Opioid Manufacturers Agree to $260 Million Settlement, Avoiding Major Federal Trial

"In the case of controlled substances, we have to balance our mission to deliver medicines to pharmacies against our important efforts to prevent and illegal diversions of those drugs"

- McKesson ("Our Media Statement")

On October 21st 2019, a settlement had been reached between three major drug companies and the Summit & Cuyahoga counties of Ohio, the state which holds “the second-highest rate for opioid-related overdose deaths in the country [as of 2017]”, for a $260 million settlement in a nearly 2-year long case about opioid epidemic [3]. With the stipulations of the deal including a combination of cash payouts and addiction treatments for opioid users, the involved companies, of which the New York Times describes as being “accountable for an epidemic of addiction that has killed hundreds of thousands for Americans”, have narrowly avoided a major federal trial, which would’ve led to a likely string of government lawsuits against these companies.

Within the settlement agreement, the four of the five major distributors of opioid substances -- Teva, McKesson, Cardinal, and AmerisourceBergen (the last three of which “distributes about 90% of all medicines to pharmacies, hospitals and clinics in the United States”)[2]-- have agreed to split the settlement bill amongst their group, with Teva agreeing to an annual cash payment of $30 million over the course of 3 year alongside a donation of $25 million worth of addiction treatments.

Though officials have hailed the settlement case to be “a benchmark for a national resolution for other communities...to abate the epidemic”[1], as Peter Weinberger, a lawyer representing the Ohio counties, that doesn’t mean the trial is completely off the table and done for. For example, Walgreens Boots Alliance, the fifth major distributor, “didn’t reach a deal”, which delayed their respective trial, while Mundipharma, a branch of the larger Purdue pharmaceutical group, “continues to market opioids...as more effective and less addictive”. All of this while an estimated “2,000 lawsuits…[in] virtually every U.S. state allege that pharmaceutical companies...promoted the widespread use of opioid painkillers while withholding crucial information about the risks of addiction”[4].

Hot-Take: I’m a strong advocate for market liberalism and my Torie-capitalist perception entails a support for government de-regulation of private interests, allowing them to have more mobility and flexibility in how they do their business with their consumers without the scrutiny of a central government breathing down on their necks. But, in this case, I side by the prosecutors because the country’s opioid crisis has been ongoing for nearly two-decades and has been perpetuated by their manufacturers by “ensuring their non-addictive qualities” in the same way that gambling firms have implored the public to try their luck and win big prizes by playing games of chance. Although, I disagree with the $260 million settlement because, in the face of the five giants and the multi-billion industry, that’s essentially loose change found underneath a couch.

Questions:
Should there be more federal oversight on the privatised opioid-drug industry?
Do you agree with the current settlement deal? If not, why?
How should drug companies address these issues in order to mitigate the crisis’ effects?

Sources
[1]https://www.ashclinicalnews.org/online-exclusives/drug-companies-reach-260-million-settlement-ohio-opioid-trial/
[2]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/health/opioid-settlement.html
[3]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/20/health/opioids-trial-cleveland.html
[4]https://qz.com/1732237/four-major-players-reach-settlement-in-ohio-opioids-lawsuit/

Facebook's Political Ads Policy Is Becoming A Disaster As They Choose Free Speech To Prevail

Vox Article
Yahoo Article

Mark Zuckerberg and the whole Facebook community team is under fire for their policy on fake ads.  Democrats are not satisfied with the Trump campaign being able to essentially make up facts about Joe Biden and the Ukraine affairs.  The Warren Campaign started countering this by also starting to put out bent truths.

Facebook cites their argument for keeping up false facts as freedom of speech.  This however is also riding on the fact they do not want to anger any major conservative leaders, as these leaders already play off the liberal media bias narrative.

However, we learned about the media and its impact on people and voters.  The fact that Facebook is allowing political campaigns (and only political campaigns) to essentially feed their audiences false facts or even borderline propaganda is very scary.  This will only allow for more polarization and the hatred contributed to each side.

What do you think about the decisions that Facebook has made about its Political Ads Policy?
Do you think it is okay for political campaigns to be able to bend or falsify facts?

2019 Canadian Elections Keep Trudeau but Liberal Party lose Majority

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/21/world/canadian-general-election-justin-trudeau/index.html

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/10/trudeau-canada-election-liberals-new-democrats.html

For being as close as it is, Canada remains a mystery to most Americans. They might dismiss it as "America, but nicer", however they may be surprised to find that it's actually a fully functioning democratic state where elections were just held on Sunday October 20th. So what makes this election important?

Canadian elections differ from US elections, because they have a parliamentary system, where voters select politicians for seats in parliament, who then vote on the prime minister. While this process differs from the American system, the campaign process ends up similar, with each party's candidates campaigning themselves. 

The liberal party's incumbent prime minister Justin Trudeau was again selected as prime minister of Canada, however with only a minority of seats in parliament supporting the Liberal party. Out of the 338 seats in the House of Commons, the Liberals only secured 157, under the 170 needed for a majority, and the 184 secured by the party four years ago. 

This now changes the Canadian political field, as the Liberal government will have to lobby other parties to gain a majority for each decision it wants to make. This will likely push Canadian politics to the right as the Liberals will have to compromise with the Conservatives (125 seats in parliament) to get anything done.

How do the Canadian and American systems compare and contrast? What will these changes mean for global politics?

Will the Impeachment Scandal Ruin Trump's Chances at Re-election?

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/us/politics/trump-impeachment-survey.html
https://www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PRRI_Oct_AVS-web.pdf

As the Impeachment inquiry continues, some interesting developments have occured in who supports President Trump. While the average American is now more likely to support Trump's impeachment, the Republicans have remained mostly loyal. Specifically, white evangelicals and Republicans who watch Fox News as their primary news source are almost guaranteed to believe Trump should stay in office, while the average Republican is slightly less likely to.

However, the real cost has been the non-Republican coalition that Trump brought together in 2016. For example, 40% of the white women in the working class now say they support impeachment while it was 29% in September. These groups are important to Trump because they brought some swing states to his side, ultimately winning him the election, so if his conduct is deterring them for voting for him, he is more likely to lose this election. If his 2016 coalition falls apart like Lyndon Johnson's after he broke his promise to end the Vietnam war, the Republican party and constituency may be severely weakened, even if Trump's base support seem to be more vigorously supporting him. 

While the result of the impeachment inquiry is being hotly debated amongst political commentators, I believe that in the end, it won't matter whether Trump is impeached or not. The confidence for Trump that some hold will begin to waver and the Democratic candidate, whoever they may be, will gain the upper hand. In the end, I believe the Impeachment scandal will cost Trump the election.

Who Will Win the Democratic Primaries?

2020 Democratic Primaries' Candidates

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/democratic-polls.html
https://smpa.gwu.edu/gw-poll-finds-warren-gaining-ground-among-democrats

As of October 11th, former Vice President Joe Biden is in the lead with 26% according to the national polling average by the NYTimes, and Senator Elizabeth Warren is just behind with 23%. Furthermore, Senator Bernie Sanders sits at a solid 16% while all other Democratic candidates have less than 4%. These numbers indicate that the Democratic candidate will most likely be either Biden, Warren, or Sanders, but Warren is on the rise and has been since this summer.

This information is made more debatable when compared to the George Washington University Poll, taking information from about a week ago. It found that Warren is in the lead with 28% while Sanders has 21%, and Biden has only 18%. This contrast is huge, putting Biden at 8% less than the NYTimes, and in last place out of the three. This highlights how these numbers are far from the whole picture, and different polling organizations can not even agree who is in the lead anymore. 

This fluctuation might be exemplified in today's debate drastically changing the polls. However, this is yet to be seen. The public's opinion will continue to vary until the primaries, and then the actual primaries may result in a different candidate than the one predicted to win. This was seen in the 2016 Presidential Election where most polls agreed that former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, would win, however we all know that was not the case. This flaw in polling could be due to many things, perhaps most of the public has yet to pay close attention to the candidates because the primaries are still far off. Rarely will Americans choose to give no opinion so they may simply be repeating what their neighbor or relative said, and find that come voting time, they find a new candidate. 

So polls can't predict the winner of the democratic primaries, nevertheless, everybody has a prediction to make. I personally believe Warren is the most likely winner because she is currently rising in polls, she is charismatic, and she is deliberate about her plans. I also suspect that there is a group in the Democratic party that will vote for her because they want to see a woman as President of the United States. Furthermore, with the recent accusations made against Biden, I believe the public may be less inclined to vote for him, whether he is innocent or not. 

Mario Kart Tour is Nintendo's biggest mobile hit yet

sources:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/tech/mario-kart-tour-trnd-success/index.html

Nintendo’s popular racing game “Mario Kart” is now available to iOS and Android users, and it would seem that fans around the globe are flocking to the new mobile phenomena. According to the article, the app has garnered more than 90 million downloads in just its first week of release. Compared to other Nintendo mobile games, “Mario Kart” surpasses them by over sixfold with the previous Nintendo record holder “Animal Crossing” only acquiring 14.3 million downloads in its first week.

The article goes on to state that this record-breaking start has made Nintendo $12 million, with a bigger sales boost expected to come after the initial stage of free trials are up (this is referring to in-game rewards). Compared to the infamous game “Pokémon Go” however, many speculate that “Mario Kart Tour” will trail behind the popular pocket monster game which has made over $2.95 billion since its release (it’s interesting to note that while Pokémon is an intellectual property of Nintendo, the game “Pokémon Go” is not a Nintendo property).

Questions:

Do you play Mario Kart Tour? If so, what are your critiques to the game?

Do you think that like Pokemon Go, Mario Kart will continue to be popular months or even years after its release?

Hunter Biden's Resignation: Joe Biden's Pushback?

Joe Biden and Hunter Biden

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/hunter-biden-china.html
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/13/hunter-biden-resign-bhr-china-backed-equity-firm/
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/10/13/joe-on-the-uptake/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/ukraine-prosecutor-says-no-evidence-of-wrongdoing-by-bidens (Photo)

Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, has stated that he will step down from the board of BHR, a Chinese company, by the end of the month. Furthermore, his lawyer, George Mesires, claims that Hunter will remain out of foreign business if his father becomes president. Presumably, this is being done to quell any accusations against his father and avoid the complaints leveled against the President Trump about his family's involvement in the current administration. This is supported by Joe Biden's comment at a conference in Iowa earlier today where he stated, "No one in my family will have an office in the White House, will sit in on meetings as if they’re a Cabinet member, will in fact have any business relationship with anyone that relates to a foreign corporation or a foreign country." Moreover, at this same conference he indirectly addressed President Trump's claims that he illegally helped his son in overseas financial dealings in Ukraine. He said, "No one, has asserted that I have done anything wrong except the lying president."

Despite this, some like Betty Cracker from the Progressive Balloon Juice argue that Joe Biden is not doing enough to defeat President Trump's attacks. During the 2016 campaign, President Trump leveled former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Emails against her in an attempt to discredit her. He employing similar tactics in the Republican primaries, and as we all know, he won the election. If Joe Biden doesn't fight fire with fire and attack Trump back in the upcoming debates leading to the election, he may be similarly discredited and lose all chance at being voted as the Democratic candidate, much less the President of the United States.

I believe that Joe Biden should not have to attack President Trump in return. Call me idiolistic, but the nature of the 2016 elections was more like watching a reality TV show than a debate between adults about policy, and I would like to see campaigns where there is a level of respect. Hunter Biden's stepping down is a solid move, not admitting President Trump is right, yet moving to challenge his accusations.

We Surveyed the 2020 Democrats on Gun Control. Here Are the New Dividing Lines.

sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/13/us/politics/democrats-gun-control.html
https://www.people-press.org/2018/10/18/gun-policy-remains-divisive-but-several-proposals-still-draw-bipartisan-support/

Unlike previous Democratic campaigns, it seems that the 2020 presidential candidates are noticeably more united on the topic of gun control. Largely a result of numerous mass shootings throughout the country, there has been a growing shift in political fervor towards stricter gun laws. According to the NYTimes survey, all 19 candidates support an assault weapons ban, with Biden even calling for a ban on online gun sales entirely. When asked, a majority of candidates, 17 to be exact, said they were prepared to use executive orders in order to carry out their gun proposals.

According to the article, candidates are more comfortable proposing progressive gun plans after public opinion on the matter has steadily become increasingly homogenous (this of course is not saying that all conservatives are in support of gun control; however, studies by Pew Research Center show that there is growing favor for increasing policies regarding the issue).

The largest dividing line among Democratic candidates is the issue of buybacks (whether or not the American government should make selling already purchased assault weapons to the government required or voluntary). Candidates like Biden, Warren, and Sanders are in favor of making it voluntary, arguing that citizens who already own assault weapons only need to register them. On the flip side, candidates like Beto O’Rourke and Kamala Harris are campaigning on the proposal to require all assault weapons already owned to be sold back to the government.

My two cents: While I’m happy by the fact that all Democratic candidates are placing gun control firmly in their political agenda, it is unsettling to think that it required hundreds of gun incidents to get to this point. In an attempt to connect this to the political parties chapter, I think it is interesting to note the diversity amongst the 19 candidates’ agendas. Arguably this is largely a result of political parties lack of influence and power over political candidates. Unlike in some European countries, American officials can largely develop independently from their affiliated party’s political agenda. People like Donald Trump are a clear example of this, conforming more to chaos and the forgotten people of America (coal miners and steelworkers) than to the Republican platform.

Questions:

What are your thoughts on gun control?

Should the government enforce a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons?

2 Giuliani Associates Tied to Ukraine Scandal Arrested on Campaign Finance Charges

sources:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/two-foreign-born-men-who-helped-giuliani-on-ukraine-arrested-on-campaign-finance-charges-11570714188
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/10/us/politics/lev-parnas-igor-fruman-arrested-giuliani.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Two of Giuliani’s associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, have been arrested last Wednesday over accusations that they had influenced US elections and politics with foreign money from an unnamed Ukrainian politicians. According to the indictment, the two men had lobbied a campaign towards ex Republican congressman Pete Sessions to remove the US ambassador Marie Yovanovitch from Kyiv (Trump has already ordered her removal  in May).US attorney Geoffrey Berman has stated that the two are charged with conspiracy, falsification of records, and lying to the FEC about political donations (this included a $325k donation to support Trump through a limited liability company).

The article goes on to state that both Parnas and Fruman have assisted Giuliani, Trump’s private lawyer, in investigating Joe Biden’s son. Since 2018 the two men have introduced Giuliani to Ukrainian prosecutors to discuss the Biden case. In July, Mr. Giuliani along with Mr. Parnas and Kurt Volker (US special representative for Ukrainian negotiations) are said to have discuss investigating Mr. Biden along with the 2016 election. Trump has gone on to say that he has no recollection of the two gentlemen, although a since-deleted Facebook post has revealed that Parnas, Fruman, and Trump had dinner at the White House in May 2018.

My two cents: As new developments arise regarding the Trump-Ukraine mess, it seems that the American public is becoming more attuned to the problem at hand. Even according to a Fox News poll, over 51% of Americans are in favor of not only impeaching Trump, but also removing him from office. With that being said I’m not entirely sure I want Trump to be removed from the white house. Impeached, sure, but Pence as president is not the ideal solution. It’ll be interesting to see where the narrative goes.

Questions:

Do you think that Giuliani will be indicted(accused) if more evidence shows that he was directly involved in the campaign scandal? 

What are the implications of a potential impeachment of Trump Are you in favor of his removal as well?

NBA under fire from all directions after response to Rockets-China incident

A worker in Shanghai removing a banner promoting preseason game between the Brooklyn Nets and Los Angeles Lakers.

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2019/10/07/nba-under-fire-all-directions-after-response-rockets-china-incident/
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/09/business/nba-china-partners/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/wizards/it-took-an-uncomfortably-long-time-but-adam-silver-got-it-right-on-nba-and-china/2019/10/09/5cfa4ae0-ea89-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html

Starting last weekend, it would seem that the Rockets-China fiasco has exacerbated ties between the National Basketball Association (NBA) and China as a whole. The whole debacle began following a tweet by Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey which underlined his support for the pro democracy protests in Hong Kong. The post included an image stating “Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong.” This resulted in the Chinese Basketball Association announcing that they would be breaking ties with the Houston Rockets organization. Moreover, all of the NBA’s official Chinese partners have announced that they have suspended ties with the league as a whole. 

Morey, having seen China’s response, has since deleted the Twitter post, and the NBA has issued their own statement saying that Morey’s tweet had “deeply offended many of our friends and fans in China” and that the NBA has “great respect for the history and culture of China”. Immediately after the statement was released the NBA came under attack by many US politicians who accused the NBA of hypocrisy, valuing financial interests over democratic ideals. 

“ “I thought the NBA was proud to be the ‘wokest professional sports league’?” wrote Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Twitter. “I guess that only applies to speaking out on American politics and social issues … Beto O’Rourke, a Democratic presidential candidate from Texas, said, “The only thing the NBA should be apologizing for is their blatant prioritization of profits over human rights,” terming the league’s statement “an embarrassment.”” (Golliver 2019).

Questions: What steps do you think either side could take to cool down the situation? Do you think this mess will ever be resolved? What are the implications of the event on other global corporations, specifically those with ties within China?  Are the events conspiring an example of American’s freedom of speech being regulated by a foreign government?

****UPDATE**** NBA commissioner Adam Silver has clarified the league’s position & refused to back down. It would seem that amidst increased pressure from the Chinese govt. & businesses, the NBA have decided to stand by Morey’s statement, claiming that “It is not the role of the NBA to adjudicate those differences [regarding political beliefs]... the NBA will not put itself in a position of regulating what players, employees and team owners say or will not say on these issues.”

Warren's Plans to "Break Up Big Tech" Enrages Zuckerberg

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-mark-zuckerberg-facebook.html

https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/break-up-big-tech/

https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/3/18520703/big-tech-break-up-explained

Senator Elizabeth Warren has garnered attention as one of the leading democratic presidential candidates with her campaign idea to break up tech giants such as Facebook, Amazon, and Google. She is proposing that since tech giants hold monopolies over the rising industry, they need to be dismantled. This can be seen as an initiative to have more governmental regulation on businesses, however is it really necessary? Are monopolies a good or bad thing?

The proposal was first stated in March and has recently came to light when a leaked audio came out of Zuckerberg announcing, “If she gets elected president, then I would bet that we will have a legal challenge, and I would bet that we will win the legal challenge." Elizabeth Warren responded to Zuckerberg's comments by stating "what would really “suck” is if we don’t fix a corrupt system that lets giant companies like Facebook engage in illegal anticompetitive practices, stomp on consumer privacy rights, and repeatedly fumble their responsibility to protect our democracy." Sick burn Mr. Zuckerberg.

But let's step back and look at that the FAANG (Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google) have led a technological revolution that has created tens of thousands of jobs, helped grow the economy, has placed America as the leader of the internet revolution, and provided products and services that makes everyone's lives easier. But do these innovations come with a cost? The European Union has cited companies like Google for anticompetitive practices with fines in billions of dollars. So while Google and Facebook may be experiencing tremendous growth, there are dozens of their competitors which are losing market share, laying off workers, and experiencing falling profits due to the monopolies of a few.

Are big tech companies a boon to the consumer or will be harmful due to lack of choice, increase pricing and poor service? How would a company like Facebook be realistically broken up without breaking the company?

Is There An Age that is Too Old to Run For President?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-age-candidates.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/bernie-sanders-heart-attack-symptoms/index.html

With the Bernie Sanders heart attack last week causing him to slow down campaigns, talks have been going around that perhaps he may be too old to be running for president. Moving forward for Sanders he has to submit himself to the vigorous challenge of preparing for debates and primaries with a lot of hard work and travel. On top of that if he were to win the nomination, the subsequent battle with President Trump will be a monumental challenge that will severely strain his fitness and health. What would happen if he were to have serious health problems prior to the election in November 2020? I believe these concerns weigh heavily on the American voter, not only in terms of running for president but also serving a four year term as president with the long work hours and stress that comes with the job.

Is this a real concern? Will this influence people when they go to vote?
What if we elected a president with serious health problems, to let them only leave office making the vice president enter office who was not elected by the people?

When we look at the top contenders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and President Trump for the presidency in 2020, all of them are over 70 with Bernie Sanders being the oldest at 78. Therefore how important are physical and mental health to the candidacy of the person running for the office of president?

The older candidates would argue that with age comes experience and contacts and a broader knowledge of events and people thus making more qualified for the office of president. In addition, modern technology has allowed seniors to live longer because of better health care. The senior members of government have more connections with other government agencies, world leaders, and are more knowledgable about the workings of our government and international relation as well.

All in all should age and health be a factor in determining the qualifications for running for president?

Stanford University Disapproves of Sexual Assault Victim Chanel Miller's Statement

Chanel Miller's virtual plaque at the site of her sexual assault back in 2015

Source: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-04/the-space-where-brock-turner-sexually-assaulted-chanel-miller-is-at-the-center-of-an-ongoing-battle-at-stanford

Back in September, the sexual assault victim in the 2016 Brock Turner case revealed her real name as Chanel Miller. She also released her victim statement that sparked awareness and support for sexual assault victims. Stanford University had agreed to create a garden with a plaque at the location of Miller's assault; recently, issues have arisen between Miller and the university based on the statement she decided to have etched. The university claimed that Miller's word choice may trigger sexual assault victims, which led her to withdrawal from the project. So instead, supporters created a virtual plaque instead.

The Brock Turner case was the precedent that enabled for specificity regarding the definition of sexual assault and rape, to prevent people like Turner from taking advantage of their privileged positions in society to receive lesser punishments for sexual assault. The #MeToo Movement is gaining power and influence, but the reveal of the victim's name of such an important case for sexual assault significantly adds to the support for the movement. Activism has always been an important issue and as the movement gains more power, they will gain more political sway as well. I believe that Miller's words were not at all too harsh for the plaque, and I question whether or not Stanford's rejection of the statement was in order to protect sexual assault victims or to protect their university from having such a revealing text on display.

Was Miller's statement inappropriate for the plaque at the site of her sexual assault?
How does the reveal of Miller's name affect the MeToo Movement?

Trump Refuses to Reveal Tax Returns

Judge Victor Marrero


Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-judge-rules-trump-must-turn-over-his-tax-returns-to-manhattan-da-but-trump-has-indicated-he-will-appeal/2019/10/07/29e1fda6-e8a4-11e9-85c0-85a098e47b37_story.html

Federal Judge Victor Marrero just ruled that a Manhattan district attorney may obtain Trump's tax records. Already approached by other attorneys about his tax records, Trump was shocked when his argument failed to sway Marrero: Trump claims that "as long as he is president, he cannot be investigated by any prosecutor, anywhere, for any reason." He argues that because it was already determined that presidents may not be indicted by federal prosecutors, he may be exempt from all investigations as well.

The importance of the Constitution has been ingrained in our memory since middle school. Within this text - that represents the foundation of the U.S. - is the description of how a president or other political official may be involuntarily removed from office, through the process of impeachment. While this involves the Senate and House of Representatives, not federal prosecutors, this investigation may be what leads to further progress in the current impeachment of Trump. I do not see it as unreasonable for an investigation to lead to new insights that could be used during the process of impeachment. I believe Trump wishes to claim immunity in order to further hinder the progress of his own impeachment.

How reasonable does Trump's argument appear to be?
What does Trump gain or lose should his tax returns be revealed to the public?

Trump Threatens Turkey with Economic Annihilation if They Invade Syria

Sources:

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/7/20902699/trump-syria-turkey-erdogan-invasion-kurds

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49966216

https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/why-does-turkey-want-to-invade-syria/news-story/f406b79a1f960908e670f76884ba7747

After working with the Kurds in the past to fight against ISIS, Trump has decided to withdraw troops from Syria which would allow Turkish forces to move in. 

The US had been allies with the Kurds while they were working against ISIS by providing military advisors and equipment. However, the US is also allies with Turkey and after a phone call with Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Trump decided to withdraw US troops from the Syrian Border with Turkey where ISIS had been operating previously and many ISIS captives are still being held. This would allow Turkey to invade Syria as they want to extend their safe zone into northern Syria. The Kurdish fighters that helped the US and allies against ISIS were also involved with terrorist factions working in Turkey to overthrow Edrogan’s government. So while the US considers the Sunni Kurd organization YPG to be an ally against ISIS the US NATO ally views this same group as a terrorist organization. Many officials are upset as they think that the rash decision Trump made overturned years of work that might give rise to the revival of ISIS. Because many ISIS prisoners are kept in this area threatened by Turkey and if the Turkish decide to invade they may be able to escape. 

Trump suggests that the US should simply withdraw from the conflict in the middle east all together since they can not support the Kurds, their allies without going against their alliance with Turkey. There is still the problem that Trump made this decision on his own without confiding with his military advisors first. To calm the backlash against his decision, Trump tweeted out that “if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey.” 

Does this decision overstep his presidential power he has over military decisions? 

What alternative options should the US consider to placate both Turkey and our Kurdish allies in Syria?

Does the 1964 Civil Rights Act offer protection for sexual orientation?

Don Zarda and sister Melissa Zarda

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/07/gay-rights-employment-discrimination-battle-heads-supreme-court/3822694002/

Gay rights have come a long way, but LGBTQ members still face discrimination today, especially in the workforce. Don Zarda was a skydiving instructor in New York until his sexual orientation was discovered in which he was then fired. In 2014, after struggling with unemployment, Don died in a sky diving accident. Although deceased, Don's sister Melissa continues to fight for protection against discrimination in the workplace. With 2 other LGBTQ related cases, Melissa hopes to persuade the Supreme Court that the 1964 Civil Rights Act includes protection against discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity; Zarda claims that these terms fall under the word "sex" included in the law.

I think that the argument expanding on the word "sex" in the Civil Rights Act will be very difficult for the plaintiffs to uphold in the Supreme Court. Recently brought up during the poll/survey presentations, it was made clear that LGBTQ issues like which restrooms those identifying as transgender may use are popular and controversial topics. The Trump administration has already announced that they believe that ignoring one's sex can interfere with policies within the workplace, and seeing as Kavanaugh was urgently nominated by Trump last year, I fear that Kavanaugh may try to enforce such policies through the court. Nevertheless, ruling in favor of Zarda and the other LGBTQ cases would significantly improve the environment for LGBTQ members in the workplace.

What likelihood does the various LGBTQ cases will gain a verdict in their favor? Why?
How could Kavanaugh affect the Supreme Court's verdict?

Media Bias Chart

This chart does a pretty good job of organizing the media universe along a spectrum of bias:

I believe the toxic right-wing sites, brazen lying as a media strategy from senior Republicans, and conspiracy theories spawned from 8chan have more influence on the public discourse than the oversimplified sloganeering and assume-the-worst-about-any-non-leftie material from OccupyDemocrats and the like, which is to say, please don't interpret this chart as an endorsement of "both-sides-erism." Even though neutrality is still a good starting place for factual reporting of the news, it can be manipulated by partisan sources who expect that their sketchy claims will not be debunked by a reporter trying to keep his or her perspective from entering the story. Most critical observers of politics over the past 20 years believe that more norms were violated by conservative/reactionary politics than by liberal/progressive politics, but proving that to a skeptical audience is nearly impossible. Not all the prior norms were important to maintaining our Constitutional system, but we have to re-learn to refrain from spreading conspiracy theories, even if they help your cause. They actually confuse matters to the point where people might just throw up their hands and think that both parties are corrupt and therefore the current crisis isn't actually a crisis, which is to say, both-sides-erism is not only an effect of too-cautious journalism, but a deliberate strategy from conservative partisans who need to keep their audience misinformed.

The Science News Cycle

Here's a nugget I picked up at a journalism convention that speaks to the questionable reporting about diet and nutrition (and many other subjects) over the years:

Changing Views on Red Meat

Source: BBC

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-the-real-truth-about-that-confusing-red-meat-study

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/23/18185446/climate-change-planet-based-diet-lancet-eat-commission

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

Time after time, the media has portrayed red meat as bad for our health. But, a new study suggests that this is not the case. Now, scientists are

unsure of whether red meat harms one’s health or not. They claim that cutting down on red meat has little to no health benefits when looking at

a large scale population. Although there may still be risks, it seems that these risks are so small that they don’t significantly impact one’s wellbeing. 

The data gathered in this study is not drastically different from previous studies, the only difference lies in interpretation. While previous researchers
made hard and bold statements, the researchers in this study chose to consider external factors and all data points.

Of course, this is not to say that people should indulge in red meat now. After all, meat production worsens climate change. According to a Lancet
report, “increased consumption of plant-based diets could reduce [agricultural greenhouse gas] emissions by 80 percent” (Vox link). (If you’re
interested in learning more, the Climate Crisis episode in the TED Radio Hour has some informative statistics on how red meat production affects
climate change.)

How does this new study affect the meat industry? How does it affect the average consumer?

Another Trump Phone Call, This Time With Australia

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/us/politics/trump-australia-barr-mueller.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/opinion/trump-australia-barr-mueller.html

It seems that Ukraine wasn’t the only country Trump influenced.

A few weeks after the Ukraine phone call, Trump requested that the Australian prime minister gather information on the origins of the Muller

investigation and report to the Attorney General, William Barr, in an attempt to invalidate the investigation. The transcript of this phone call has not

been released yet.

Because the White House is taking steps to keep the transcript of this phone call from getting released to the public, there is a good chance that the

details in the phone call are just as, if not more, controversial than the Ukraine phone call. Also, there seemed to be a clear motivation for Trump:

given that Muller was investigating Trump, Trump wanted to investigate back. In fear of the report harming his reputation, Trump has once again abused his power for personal gain. Instead of trying to discredit a single person, Trump in this case tried to discredit part of the government, the

very institution he is a part of! Since he values personal gain over the wellbeing of the government and uses his presidential power for personal gain,

there seems to be more solid evidence for why Trump now has a higher chance of being impeached. 

It’s interesting how two different news organizations covered this topic. FOX News, on the one hand, bashed the New York Times for
exaggerating Trump’s aid, further dividing the news organizations. On the other hand, The Huffington Post labeled an article “Richard Nixon
Had ‘Secret Tapes.’ Donald Trump Has Classified Transcript,” which compares Nixon’s scandal to Trump’s drama, making it seem like all
the evidence is present and clear to impeach Trump. The Huffington Post take a stance on this issue before all of the information on this topic
has been released. The Huffington Post also released more articles/videos on this topic than FOX News did. Mass media has the power to
shape the viewpoint of the topic, which can cause further divide between political parties today. By increasing coverage on the topic,
news sources also decide which subjects are more important than others, thus shaping public opinion. 

How does the Australia phone call affect Trump’s impeachment inquiry or presidential run? What are some other examples you’ve
seen of how media shapes public opinion?