some of their work won't be immediately undone the moment they leave office?

3) Is it reasonable to attempt to prevent one's progress from being destroyed by an incoming leader of a different party?

4) Where does one draw the line between a reasonable attempt to solidify policies and a deliberate effort to restrict the power of an incoming leader?