After Serena Williams incident, the USTA head says there’s a double standard in tennis

On Saturday, Naomi Osaka and Serena Williams faced off in the women's final at the US Open. Osaka went on to win the first game. During the second game, Wiliams received two violations, the second leading to a point being given to Osaka; the third violation resulted in a game being given to Osaka.

During and after the match, Williams claimed that she was being treated this way because she is a woman. The CEO of the USTA has agreed that there are double standards in tennis, as some men have berated umpires worse than Williams and not faced as severe of repercussions.

I think that both Williams and the chair umpire, Carlos Ramos, could have handled the situation differently. Ramos involved himself in the match too much; even though he was following the code, in such a high stake match, warnings are more common than violations. After the first or second violation, he could have told Williams that if she didn't lay off, he would have to take further action. Williams also let her passion get the best of her. It's important to recognize that she was standing up for her principles, but she knows that the umpire has a lot of control of the match. While this incident was more out of control than most, it definitely highlighted double standards in the sports world.

Do you think that the chair umpire was being gender-biased? Did they both let the situation get out of control? Did Serena face appropriate consequences?

Article link
Coaching Rule

Trump Administration to Close PLO Office

On Monday, the State Department announced the shut down of the unofficial Palestinian embassy in Washington D.C.. The Palestinian Liberation Organization is not technically an embassy representing Palestinian people because the U.S. does not recognize Palestine as a state; however, the P.L.O. offices function with the same purposes as an embassy. The State Department marks the reason for shut down as Palestine is not taking advances for meaningful negotiations with Israel. Additionally, the report mentions that the U.S. is concerned with Palestine's attempts to investigate Israel’s crimes on the border of Gaza through the International Criminal Court. Palestine negotiator Saeb Erekat declares that these actions are a form of bullying and “collective punishment” against the Palestinian people and also claim it is part of a plan to cover up Israel’s crimes. This decision comes after the Trump Administration formally recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, sparking much controversy and debate. These actions have contributed to the deepening rift between the US and Palestine.

Do you think the Trump Administration’s actions were smart in this political climate? Is there any other way the US could have approached the situation?

What does this mean for US’ international relations and how other countries perceive the states?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/palestinians-slam-usvicious-blackmail-as-their-washington-office-is-closed-down/2018/09/10/b49f613e-b4d1-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.092048af472d

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-administration-close-palestine-liberation-organization-office-dc/

Obama Midterm Election Rally

With the 2018 midterm elections coming soon, former President Barack Obama made a rare appearance at the University of Chicago on Friday, where he spoke about the current political climate. At one point he asked the crowd, "What happened to the Republican party?" Indicating the obvious dysfunction the current administration is having. However, the most surprising part of the speech was not his advice to vote, but his demure way of dissing the current President. The former President stated, "It did not start with Donald Trump, he is a symptom, not the cause. He is just capitalizing on resentment that politicians have been fanning for years." Claiming that Trump is harping on the American people to create a divided nation and more problems. By dividing the country nothing will be done, and it makes it harder for the people to work the government. So, Obama urged the audience to go and vote during the next midterm elections, saying, "You've got to vote. When you vote, you've got the power." By urging the college students in the audience go out and vote, Obama claims that it will, "restore some semblance of sanity to our politics." The White House came back with a statement, and claims  that Obama was coming back into the political light to, "case that our country is on the wrong track ." Obama will continue his rally campaign throughout the next two months.

Questions: 1) Do agree with Obama that voting in the Midterm elections will create changes towards a positive direction?
2)  Do you think Obama's speech will have an impact on the number of youth voting?
3) Obama got a lot of criticism for his comments about the Republican party, do you think it was justified? Why or why not?

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dramatic-change-obama-hits-campaign-trail-swinging-trump/story?id=57675836

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/07/politics/barack-obama-illinois-midterms-speech/index.html

Quiet resistance within the Trump adminstration

Article link

                                          Source: Business Insider

The news story is a NYT piece about the general chaos in the administration over the past week of pieces discussing the situation inside the white house as a chaotic mess where staffers intentionally try and prevent some of Trump's destructive actions. Notable pieces that tell this story are an anonymous NYT editorial written by an anonymous high level official in the Trump administration, and a book by Bob Woodward, who was one of the journalists critical in uncovering the truth of Watergate, which eventually lead to Nixon's impeachment. This is critical for international relations because the President is meant to represent the US, and if his authority is being bypassed by members of his cabinet, that is incredibly unusual. This will also have some unknown impact on the midterm elections later this year, as people may be more willing to vote Republican even if they dislike Trump because they think other Republicans still have their best interests in mind. 

Some questions to discuss: 1) Is presidential cabinet members deliberately and secretly acting against the President's wishes absolutely unacceptable regardless of circumstance, or is there some situation which may make such an act allowable, if so what? 2) What effect will these revelations have on the midterm elections.

Controversy over Kaepernick's Appearance in New Nike Ad Campaign

Announced on Monday, Nike's 30th anniversary "Just Do It" campaign has been quickly met with considerable criticism nationwide. The controversy seems to be primarily due to its feature of former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. In 2016, the quarterback's decision to kneel during the national anthem in protest of police violence caused much dispute. Now, with Kaepernick as the face of the campaign, the debate has been rejuvenated. In response to the campaign, protesters have burned Nike products and called for a boycott of Nike products, ultimately leading to a drop in Nike stocks. President Trump has also spoken out, calling the ad a "terrible decision." Meanwhile, others praise Kaepernick and Nike's decision as being a clever method of both representing the brand and promoting social activism.

Comparing it to other nonviolent protest such as the Occupy Wall Street and Civil Rights movements, Kaepernick and his supporters have backed his actions as simply exercising his freedom of speech, a core principle of the United States government.

Questions:

1. Do you think it was a good decision for Nike to include Kaepernick in the campaign (economically, socially, etc.)?

2. It has almost been two years since Kaepernick first kneeled, and there have been many other events since then that have influenced the debate. However, despite two years having passed, there seems to be little progress on either side of the argument. Why do you think this is so? When it comes to controversy over such nonviolent protests, will there ever be a consensus? If so, what will need to be done?

Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/09/04/trump-calls-nikes-colin-kaepernick-ad-a-terrible-message-but-tempers-criticism/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.cbc6ce0e2c4f

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nike-kaepernick/kaepernick-ads-spark-boycott-calls-but-nike-is-seen-as-winning-in-the-end-idUSKCN1LK1DK

Brett Kavanaugh's first hearing, partisan fury, and protestor arrests

Brett Kavanaugh is a 53 year old judge that currently serves on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and is President Trump’s pick for Supreme Court Justice nominee. Many people are concerned about his nomination for numerous reasons, the biggest one being his conservative bias. Democrats are especially concerned about this because of the many laws and decisions he could now help overturn. Many are concerned with cases such as the Roe v. Wade case in which abortion was legalized as he would be the 5th male judge on the Supreme Court and would make the Supreme Court majority conservative. He is also stated to be in favor of big businesses and expansive presidential power which worries many that he will protect the president from the due process of the law. This was one of the main arguments that Democrats brought up during his first trial claiming that he will most likely be ill-intentioned.  

Democrats interrupted multiple times during the first court hearing claiming that the Republicans are withholding certain documents that have important information about Brett Kavanaugh. The judge claimed that there were enough documents being read and reviewed and denied the Democrats request. The Democrats continuously attempted to postpone the hearing with interruptions and requests but the chairman declared that there was no solid reason for the hearing to be postponed.

Many protestors also shouted their opinions during the hearing which ended with about 70 arrests. Many people yelled their opposition to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh and were escorted out showing the immense opposition there is to his nomination. Some senators called this a “mob rule” and “disrespectful” to the law; however, other senators claimed it was merely a showcase of true democracy in which people have the right to state their opinions and not be cruelly punished for it.

Questions:

1) Are political parties becoming too divisive? Why or why not?

2) Do you think people should be allowed to interrupt the hearing? Why or why not?


Websites:- https://www.npr.org/2018/09/04/644602519/kavanaugh-hearings-day-1-protesters-focus-on-roe-attempted-handshake-goes-viral- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kavanaugh-hearing-trumps-nominee-will-pledge-to-be-a-neutral-and-impartial-arbiter/2018/09/04/5fbaec1a-b035-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.246c7ecd778c
- https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-hearing-dle/index.html

John McCain is honored at Washington National Cathedral cathedral service, yet Donald Trump is not invited.

This past Saturday, late Senator John McCain of Arizona was honored at his funeral at the Washington National Cathedral. He died August 25, 2018 after stopping his cancer treatment following a long battle with brain cancer. The Senator was remembered as a war hero, former congressman, senator, and Republican presidential candidate, bringing together both Democratic and Republican politicians. This included guests such as Barack and Michelle Obama, George W. and Laura Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and many others. Though the funeral portrayed a wide range of politicians, John McCain insisted before his death that current President Donald Trump would not be invited nor welcome at his service.

In the past, McCain had blocked some of Trump’s proposed policies, and Trump repeatedly attacked McCain for his military strategy back during the Vietnam War. A major place of conflict is when Senator McCain refused to vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act which seemed to have blindsided the President back in 2017. The two engaged in several more conflicts, and McCain continued to express his discontent about the President Trump's actions as seen by his decision not to invite him to his funeral. Instead, Trump spent his day golfing and tweeting about unrelated political events.

During the funeral, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and McCain’s daughter, Meghan McCain, delivered touching eulogies, all of which subtly expressed criticism for Donald Trump and his political agenda. In fact, Meghan McCain stated that “the America of John McCain has no need to be made great again because America was always great,” which targets Trump’s founding slogan. Similarly, though Obama’s and Bush’s speeches did not explicitly mention Donald Trump’s name, they made sure that their tributes would be heard with an unspoken contrast to our current President. These comments from very well-known politicians resonate with the people about the current tense political state.

Questions:

1. What does Trump’s absence at McCain’s funeral reveal about the current political state?

2. What message do you think McCain tried to send to Trump by declaring him unwelcome at his funeral?

Sources: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/us/politics/john-mccain-funeral.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/us/politics/trump-john-mccain.html

http://time.com/4993304/john-mccain-donald-trump-feud-remarks/