Democratic hopeful Warren vows to bar corporate giants from hiring ex-officials

link to article

Possible presidential nominee, Elizabeth Warren, said that she would work to stop large corporations from hiring former senior government officials for at least four years, in an effort to decrease the influence of big money in government. She defined "large corporations" as any corporation that is worth more than $150 billion or has a great deal of control over their industry's market. She has incorporated several measures into her proposal aimed at getting rid of the "revolving door" between lobbyists and the government. (The revolving door is a term used to describe the process of the government hiring industry professionals for their expertise and connections to campaign donations, and in turn, the industries hiring ex-government officials to gain access to more sectors of government.) The proposed penalty for breaking this policy would be a fine equal to 1% of the company's net profit, which could be hundreds of millions of dollars for the bigger companies.

Questions:
1. If she becomes president, do you think Warren could successfully implement a policy like this?

2. If she is able to put this policy to action, is the penalty enough to deter companies from breaking the policy, or should there be more of a penalty?

3. Do you think the "revolving door" is something that needs to be addressed right away, or are there other issues that candidates should be focusing on first?

Trump impeachment: Officer Alexander Vindman raised alarm over Ukraine call

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50223635


Colonel Alexander Vindman was one of the few officials who listened in on the infamous July 25 call between Trump and the Ukrainian president, where the original discussion of the "quid pro quo" sparked. This call, in addition to many other factors, led to the ongoing inquiry, addressing abuse of executive power by Trump and his associates, national security, and America's role on the political stage. Many have argued that Trump's actions fall under the sphere of standard interactions between world leaders, while many like Vindman have described them as "improper." Some have criticized Vindman for potential dual allegiance, as he was born in Ukraine; still, even if these questions undercut the legitimacy of one witness, as a whole the inquiry is untainted.

Questions:
1. What should normal interactions between world leaders look like? As discussed so far, do Trump and Zelensky's interactions fall under this paradigm?
2. How is it possible to tell if someone's political bias undermines their judgment in politically-charged cases such as this impeachment inquiry? Are there instances of this occurring so far?
3. Is Trump accurate in calling this inquiry a "witch hunt"? Why or why not?

The Deadly End of American Policy in Syria

Link Here

This month, Trump pulled U.S. troops out of northern Syria, clearing the way for a Turkish invasion. Previously, in concert with the Syrian Democratic Forces(SDF), the U.S. troops had cleared a large swath of land in northern Syria of ISIS, making it a safe zone guarded by U.S. troops. However, removing those troops puts the entire region in limbo. After losing this safe zone, many of the U.S.-allied Syrians still in the country are debating whether to stay and face the tenuous future of Syria or escape while they can. Throughout the eight years of the Syrian civil war, allies of the U.S. have seen a recurrent pattern: "America largely looked on as its allies were decimated." This holds true for the nonviolent allies in Syria as well. Aid workers, medical teams, and journalists have all been regularly targeted by ISIS, without any significant response from the U.S.

Questions:
1. Did Trump make the right choice in pulling out U.S. troops from Syria?
2. Should the U.S. respond to the Turkish invasion? If so, what action should be taken?

"What About All The Good Times?" Says Cornered President

http://bit.ly/2JpM7bR

In a recent press conference, Trump exhorted the media and the American population as a whole to focus on the positives of his administration in light of recent unpleasant news, arguing that everyone is "just focusing on the negative here". This was prompted by recent revelations about the impeachment inquiry, including that a judge had ordered records from the Mueller report unsealed in light of their potential relevance to the inquiry. Some have criticized Trump's recent remarks as "deflection," saying that his focus on the past as "a real hoot" is inappropriate given the circumstances. Trump has had a history of making untimely remarks, especially recently with his simultaneous denial of a "quid pro quo" with Ukraine while also implying he did the same with China. Whether this is a premonition of the end, characterized by his increasing disarray, or a sign of great confidence has yet to be determined.

Questions:
1. Are Trump's recent appeals to focus on "the good times" a sign of desperation? Are they appropriate right now?
2. Based on this recent press conference, where Trump reminisced about infamous incidents like his "covfefe" remark, do you think Trump is not taking the impeachment inquiry seriously enough?
3. Following from the above, is it appropriate that Trump considers the "covfefe" incident, as well as the taco bowl post and other events widely mocked in the mainstream media, highlights of his presidential career over topics more pertinent to foreign policy?

Japan, South Korea Agree to Mend Ties After Ice-Breaking Talks

link to article

For the past 3-4 months, Japan and South Korea have been waging a major trade war against each other, each pulling out the other's companies and products out of their markets and greatly affecting each others economy. Incidentally, despite this being a modern issue, the reasoning for this trade war goes back to the period of Japanese colonial rule over Korea during WWII. The conflict in particular revolves around the issue of "comfort women", or Korean women taken as sex slaves by the Japanese military to be used as means for reducing stress of Japanese soldiers. This and other things being a devastating blow to the legacy of Japan's colonization of Korea and also a great act of wrongdoing to Korea, the South Korean government demanded for reparations in 1951. 

Japan initially paid Korea around $364 million as compensation to victims of forced labor during Japan's colonial rule, with $200 being allotted to each individual survivor, $1650 per each death, and $2000 per each injured victim. In 1965, the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea was signed, seemingly finalizing diplomatic relations between Japan and Korea post WWII, with Japan paying $800 million in total as "economic cooperation". 

However, South Korea brought up the issue again in recent years, with its Supreme Court demanding that several Japanese companies pay grievances to South Koreans who were forced to supply labor during WWII. Japan on the other hand, argued that the issue of reparations and grievances was already settled and finalized in the 1965 treaty, sparking a great trade war between the two disagreeing countries. After nearly 4 months, Japan and Korea finally seem to have begun peace talks and an effort to a solution to this great issue.

1) On August 2nd, Japan removed South Korea from its list of favored trade partners. How do you think the US, being allies with both Japan and South Korea might be affected by this or might handle this issue?

2) How might Japan and South Korea go about mending relations?

3) What is your stance on the issue of grievances if there is any?

The Age of Appeasement?

   
- Article Link -



     Recently the NBA has been receiving increased scrutiny for an apparent appeasement of China’s Communist Regime. When Houston Rockets General Manager Darl Morey posted  "Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong," on twitter, he was met with forceful pushback. He received so much opposition in fact, that he removed his comment altogether.This is partially due to the fact that China houses a significant percentage of the NBA’s fan base and commercial success.

      Despite this being a major concern, however, this issue does not just lend itself to the NBA, but to other outlets.This is interesting in the light of corporations and industry groups having made modifications to the products and content that is to be released overseas.
      Hollywood and other similar film industries have even admitted to making alterations to box office films in order to boost revenue sales abroad. This was also due in part to the increasing assertiveness of the Chinese government to censor media and other influences that do not play to the ideals of the Communist party. This idea, of how major companies and corporations have been satisfying China's government,  was humorously portrayed in a South Park episode, ironically resulting in the sudden ban of it in China.

      At this current climate it seems as though many individuals are offended by comments or statements that do not align with their world-views.

--- Which begs the question; why should we change our opinions to appease those around us and conform to a popular ideology, if dissent and discourse is an essential part of the democratic process? ---

~I am interested in your thoughts on this…

1.) How is “call-out culture” and “social justice”, affecting the standing of society as a whole? And what may be some unintended consequences of these movements?

2.) How could the major industries and corporations better negate the situation abroad?

3.) Is being politically correct significant if the underlying meaning or idea that is being conveyed is somehow opaque or avoided?

The Corruption of Great Meadow Correctional Facility

Inmate John McMillan Murdered by Prison Guards

NY times Article

In January of this year, John McMillan died of what the medical examiner declared to be a heart attack, but many eye-witness inmates disagree with this ruling. The New York Times interviewed those who claimed to witness a struggle between McMillan and the guards, who, they say, beat McMillan to death. 

        McMillan, in the past, had altercations with guards due to violent behavior, as he suffered from mental illness. However, he had been behaving since those altercations due to his nearing date for a parole hearing. Inmates say that McMillan was not following orders of guards, but also not acting violently when one of the prison employees punched him in the face, leading to other guards joining the scuffle and ultimately beating McMillan to death. One inmate reported having seen a guard attempt to strangle McMillan into submission.

          This incident is not unique when it comes to Great Meadow Correctional Facility. Violence within the facility between inmates and guards alike seems to be widespread, so much so that Governor Andrew Cuomo toured the prison while it was on lockdown following a particularly bad fight between inmates. At this time, one guard was suspended due to accusations of violence toward inmates. The prison is said to have become and example of why nationwide prison reform is necessary, as supported by the Governor. 

       Guards accused of beating McMillan have denied the accusations by inmates, claiming that McMillan attempted to grab one of them, thus making force a necessary evil in order to protect themselves. The prison declined to release body camera footage from the time of the incident, 5:25pm on January 22nd. Medical assistance and an ambulance did not arrive at the scene until over an hour later at 6:40pm, and McMillan arrived at the hospital already deceased 34 minutes later.

        Unrelated to the incident, several other inmates at Great Meadow have filed lawsuits against the guards for unwarranted violence and unusual cruelty toward inmates. Additionally, some have reported instances of guards punishing those who testify against them. 

Questions:

1. What can the government do in order to ensure the safety of inmates at prisons like the one described above?

2. Should there be a requirement for extensive medical staff to be on-site for large prisons in the event that inmates need immediate medical attention?

3. How can corruption of prison guards be stopped? Is there a way in which behavior can be more closely monitored?

Nike CEO Mark Parker to step down in January

Mark Parker speaking during a news conference in New York, 2016

Link to article

SUMMARY:

Yesterday, August 22nd, 2019, Nike's CEO, Mark Parker, announced that he will be stepping down next January. His replacement will be former CEO of ServiceNow, John Donahoe. Many have begun to speculate why Parker has decided to leave the CEO position. Some have attributed the decision to the many scandals that Nike has been plagued. One of these scandals involves a track coach, Alberto Salazar, who was banned for four years by the "USADA", US Anti-Doping Agency,  due to running experiments with testosterone supplements that were "bankrolled and supported by Nike". Allegations of misconduct and gender discrimination have also been proposed reasons as to why Mark Parker decided to step down from the CEO position.  

IMPORTANCE:

This event is important to be acknowledged because it will affect many in the future. A new CEO means new policies for the company, which means changes, which will most likely mean that many jobs will be affected, job loss and loss of extra benefits would be some examples of this. Additionally, a new CEO will most likely impact the stock price of Nike whether it's for the good or bad.

QUESTIONS:

1. Do you believe that Parker decided to step down as CEO due to one of the many scandals started against him?
2. What are some possible changes that Nike might go through once Donahoe takes over as CEO?
3. If you were in Parker's shoes, would you have stepped down as the CEO? Why?

Mother pleads guilty to putting her son through unnecessary medical procedures

Link to article

Kaylene Bowen-Wright was sentenced to 6 years of prison after pleading guilty for child injury leading to bodily injury. During his ten years of life, her son had undergone 13 major surgeries and had visited the doctor more than 300 times.

Eleven days into her son's life, Bowen-Wright and her mother were observed pouring milk her son didn't finish and lied to medical professionals that her son had finished his bottle. After that incident, an eight-year cycle began of Bowen-Wright seeing multiple doctors to seek medical treatment and lie about her son's condition and medical history.

The compliant was placed in hospice when he was 5 years old. He has undergone multiple medical examinations, procedures, surgeries, and was placed on feeding tubes and central line tubes. Bowen-Wright's son developed life-threatening blood infections on two separate accounts.

As a result of this, the compliant has been placed into a foster home and it has been determined that he does not have any current medical conditions. Although he he does not have any current medical problems, he has suffered bodily injury from blood infections and radiation exposure; as well as "serious mental impairment."

Questions:

1. Do you think Bowen-Wright should be given a longer sentence? Why or why not?
2. Are Bowen-Wright's actions justified? Why or why not?
3. How do you think Bowen-Wright's actions will affect her son physically and mentally after all of the mental procedures and surgeries imposed upon him?

Turkey rebuffs U.S. calls for truce in Syria, demands Kurdish fighters disarm

Article Link

Following the U.S. withdrawal from Syria last week and strong bipartisan backlash, as outlined in a below post, the U.S. has called for a cease-fire in northeastern Syria. Unsurprisingly, Turkish President Erdogan rejected the calls, claiming "Nobody can stop us." President Trump has also issued sanctions on senior Turkish officials over the matter.

Along with this, as U.S. troops vacated northeastern Syria, they destroyed old military bases and took weapons and vehicles as to render them useless militarily. However, Russian forces have begun to move into the vacated U.S. bases, and have discovered many supplies still left over, including food, construction equipment, and electronics.

Questions:
1) What additional steps can the U.S. take to encourage a cease-fire, now that sanctions have been shown (who would have thought) to be ineffective?
2) Could the U.S. be unintentionally helping ISIS by leaving supplies behind?
3) How will diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Turkey play out following this fiasco?

Pro-Democratic Protests in Hong Kong Targeting Companies

Article Link

Protesters in Hong Kong have begun targeting large businesses and chains, mainly three companies: Starbucks, Yoshinoya, and Blizzard. These companies have been deemed by the protesters as sympathizers to the Chinese Communist party, due to economic ties and business deals. This puts businesses in tough situations, since on one side, China's market is huge and is a good economic move while the Hong Kong protesters have the support of the Westerners and Taiwanese. Their position in the middle has become increasingly dangerous, based on the increasing number of vandalisms and boycotts against these companies. Apple may be the next target, as protestors have called for attacks at store locations due to Apple removing an app that showed the location of police officers. Other companies have started being targeted as well, due to actions that make them seem sympathetic to the side of the Chinese Communist Party such as Blizzard's suspension of a e-sports player for his comments in support of the movement. However, the negatives of such widespread vandalism have caused much panic in the community, as acts of violence and destruction are commonplace and criticizing them may get you beaten as a pro-Communist sympathizer.

Questions:
1. Do you believe the protestors are justified in vandalizing store locations and boycotting companies that have their hands in the Chinese economy through business deals?
2. What do you think companies that have been targeted should do?
3. Do you believe the protesters are getting out of hand or still within reason?
4. Do you see any way this conflict can end without escalating? If so, what will be the outcome?

Abrar Fahad killing: Bangladesh student was beaten for four hours

                       

article link
On October 9th, 2019 at the Bangladesh University of Engineering, Abrar Fahad was taken from his dorm room and beaten for over four hours. After being tortured for four hours, other students at the University saw him still alive and helped him to the hospital, but he died shortly after that. Groups of students, alumni, and teachers then protested for the death penalty of those guilty of killing Fahad. Prior to this, Fahad wrote a post on social media that criticized the government’s decisions over a water-sharing detail with India, which witnesses believe is the cause of his death and beating. Members of the Bangladesh Chhatra League have used violence and torture towards other students before, and it is reported that they have a connection to Fahad’s death as well.

On different media platforms, such as Twitter, people have political debates all the time, usually never leading to death though. Trump, other officials, and even citizens post their opinions publicly all the time. Even though one person’s opinions can be considered absurd to another person, holding them against their will and killing them is not even thought about. Arguments on social media get dirty, but not the point where someone is killed because their opinion is different than someone else's.

Questions:
1) While some people believe those guilty of killing should be punished with the death penalty, what do you think is an appropriate punishment for the killers?
2) What should happen to the Bangladesh Chhatra League? Is it right for them to remain a group when they have used multiple acts of violence and torture against other students?
3) Are the killers’ actions justified in any way?
4) Did Fahad make a mistake by posting his opinion online? Or did Fahad do nothing wrong?

Turkey Launches Attack on Syria, Sparking Bipartisan Anger

Article link

As Turkey launches a military operation to attack Northeastern Syria, targeting many Kurds that fought with the US against ISIS, the US will do nothing. These former allies are seeing no help from American soldiers, despite having previously allied with them. Trump insists upon a hands-off route, keeping American troops out of the area and drawing out of the Middle East entirely. 

The area is still dealing with destabilization from prior military action, displacement, and ISIS. Many politicians, Democratic and Republican alike, have criticized Trump for failing to keep the peace, allowing ISIS another opportunity to take over, and for not even negotiating a deal with Turkey before withdrawing troops. Many fear for the future of US alliances and the ongoing fight against ISIS, justifiably so. Even typically staunch allies of Trump are joining in the wave of criticism, calling the situation a “disaster in the making.”

Discussion questions:

1. Do you think Trump is right to allow the Turkish attack to happen without much pushback?
2. What legislation could be put into place otherwise, if not Trump’s solution?
3. Would sanctions accomplish anything? 

Trump Asking Ukraine to Investigate Biden

 Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump (SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)

In a 30-minute phone call between President Trump, and newly inaugurated President Zelensky of Ukraine. In a transcript of the conversation released by the White House, Trump seems to ask President Zelensky to look into the Bidens ( both Joe and his' son Hunter ) because of Hunter's involvement with a Ukrainian gas company in the board of directions whose owner was under investigation of money-laundering. For the lack of prosecutions made against Burisma's owner by Ukraine's resigned prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, Trump states in the phone call that "Biden stopped the prosecution" and that "Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me". What is controversial about this is that Trump is asking for foreign intervention which may possibly affect the upcoming Presidential election.

Republican Senator Rob Portman "criticized President Donald Trump for requesting that Ukraine and China investigate former Vice President Joe Biden" [1]. This controversy comes amidst Pelosi's impeachment inquiry of President Trump, but regarding this particular dispute, Senator Portman doesn't "view it as an impeachable offense"[1].

With the coming disputes against President Trump:

Do you believe this attention will create increased polarization in the US?
Or will more Republicans speak against Trump as more evidence is released against him?
With the rapidly growing media as we learned about in class, will more stories act as trial balloons for Trump, and aid him in the election? Or do you think that it will more so jeopardize it?

Sources:
[1]
Transcript
[2]
[3]

As the Supreme Court Gets Back to Work, Five Big Cases to Watch

2019 Supreme Court Justices 

Article link

Monday October 7th is the start date for the Supreme Court's new term. The Supreme Court is made up of 9 individuals with Trump's pick, Brett M. Kavanaugh, as the newest member. Ruth Bader Ginsburg starts her 13th year as a justice after announcing that she is being treated for cancer. 

The court will take on many major cases with ruling that may divide the nation. Some things they will be discussing include: discrimination based on sexual orientation, immigration, abortion, religion, gun control, and "Dreamers." Things like, Roe v. Wade, the Second Amendment, DACA, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are just some of the few topics that are going to be reviewed and possibly revised. Many of these topics are partisan issues, and if rulings change, they will change the way individuals are treated in this country. 

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you think that the supreme court discussing these major issues will cause for more public engagement in politics?

2. Which issue do you think will cause the most discussion amongst the public?

3. Do you think that it is important to review old cases and revise them?

‘Out on a limb’: Inside the Republican reckoning over Trump’s possible impeachment

Article Link

Two weeks ago, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that the House would begin impeachment proceedings against Trump after the whistleblower complaint was released. The complaint suggested that trump may have been soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 election for his own political gain. After confirming his call with the Ukrainian president, Trump recently made a public request that China also investigate Joe Biden. While countless Democrats in Congress have blatantly supported the impeachment of Trump, few Republicans have come out in support of the proceedings. As the fate of an impeachment trial lies in the Senate, some say that GOP senators' calculations are almost entirely political as they weigh their political futures and their allegiance to the president. 11% of Republicans support impeachment, while 86% oppose it. When Senator Mitt Romney tweeted that Trump's appeal to foreign nations is wrong, Trump fired back with an expletive saying that Romney has been fighting with him from the beginning, which signals other Republicans that if they speak out against the president, there will be consequences.

What do you think?
If more evidence emerges that is not in favor of Trump, do you think Republicans will express support for impeachment or remain loyal to the president?
How do you think the media affects Republican officials' decision to speak out about impeachment? If right-leaning media outlets were more critical of Trump's call with Ukraine and his request for China's interference, do you think Republican officials who might be afraid of jeopardizing their political future would openly express support for impeachment?

Harvard Won a Key Affirmative Action Battle. But the War’s Not Over.

Harvard Won a Key Affirmative Action Battle. But the War’s Not Over.

Link to article

This Tuesday, 1 Oct 2019, federal judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that there was no explicit bias in Harvard’s treatment of Asian-American applicants. What might seem like a major victory for Harvard is actually what Mr. Blum, the legal strategist who incited the case, expected. Over 40 years ago, the Supreme Court struck down explicit quotas for minority representation in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. However, they ruled that consideration of race in the form of affirmative action was legal as long as the goal was to achieve a diverse student body, rather than repair past racial injustices as the UC system’s program sought to do. Because the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, only it has the power to reverse this ruling. SFFA, the plaintiff in this case, is expected to take the case to the Supreme Court in the hopes that it will strike down affirmative action, especially with the conservative Supreme Court picked by Trump.

California has a state law, Proposition 209, which bans consideration of race in college admissions, including affirmative action. Following Prop 209, UCs spent billions on race-blind college outreach programs in low-income areas, and eventually achieved a minority acceptance rate equal to pre-Prop 209 levels. However, even though the percentage of students it accepts that come from minority backgrounds is the same, the percentage of minority students that are accepted or even eligible are lower than that of white students. Instead, many incoming students are international students, boasting flawless academic records and paying exorbitant tuition fees, while bringing much-sought-after racial diversity to UC campuses, much to the ire of those who believe they are displacing disadvantaged minorities.

1. Should affirmative action and other programs meant to promote racial diversity focus on assisting disadvantaged minorities, or just promote racial diversity regardless of the economic status of those minority students?
2. Do you believe it is the responsibility of universities to remedy racial inequality, or should they simply accept the best students? Should attempts to remedy inequality start much sooner?
3. Do you believe universities are able to remedy racial inequality?
4. As seen in the chart, Harvard’s undergraduate class has more white students than students of the next three races combined. Does affirmative action really harm Asian-Americans, or do they need it just as much as other minorities? If there is discrimination against Asian-Americans, is it affirmative action, or is it in fact the opposite?

Two Women Potentially Facing Years in Prison over 2016 Oil Pipeline Protests

Jessica Reznicek protesting the construction of the 1,721 mile long

Dakota Access oil pipeline at a construction site near Keokuk, Iowa in 2016.

New York Times Article

On Wednesday, the US attorney’s office for Southern Iowa announced that it had charged two women, Jessica Reznicek and Ruby Montoya with four counts of malicious use of fire, malicious use of fire to commit a felony, and conspiracy to damage an energy facility. If convicted, the two women could face several decades in prison.

These charges are related to the 2016 protests of the construction of the Dakota Access oil Pipeline. Reznicek and Montoya started their protests on the night of the 2016 election, claiming to be fighting to save the environment and for an end to US reliance on fossil fuel. Reznicek and Montoya were arrested for using a crowbar to peel the letters off of a government sign, and later admitted to using oxyacetylene torches to pierce the pipeline and setting fire to heavy machinery that was being used to construct the pipeline. Their interference delayed the completion of the pipeline for several weeks.

The pipeline was officially completed in June 2017, and today, 570,000 barrels of oil flow through it today.

This news is particularly relevant given the recent youth climate protests. It raises interesting questions about how aggressive proponents of action to combat climate change will have to be in order to be noticed. What kinds of things will the movement have to do in order to attract media attention and advance their agenda? Will climate protests become violent in the future?

Discussion Questions:

1.     Were Reznicek and Montoya too aggressive in their protesting of the pipeline? To what degree do they have the right to protest the construction of this pipeline? Should they face prison time for their actions?

2.     Do you think Reznicek and Montoya’s methods of protest are good or bad for the environmentalist movement? How will public perception of the environmentalist movement change because of their actions?

3.     Do you think these types of methods of aggressive protest methods will become  necessary in the near future in order to promote political action to mitigate climate change? Is it likely that climate change protests will become violent as the situation worsens?