Monday, December 17, 2018

7-year-old Migrant girl dies in the custody of Border Patrol

As 7 year old Jackeline Caal was being transported to a Border Patrol station, she felt very ill. By the end of the trip, she had died and authorities claim it was because she had received almost no food and water for days. Initially, the girl looked healthy as even the father signed a form that stated the girl was in good health. The girl along with her family were arrested in a large group along the border. However, the father and daughter did not board the bus until 4:30 a.m. She began vomiting at 5. Authorities radioed ahead to have emergency medical technicians available when they arrived in a town miles away. By the time they arrived, at 6:30, she had stopped breathing. It seemed she died with swelling of her brain and liver failure. Many of the authorities have said it is unacceptable and that anyone in that condition would be immediately taken into medical care.

In my opinion, I believe that the girl shouldn’t have died in the Border Patrol’s custody and it is inhumane to let her go like that. Stricter procedures and assigning more agents when arresting larger groups would prevent such a tragedy from happening. A medical professional should also be available at hand in case of any underlying emergencies that are inevitable in such volatile conditions where migrants can spend weeks on the road. If at least one of these solutions were implemented beforehand, the agency and the government would have avoided such a tragic incident from occurring. It also calls into attention the tightening of the border under the Trump administration and its effects from the separation of families to this girl’s death.

Questions:
  1. Do you believe that the agency is responsible for the girl’s death?
  2. Was this death preventable? If so, what would have been the solution(s)?

Monday, December 10, 2018

Resistance, Protests, and Uncertainty Amid UN Climate Meet in Poland

"If we don't take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon." - Naturalist Sir David Attenborough, Speaking at the COP24 Conference

The two-week 24th annual Conference of the Parties (COP24) ending this Friday has already been overshadowed by doubt and division as it focuses on setting new rules for countries to follow to try and stamp out the vague protocol laid out by the 2015 Paris Accords. A major point of controversy is the joint motion by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Kuwait in lessening the consideration of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report that finds climate change to be accelerating closer towards 3 degrees Celsius by the end of the century as opposed to keeping emissions below 1.5 degrees, at which point the report predicts a catastrophic decline in environmental conditions. Global temperatures have risen less than 2°, yet tangible warning signs are already beginning to appear: melting ice caps, increased range and intensity of tropical diseases like dengue, climate refugees from sinking islands, and the disruption of the life cycles of countless nonhuman organisms.


“In Kiribati, an island republic in the Central Pacific, large parts of the village Eita (above) have succumbed to flooding from the sea.” - NPR

“A new report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) … finds a variety of increasingly severe effects as soon as a rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius arrives — an outcome that can’t be avoided without emissions cuts so steep that they would require societal transformations without any known historical parallel, the panel found.” - The Washington Post

More clearly needs to be done to curtail emissions and slow down climate change, and the United States’ backtracking from its commitments under the Trump administration betrays a serious and consequential ignorance on this issue. Within two years this administration has shown its willingness to shun decades of scientific consensus and peer-review, public opinion, its own climate report, and a series of historic international agreements set in motion by previous presidents.

“As we have made clear in the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other bodies, the United States has not endorsed the findings of the report.” - U.S. State Dept. Spokesman

While climate denial might seem to be the culprit, the reality is much more disheartening; every nation has signed on to the Paris Accords, including the United States, recognizing that climate change is an existential threat that will come to impact all nations, and that action needs to be taken immediately and staggered as technological and economic factors enable more efficient transition. It’s not that there are any delusions about the problem, but when it comes down to the solution, things get really hairy over the prices each unique economy and nation must take on to do their part.

The disagreements that loomed over developed and undeveloped countries (a complicated system of finger pointing in which developed countries, for having polluted in their developing phase, are haggling over how much they get to tell developing countries not to pollute/must provide assistance if a transition is expected to happen in those countries) in the past, such as the failed and sparsely supported Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen led to a practically nonexistent enforcement mechanism to get all the countries on board, that also essentially allows countries to self report their progress and set their own individual goals. This is a major reason why the U.S. hasn’t withdrawn, and why Saudi Arabia is even part of the agreement - it has no legal basis and operates solely on the goodwill of all countries. COP24 aims to fix the vagueness of the optimistic Paris Accords and hammer out some rules, but the obstruction of Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United States, and many other developing nations will likely hamper down any international standards.



Meanwhile in Paris, the “Yellow Vest” protest movement have taken sometimes violently to the streets in protest against the Macron administration gas tax increase, attacking the tax as a simple added cost of living rather than an incentive to reduce emissions. The cost per gallon in France is equivalent to $6 because of a ~60% tax, and not enough tax money is going to incentivizing renewables. The measures demonstrate the need for efficiency and trust between the government and the working/middle class when carrying the burden to its citizens.

“Some governments are intent on having ambitious plans for meeting the Paris climate conference goals, but they have to survive politically long enough to put them in place. Macron and the French government have skipped over the part involving the workers and the community.” - Vonda Brunsting, Researcher at Harvard

“France’s suspension of a fuel tax increase after violent protests signaled the perils that governments in wealthier countries may face in setting policies to fight climate change.” - New York Times

The future isn’t entirely dubious, as climate change becomes an increasingly popular issue among political activists and the public. Technology will also expand our ability to efficiently and even economically combat the issue. The development of renewable, fission, and fusion energy and carbon storage/nitrogen retention will combat the progression of man-made climate change, and more immediate dangers are reduced by coastal engineering and more effective disease containment. Technological advancement is volatile, and could prove to be a powerful force in preventing, mitigating, and promoting awareness against climate change.

However, climate change as a political issue is still slowmoving. Conflicts in international negotiations where each country still acts in their sole interests. Inefficient and counteractive taxations. Protests against them. Misinformation and lobbying by corporations. In the fight to preserve our climate, the major pitfalls come down to our collective inability to think as a species over our immediate individual interests. It’s tough to present compelling imagery and evidence of the vast destruction that will beset our planet, but An Inconvenient Truth (2006) does an excellent job of exposing the warning signs, future consequences, and political/technological obstacles against climate action. The message propagated by Al Gore and other climate advocates should be clear - that we are fighting climate change not in our own interests alone, but for those that will be/are being dislocated by the climate, affected by increased disease ranges and severe natural disasters, and potentially unpredictably severe crises 100 years in the future, long after none currently living remain.   

What other factors may influence the outcome of the COP24 conference? Can the world function without U.S. leadership in this sector, or is this the beginning of a larger anti-climate movement? Should climate change be a much larger issue, and if so, how can more attention be brought to solving it? What will be the tipping point for climate action - will it finally be orchestrated as a united coalition as aspired for the past half-century, or must individual nations, companies, states, or people take a global issue?

Sources:


Sunday, December 9, 2018

Legal Action Considered after Republicans Pass Bills Restricting Authority of Posts They Lost after the Midterm Elections


Image result for wisconsin protest evers
After the 2018 midterm elections, the republican-led Wisconsin congress has passed a set of bills
restricting the powers of the governor and attorney general in a lame-duck session just before the
incoming democratic governor and attorney general take their posts. Also in the bills is an attempt
to restrict early voting, seen widely as an anti-democratic move to lower turnout and diminish the
mail-in ballots that favor democrats. In light of intense public backlash, Robin Vos, the republican
Speaker of the Assembly, said that the bills would help the legislature remain equal to the executive,
and allow republicans to continue their agenda, despite losing this election. At the same time, he
also accused democrats of exaggerating the bill’s effects. The state’s current governor Scott Walker
has already signalled support for the bills.


"Today's extraordinary sessions codifies into law reforms that have been
eight years in the making” - Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott
Fitzgerald (R)


Despite republican attempts to rationalize and even frame these bills in a positive light ahead of
Walker’s likely signing - he has signaled approval for the bills, protesters have taken to the streets
and rallied at the state capitol, and legal action is being considered by the democrats. The partisan
tactic of the bills has been used in the state before, and it is likely these will see much stronger legal
action and public opposition.


"We sued Wisconsin over their ID law in 2016. We sued again when
Wisconsin failed to hold special elections. If the GOP thinks they can
disenfranchise voters by cutting early voting without a fight, they are
wrong” - Election Lawyer Marc Elias (D)


Although republicans have decided to distort election results without recourse and try to make it
seem almost reasonable, even rational, make no mistake - the consequences of this bill shift control
significantly towards their party agenda and against the voters' wishes. If these bills go into effect,
the new attorney general will not be able to retract the state’s lawsuit against Obamacare and the
governor the lawsuit against the ACA, appointment power for economic executives redelegated to
legislators, and the governor will not be able to ban guns within the capital, key points from the
campaign that voters voted for.  


"Wisconsin should be embarrassed by this” - Tony Evers, Governor-Elect
(D)


In my opinion, this partisan fiasco draws a clear parallel to our class discussion about the impact of
polarization on government. Because the framers of the Constitution did not account for ideology
to trump the nation’s institutions, our codified institutional defenses are interbranch of goverment
rather than intrabranch. The legislatures on the national and the state level now either abuse the lack
of defenses against gerrymandering and filibustering itself into inactivity when convenient, or tries to
consolidate power from other branches, depending upon whether it benefits their party, and not the
institution itself.


What do you believe about the intentions of the Republican legislature in Wisconsin? Should a
congress be allowed to change the balance of power in the transition period of an election? Will these
bills be struck down by the courts, or otherwise stopped? How do the current public displays of
outrage and protests play out in all this? And in the longer term, what can be done to alleviate the
increasingly borderline violations of government officials in these polarizing times?


Sources:

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

United States Stalls Planned Escalation in China Trade War as Negotiations Begin


Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, and government officials met over dinner at the G20. After the talks, the United States has decided to put a 90-day delay on plans to raise existing tariffs on certain chinese imports from 10 to 25 percent (valued at approximately $200 billion in addition to the $250 billion placed on China). While other details of initial agreements remain vague and inconsistent, the stated intention on both sides is to attempt to negotiate a proper de-escalation of the trade war, which both nations would benefit from.




On the table are not only tariffs, but also the large trade deficit in favor of China, and their business malpractices blocking and stealing intellectual property from United States companies. So far, no promises have been made on either side, but China has suggested many concessions it plans to consider, including narrowing the trade deficit by purchasing U.S. goods, lowering tariffs, stopping U.S. Fentanyl sale, ceasing to block a takeover of NXP (Dutch manufacturer of computer chips) by Qualcomm, and investigating intellectual property theft. All these promises seem to place the U.S. in good standing, especially having made no major concessions besides the tariff delay. However, Trump’s advisors and policy analysts have not expressed much certainty over the possibility of such a win actually materializing, pointing to China’s vague language, uncertain intentions, and their long standing inaction towards the invasive treatment of tech companies from the U.S.

“Much of the credibility of this discussion will hinge on rapid movement and implementation of China’s commitments.” - Larry Kudlow, U.S. Economic Advisor

Despite the uncertainty surrounding China’s intentions for the ceasefire negotiations, president Trump sent a series of tweets after the summit that pretty clearly portrays the deal in a positive light. He claimed that China is agreeing to “reduce and remove tariffs on cars coming into China from the U.S. Currently the tariff is 40%,” with no confirmation or similar announcment from Chinese officials and media. Referencing the trade deficit and China’s apparent pledge to immediately purchase agricultural goods, Trump also touted the benefits that farmers would receive. Farmers for Free Trade remains skeptical because of continuing tariffs impacting their sales.


Although those who get their news directly from the president may see this as a major victory, getting so many promises from China with little U.S. concession, the media and source analysts agree that fairly little of the actual legwork has been done in the negotiation process, and the 90-day stall itself remains a tentative time frame. For the upcoming talks, Trump has appointed Robert Lighthizer instead of Steve Mnuchin, who was the typical negotiator with China. This marks a significant change in the president’s strategy because Lighthizer less moderate than Mnuchin, who is more likely to align with Trump’s “good or no deal” strategy. Lighthizer himself has yet to publicly state his intentions, but the outlook is that China will find it much tougher to renege on their commitments than they might have expected dealing with Mnuchin.


If nothing comes out of the negotiations now being led by a hardliner, it will be seen as a loss for President Trump and possibly for China as well. But there is incentive for both sides to commit to negotiations and at least avoid the further escalation, and the markets have reacted to this. Wall Street has gotten a much needed signal that the U.S.-China relations were improving, and the stocks seem to reflect a hope that the talks are a success (*This has changed since Wednesday with the lack of news about negotiations moving forward and president Trump’s “I am a Tariff Man” tweet, betraying market uncertainty/volatility). The warming of the markets reflect the majority of media opinion as well, despite unwillingness to declare the talks a success. While there are many uncertainties and potential deal-breakers in the mix, this latest tone-shift is still seen as a positive and promising to most sources, and it’s hard to argue against the benefits of the stall when both sides have expressed the willingness to negotiate and offer concessions.


What do you think will happen in the coming days, weeks, and months in regards to the deal with China? Will it be as much of a U.S. victory as it may seem like today? How does Lighthizer's appointment and Trump’s recent comments effect that answer? What could China's true intentions behind these concessions be? And to what extent should the U.S. seek to enforce them and risk jeopardizing the deal?



Sources:

Saturday, December 1, 2018

The crash and burn of Dolce and Gabbana

The crash and burn of Dolce and Gabbana
A famous luxury brand, Dolce and Gabbana have recently released a
video that became viral due to many comments on racism on chinese
people, it features a chinese model being taught to eat spaghetti and
other food with chopsticks. Stefano Gabbana, company’s co founder
made comments and engaged in conversations implying that “chinese
people eat dogs”, however soon blamed that his account was hacked.
Many chinese people have took action and blamed all the Dolce and
Gabbana brand clothes, bags and more, stating to protect their nation
and people, and said the will to do this for the “nation’s dignity”. Since
this controversial ad has came out, the brand has been forced to cancel
the show, with “not me” posters mocking Stefano Gabbana, and lost many
financial sponsorships according to many news sources. Many influencers
and models also announced their decision to skip and not show to shows or
continue their support for this brand due to the comments and current situation.
sources: