Build Back Better vs. Joe (Manchin)

 

Democrats' $3.5 trillion turned $2 trillion social spending package, Build Back Better, appears to be dead after Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia said that he wouldn't vote for it on Fox News. His exact remarks were rather definitive: "I just can not possibly vote for this piece of legislation. I just can't. I've  tried everything humanly possible. I just can't get there," and caused backlash from the White House and the Progressive wing of his party. 

Because there are currently 50 Democratic senators, and 50 senators are needed to vote for the bill in order for it to pass, Joe Manchin's "no" would mean that the bill can not pass in its current form. No Republicans support the bill. Manchin's objections include concerns that the bill would contribute to inflation and add to national debt; despite his statements on Fox, it is likely that he and other Democrats will continue working to reach a compromise. According to CNN, he would prefer the bill to go through the committee process before trying to move through the Senate via the filibuster-proof reconciliation process. 

Based on face value alone, Manchin's resistance to BBB seems to highlight the issue of polarization within the Democratic party. However, after looking into the factors surrounding Manchin's decision, I'm a bit confused as to why he would give Fox News such frustrated remarks. After all, Manchin supports key provisions of the bill, such as provisions expanding ObamaCare, the $500B allocated to alleviating climate change, and the $200B for universal pre-K (Vox). He has also been working with the White House and Progressive caucuses for months, reaching compromises and altering the bill a significant amount from its original form. In addition, the plan can already be characterized as centrist (which is interesting for a multi-trillion social spending bill; polarization is that bad), as it does not include the liberal agenda items of Medicare-for-All, or decriminalized border crossings. You'd think Manchin and Biden would have a better relationship. One of the main reasons I found for Manchin's opposition to the bill was the general funding approach; Manchin has expressed his support for longer-lasting programs that would cost less, but rather than focusing on a few top priorities, Biden has decreased the length of time each program would be funded (NYT). I agree with what Manchin is advocating for, as getting a few stable and popular programs in place allows Democrats to accomplish something, and also lays the groundwork for future progress. As caucuses such has the New Democratic Coalition of the House express their support (NYT) for this approach, I have hope for the bill's future.

But why did Manchin say what he said on Fox? Maybe it was just an outburst. However, it's not incomprehensible that his actions were a political move. Progressives are now very angry at him; Rep. Ilhan Omar called his "excuses" "bullshit," and other key Progressives such as Bernie Sanders and Rep. Jayapal (chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus) have expressed their frustrations. Left-wing criticism benefits Manchin politically, as it bolsters his image as a moderate. In addition, in his home state of West Virginia where Trump won 69% of the vote, it benefits Manchin to appear as the one man standing up to Biden (NYT).

Questions: 

Why do you think Manchin currently does not support the bill? Did he vent on Fox for the same reasons?

How has the Biden Administration been doing so far? What other policies have they passed, and how has their "productivity" been compared to the first years of previous administrations?

Through what lenses have media outlets covered Manchin's statement? Notice any patterns?

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/22/briefing/joe-manchin-opposition-build-back-better.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/21/politics/biden-build-back-better-manchin/index.html

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22848508/covid-pandemic-testing-vaccines-manchin-build-back-better

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/19/statement-from-press-secretary-jen-psaki-4/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/opinion/biden-moderate-democrats.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/opinion/manchin-build-back-better-democrats.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/20/joe-manchin-isnt-only-obstacle-build-back-better/

Biden Outlines New Steps To Combat Covid Through Winter Months

On Thursday, Dec 2nd, President Joe Biden announced a new strategy to combat the potential “winter surge” of Covid-19 while not enacting quarantines such as those
we have seen before. Biden’s approach emphasizes expanding vacations to the remaining Americans who have resisted getting vaccinated, while simultaneously
providing booster shots to newly eligible young adults. Furthermore, Biden is changing rules on international travel to require more recent testing results upon US
entry. Biden has made it clear that although Covid is an issue, he is prioritizing the nation’s economic recovery stating that his plan “‘pulls no punches in the
fight against Covid-19’”, and that it should “‘unite us’”.

Cases of the South African Omicron variant are inevitably going to hit the US, however, Biden’s agenda was edited in hopes to give the administration enough

time to plan the best possible way to combat the damage. Thursday however was not the first time Biden announced a new plan. The media, having previously

recorded such events, had also taken note of continued resistance against getting vaccinations and boosters, which in turn lowered his public approval rating.

Biden was speaking on the new plan, but the next day officials had already confirmed the first recorded case of the Omicron variant in the US hitting our home

state of California, another case shortly discovered in Minnesota. With the restriction now being one day before US entry for international immigration, cases

from foreign entry are predicted to lower, however, travel is not the only way a virus spreads.

Biden is fighting a two-front war with both new emerging Covid variants as well as the economic collapse caused by the first wave of Covid. In times of such

challenge keeping an approval rating high is more than difficult but Biden is already better off than Trump in that regard. With the new travel restriction which

seems necessary, I am unsure of what Biden plans to do regarding the damaged economic status of the United States. With the media hungry for more

stories after the very media-heavy presidency of Donald Trump, Biden’s term will certainly be affected by the media to a similar degree. The Biden

administration also spoke about increasing vaccination rates for children, however, these mandates remain under constitutional question. While under

section 361 of the Public Health Service Act which allows the Department of Health and Human Services the ability to take measures to prevent the

introduction, spread, and transmission of disease in-between states, other federal laws allow vaccine exemptions for employees based on religious beliefs.

President Biden is up against a formidable force of the media, the public, and Covid-19; Only time will tell if his calculations will play in the favor of both his

administration and the American people.

1. Do you believe that children should be mandated to get the vaccine? Is this constitutional?

2. Do you think that Biden deserves the criticism he receives from the decisions he has made regarding the economic and physical health of the US?

3. What measures should be taken to combat the spread of Covid 19 / Omicron variant? Are public institutions doing enough?

Levi Kikuchi

Sources:

Biden outlines new steps to combat Covid through winter months

Current constitutional issues related to vaccine mandates

Republicans Really, Really Dislike Biden. But It’s Not Just About Him.

US Military Launches Investigation After Possible Civilian Casualties In Syria Strike Targetting Al Qaida Leader

Drone technology is nothing new to the US Military, however, drone-related casualties due to poorly planned attacks are something more recent. With the ongoing battle against Al Qaeda
and ISIS, drones were used to remotely attack aerially while keeping American pilots safe from anti-aircraft weaponry and capture. However, with the advancements in technology, have
the higher-ups in the military become too carefree with the way they use this new powerful equipment?

In September of this year, another drone strike was carried out in northwestern Syria in an attempt to assassinate a senior al Qaeda leader. The acknowledgment of potential civilian

casualties and the investigation on such circumstances was led by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, in which the Pentagon admitted to there being several civilian casualties. This

information which became public in late November was the first time that US Central Command had acknowledged that these previously undisclosed airstrikes had claimed the lives

of innocent Syrian citizens including young women and children. Austin said he believes “leaders in this department should be held to account for high standards of conduct and

leadership, however, if this was the case was there a need for the drone to attack? Or perhaps intel was not enough for those behind the monitor to feel satisfied with their work.

Although the evidence has come to light, the Defense Department has yet to hold anyone accountable for the deaths of innocent civilians since August 29th of 2021, in which 10 Afghan

civilians were lost. Although the investigation found that significant errors were made when carrying out the planned mission, there were no legal violations of law including the law of war.

Austin closed his interview claiming that the RAND Corporation focuses on civilian casualties in Syria is helping undergo a security review of those behind these unsolicited drone strikes.

It seems as though the government brought this to light amidst other events such as Covid to distract from the innocent lives they took. The Pentagon’s involvement with such crimes

against humanity not charging anybody with the killings is surely something that cannot be morally correct, however, if those who instigated such drone strikes are allegedly protected by the law.

1. Although not illegal, do you think it was right for the US to send these unsolicited drones in an attempt to take out an al Qaeda leader while knowing civilians were in the way of harm?

2. Does the apparent lack of knowledge from the older military officials contribute or justify the blunt force used in an attempt to eliminate a senior al Qaeda leader?

3. Do you believe drone strikes are beneficial in war? What do you think makes them necessary or unnecessary?

Levi Kikuchi

Sources:

US military launches investigation after possible civilian casualties in Syria strike targeting al Qaeda leader

MQ-9 Reaper > Air Force > Fact Sheet Display

Bob Dole, Giant of the Senate and 1996 Republican Presidential Nominee, Dead

Bob Dole, a Republican presidential hopeful passed away this Sunday, 12/5 caused by an ongoing battle with advanced lung cancer. President Biden came forth to speak on the unfortunate passing of Dole regarding him as an “American statesman like few in our history...among the greatest of the generation. And to me, he was also a friend whom I could look to for trusted guidance”. Dole was a war hero who was critically wounded in battle which resulted in numerous health problems. Previously surviving prostate cancer and a leg infection, the seemingly indestructible Dole’s passing were unexpected, to say the least. Dole was the Senator of Kansas for 27 years and had two stints as the Senate majority leader, although he is perhaps best known for being the unsuccessful opposition to Bill Clinton’s campaign in 1996, which was his third attempt at the white house. Dole was remembered as a social professional that could always break congressional tension with his humor. As a former soldier himself, Dole also advocated for the nation's veterans serving as co-chair of a 2007 presidential commission that investigated Walter Reed Medical Center, which specializes in treating wounded Navy Seals.

Bob Dole^

In his youth, Dole was born into the Great Depression. Following the coming of WWII, he enlisted and wrote his memoir: “One Soldier’s Story”. Dole’s humanitarian quality is best represented in where he suffered a major injury while carrying a fellow soldier to safety. The next 39 months were spent in and out of hospitals which ultimately earned him two purple stars, and two bronze stars, along with an oak leaf cluster for his outstanding service. His other honors include receiving the Congressional Gold Medal which is the highest civilian honor bestowed by Congress.

Personally, I believe that a man such as Bob Dole who was forged by his nationalistic, and humanitarian past created a man who was able to seek out good for his country. As Dole has heavily contributed to the states such as being the Republican leader of the senate for 11 years, his passing sure has left a hole in congress. With the passing of older political figures who have lived through the larger conflicts of our past, the decision-making and morals of modern politicians bring questions. Dole’s was a role model of what an “ideal” American was made to be, and his lasting impact as a good man in congress has left a positive influence even after his passing. Surely this golden retriever of an example

1. Do you think the next Kansas Senator will be as qualified as Dole?

2. What problems or benefits do you see coming from Dole’s passing?

3. What makes a senator candidate appealing in your eyes and why?

Levi Kikuchi

Sources:

Bob Dole, giant of the Senate and 1996 Republican presidential nominee, dies

Dole Institute - Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics

US Senate: Robert J. Dole: A Featured Biography

 

CDC recommends Pfizer booster shots for Americans as young as 16

 Exciting news today as the FDA just approved Phfizer’s booster shot for 16-17 year olds. This is just months after the booster was approved for those 18 and older. As new variants have been on the rise with the Omicron variant being the most recent, many have been eager to receive their booster shots. Several states are still seeing waves of people who have been infected with the Delta variant. The new Omicron variant will make hospitals have even larger strains which is why now more than ever it is crucial for people to first become fully vaccinated and then get their booster when they can. Because the Omicron variant in particular is highly mutated, getting the booster will help strengthen our protection against this virus and it’s most complex strains. 

As of today, a little more than half of teens in the US are fully vaccinated. However, only about 31% are eligible to receive their boosters due to the requirement that they be vaccinated at least six months prior. Moderna also has a booster available, however, it is only approved for those who are 18 and older. Interestingly enough, the Moderna booster is slightly different from the initial vaccination series whereas both the Pfizer booster and original vacancies are the same. In the case of the Moderna booster, it is only half of the original dose from the first two shots. In the case of the Phfizer vaccine, both the booster and the original shots are the same formula. The side-effects of the booster shots are the same as the original vaccine series. Common side effects include but are not limited to headaches, fatigue, muscle swelling at the injection site, or chills. 

Personally, I was extremely excited to hear that the booster shot was approved for 16 and 17 year olds and I will be getting mine as soon as I can. I was fortunate enough to get fully vaccinated 6 months ago so hopefully I can get my booster soon. 

Questions: 

1. Are you planning on getting the booster? Are you hesitant about getting the booster? 

2. Do you think other students will get the booster?

3. When do you think the booster will be approved for those 12 and up? 

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fda-pfizer-covid-vaccine-booster-shots-age-16/

Biden will sign executive order setting 2050 net-zero emissions target for federal government

 It was announced this week that current President Joe Biden will sign an executive order to set the federal emissions target to net-zero by the year 2050. It is no secret that climate change and global warming is progressing at disturbingly quick rates. In fact, 2021 is expected to be ranked top 7 in the hottest year in history. In order for humans to survive and the Earth as we know it to stay the way it is, climate change and global warming cannot continue to progress. Moreover, in recent years, climate change has become a pressing issue in the political agenda and one President Biden is taking very seriously, which is why he is passing this executive order. 

According to this news article by CNN, President Biden is planning on achieving his goal by buying clean energy, electric vehicles, and overall making all federal government buildings more energy efficient. Hitting net-zero emissions by 2050 is a very daunting task, but a necessary one. Even so, the executive order issues more provisional goals including reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by the year 2030. In fact, on April 23, 2021, Biden gave a speech at a virtual climate summit that 40 other world leaders attended where he stated just this. His executive order is just confirming and officially sets his goals into motion. Because this is happening at the federal level, there is hope that states will follow the president’s lead by setting their own set of emission reduction plans. To be clear, President Biden is only issuing these regulations for the federal government. It is up to the states to proceed on making their own set of regulations if they choose. 

In my opinion, I think President Biden’s goals are ambitious, but necessary. As stated before, climate change is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed and regulated immediately before further damage is done. Because climate change progresses so quickly, it is crucial that the President sets high standards for what the government can achieve. This being said, in order for more change to be done, the states should implement their own regulations in the near future. 

Questions: 

1. What do you think of President Biden’s executive order? Agree? Disagree? Too ambitious? 

2. Do you think states should have their own set of regulations? If they did, how do you think the general public would react?

Source: //www.cnn.com/2021/12/08/politics/biden-executive-order-net-zero-government-2050-climate/index.html

Omicron Update: Pfizer Claims "Third Time's The Charm" on Omicron

 

    While Omicron has yet to run rampant like its predecessor Delta has, It seems the vaccine industry has been quick to offer up some positive test results from their labs. Earlier today, American pharmaceutical company Pfizer and German biotechnology company BioNTech released a statement declaring their laboratory study results on the newest strain. They observed that the third dose, or "booster shot", of their vaccine (BNT162b2) practically neutralized the Omicron variant. Those with only two doses were found to exhibit a resistance to Omicron, however they advise that it may still be people's best interests to get boosted. Albert Bourla, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Pfizer, states that, "Ensuring as many people as possible are fully vaccinated with the first two dose series and a booster remains the best course of action to prevent the spread of COVID-19".

    Of course these findings are all based on initial lab results and datasets. Development of a  new, Omicron-specific, vaccine is to be signaled should the strain prove out of the control of the current procedures. If need be, Pfizer and BioNTech promise a shipping of March 2022.

Buisnesswire: Pfizer/BioNTech Update

New York Times: Pfizer's Booster

Discussion:

The constant evolution of the vaccine(biotech + pharmaceutical)  industry and their products alongside the virus. What that means for less developed countries. 

The global mass-distribution of  vaccines developed in extremely short periods of time. Can they be trusted?  

Roe v. Wade's future is in doubt after historic arguments at Supreme Court

     I’m sure most of you know the court case Roe v. Wade but, just in case, here’s a quick summary: in 1973, SCOTUS ruled that the United States Constitution protects a pregnant woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion for the first trimester of the pregnancy and struck down anti-abortion laws in states like Texas. With abortion being such a hot debate, this was a controversial decision. Last Wednesday, the abortion debate returned to the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, with a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. As it stands, the Supreme Court has a six-justice conservative, an anti-abortion supermajority that could put the 1973 case at risk of being overturned.

    Republicans have held a majority in the Supreme Court in recent decades, yet Roe v. Wade is just now at risk of being overturned. Why? Previous Republican justices-- John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter-- weren’t anti-abortion; they voted to uphold Roe. During his term, President Trump exercised his power of Judicial Appointment and, with the help of a Republican majority in the Senate, appointed three conservative justices to the court: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, replacing two defenders of Roe v. Wade (Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg). Claiming he’d “only put up nominees who had the enthusiastic support of the Federalist Society” (who “tends to favor judges who take conservative stances on abortion rights and other social issues”).

With these kinds of appointments-- for political stances rather than for fair judgment-- some have begun to question the “legitimacy” of SCOTUS. Among them, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asks, “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” (NYT). Recent polling also shows a decline in recent SCOTUS approval (more on that in the NYT article if you want to check some of the numbers), but controversial subjects up for debate are bound to make that happen.

The decision for this case is expected by summer.

Questions:

1. How likely do you think it is that Roe v. Wade will be overturned?

2. It’s hard (or near impossible) to find a balance that will satisfy everyone on the topic of abortion- do you think we’ll continue to see challenges to Roe v. Wade in the future?

3. Do you think a politically-charged SCOTUS is good or bad? Regardless, do you think it can ever be truly objective?

4. “President Biden has appointed a commission to study potential changes to the court, and it is expected to issue a report this month assessing options like expanding its size or imposing term limits on the justices” (NYT). What are your thoughts on those two possibilities?

Sources:

Critical Moment for Roe, and the Supreme Court’s Legitimacy

Roe v. Wade: How Republicans got so close to overturning it

Roe v. Wade's future is in doubt after historic arguments at Supreme Court

To Panic or Not to Panic? A New Strain of Covid Appears

 

New Covid just dropped.

On November 26th, The World Health Organization (WHO)  released a statement identifying a new strain of the Covid virus identified in Botswana and South Africa. Dubbed "Omicron" following the Greek letter naming conventions, this variation was declared a "variant of concern" in accordance to its high mutation and unpredictable response against circulated vaccines.  

This new scare has once again prompted shutdowns worldwide, many countries banning flights from South Africa, while some countries closing off all foreign travel. As of now, the nature of Omicron is still being looked into with caution. Results so far have been concerning but ultimately inconclusive. The only positive case in the U.S. experienced short-term mild symptoms, however, they were fully vaccinated beforehand. The lethality and transmissibility is still to be determined, but even so, stay safe and mask up. 

If you plan to vacation this winter, expect cancellations and be extra careful, as viruses thrive in the cold. 

Discussion:

1. How does the appearance of new strains affect the administration(or lack thereof) of vaccines?

2. How does one explain to a child how Santa operates amidst a global pandemic of a highly transmissive virus? (or the global pandemic's effect on the growing youth)

New York Times Article

WHO Statement

3 dead, 8 injured in shooting at Michigan high school, undersheriff says

 Today, Tuesday November 30, 2021, America faced a tragedy with another school shooting. The shooting took place at Oxford High School in Oxford, Michigan. The gunman was a 15-year old student who shot and killed three people and an additional 8 were left injured. The three people who passed away were sadly students ranging from 14 years old to 17. All young teens with such bright futures ahead of them. School shootings are considered to be every parent and student’s worst nightmare, according to the news article from CNN. Parents were seen frantically escorting their children off campus. Tears and hysteria were clearly painted on everyone’s faces.

In 2021 alone, there have been over 130 school shooting incidents. This number is completely unacceptable in my opinion. There should be close to zero school shootings in the US. Other countries have significantly less. For example, Germany has only experienced 8 school shootings since 1913, over 100 years ago. If other countries can have such low numbers, where is America going wrong one might ask. Currently, in the state of California, semi-automatic firearms and other assault weapons are to not be sold. However, one may obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun. California’s gun laws tend to be on the strict side, unlike other states such as Montana and Wyoming. While these states are significantly less populated, it does not mean carrying around a semi-automatic weapon should be common, arguably even allowed in the first place. 

School shootings are among the most tragic events to happen in America. Such young people were killed. People with bright futures and surely the rest of America feels deeply saddened every time an event like this happens. To prevent tragedy from happening, America needs to seriously rethink gun laws. 

Questions: 

1. What do you think about the current gun laws in the US? Too strict? Too lenient? 

2. It’s shocking that other countries have much fewer school shootings than the US. Why do you think this is happening? 

3. Besides change gun laws, is there anything else the government or we should be doing to prevent more shooting from happening? 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/30/us/michigan-oxford-high-school-incident/index.html

I'm Just a Bill

Class time is scarce this time of the semester, so I'm sharing this classic bit of Americana here. I suggest reviewing p. 363 of the Edwards textbook before watching, and then seeing how (some) of the steps are depicted in the video:

 

The writer of this particular song passed away last week and it made the news: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/arts/music/dave-frishberg-dead.html 

 The law in question strikes me as a classic piece of mid-20th-century liberal policymaking. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! But did posting signs at every railroad crossing in the country save any lives? And would it survive a commerce clause challenge with the more conservative/state's rights oriented judiciary of today? 

 It was probably chosen as a simple issue that kids could understand, along with being an example that didn't go through as many twists and turns on it's way to becoming law as a more important or complex piece of legislation. And maybe the signs did save a few lives at relatively low cost, so no harm, no foul, even if it's a somewhat paternalistic sort of law. Don't stop your car (or schoolbus) on railroad tracks. Just don't do it! 

 I might make class time for this classic SNL bit from Obama's 2nd term:

 

Kamala Harris becomes first female president for an hour and twenty five minutes

  Kamala Harris became acting president for a brief period on Friday 11/19/2021 when President Joe Biden was hospitalized. President Biden was undering going a colonoscopy exam, at Walter Reed Military Medical Center. Due to the use of anesthesia as part of the process, President Biden was temporarily “unfit” to serve as president resulting in Kamala Harris becoming acting president for a short period of time. This transfer of power is conveyed in Amendment 25, Section 3 of the Constitution which allows temporary transfer of power to the vice president after a written declaration that the current president is unable to fulfill the duties of a president. This declaration was sent to the Speaker of the House and the Pro Tempore of the Senate to be read to both the Senate and the House of Representatives.  Later, a similar letter was sent to the Speaker and the Pro Tempore stating that the President was fit again to be president. This has also occurred during George W. Bush’s presidency, when he also had to undergo a similar procedure. Although President Biden’s exam only lasted for an hour and twenty-five minutes, during that time, it technically made Kamala Harris the first female president of color in the US. I don't think this really counts as having the first female president because Kamala Harris did not go through the rites of presidential swearing in. Even though the event did not even last a full day, it is an interesting constitutional procedure to think about since it raises questions on whenever this can occur again and possibly for a much longer period of time. Joe Biden, being the oldest president thus far in office, leads one to wonder about possible health issues that may come up that could impair his ability to lead. At that time, Amendment 25, Section 3 may need to be pulled out again. Fortunately, President Joe Biden has not suffered any major injuries or hospitalizations since becoming president. Additionally, his December 2019 physical has been cited as being “healthy” and “vigorous;” however, there are signs of this aging. Joe Biden's physician Dr. Kevin O’Connor has stated that since 2003 Joe Biden has been suffering from atrial fibrillation, a type of irregular heartbeat that has been linked to increased risk of strokes. President Biden has begun to take medication to help treat and prevent this, therefore, I do think that Kamala will still have a larger opportunity to step in and make more executive decisions anytime soon.

Biden after the exam

1. Do you think this part of the constitution will have to be enacted more often due to health concerns?

2. Should Kamala Harris be remembered as the 1st female president for her one hour and 25 minute tenure?

3. How do you think Joe Biden’s image will be tarnished if he has to continue giving power to Kamala Harris?

1. How do you think this could affect voters in the upcoming election?

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/19/biden-transfers-power-to-kamala-harris-while-he-undergoes-colonoscopy.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/19/politics/kamala-harris-presidential-power/index.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-11-19/president-biden-to-undergo-routine-colonoscopy

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59352170

Member of Hamas shoots and kills man

     Today a gunman with ties to Hamas shot and killed a man, while also injuring an additional 4 people. The shooting took place in Jerusalem’s old city, and it was stopped when Israeli security forces killed the gunman. The shooter was identified by Hamas as Fadi Abu Shkaydam, praising him as a hero and martyr. The attack took place near the temple mount, which has been a source of contention between the Israeli and Muslim populations. Fadi Abu Shkaydam was a participant of Hamas’s political wing and not the military. This portion of Hamas is focused on social programs for those in the Gaza strip and governs the area. This means that Hamas probably did not sanction this attack, which is supported by some sources showing that Hamas did not take credit for the attack. Regardless if Hamas ordered this attack, it has stirred up fears in the Israel government with the prime minister worrying that there may be upcoming “copycat attacks.” Well, currently there hasn't been much evidence to support that there will be continued attacks of this nature. Many are connecting this incident 4 days ago when a palestinian teenager stabed two border cops (though the connection to the Hamas is still questionable). Also, some Israelis have used this incident to justify further need to crack down on Hamas because the shooter came from a member of the Hamas political wing and not the militant one. In a statement to the public, President Issac Herzog said, “The fact the terrorist was from Hamas’ ‘political wing’ compels the international community to recognise it as a terror group.” It should be noted that the president is an important figurehead position in the Israeli government, and this type of  rhetoric will most likely have an influence on the national stage as countries may reconsider how they view Hamas. One example is the United Kingdom who recently decided to list the Hamas’s political wing as a terrorist group (this occurred before this shooting). Further attacks like this may only continue to strengthen Israel’s argument against Hamas. 

I think these kinds of attacks will continue to occur as Palestinians begin to feel discontent with the current situation as time moves on, but it may prove detrimental to garnering wider support from foreign countries. For further details on the attack the links below give a more in depth report on the attack. 

1. Do you think that attacks similar to this will continue as some fear will happen?

2. Do you think Israel is justified in continued crackdowns on Palestinians in the wake of attacks such as this?

3. Should America differentiate Hamas's political and military wing? 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/21/middleeast/jerusalem-shooting-attack-intl/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-59365512

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/hamas-gunman-kills-one-and-injures-four-in-jerusalems-old-city

https://www.timesofisrael.com/2-border-cops-wounded-in-suspected-stabbing-attack-in-jerusalems-old-city/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-13331522

The Chilean General Election Today

On this Sunday 11/21/2021, Chile is having its general election. Similar to our election, the Chilean election couldn't be more polarizing (if not so more than ours). Chileans have been very discontent with the government with civil unrest brewing everywhere. In 1974, Augusto Pinochet became president after leading a coup de d'etat with the help of America under the guise of destroying communism. Following him were a string of other presidents who came into power through the oligarchical nature of the Chilean political system. Last year there was a referendum (that won overwhelming support) to rewrite a new constitution, due to the unequal representation in the government. With the referendum passed the convention to rewrite the constitution has already occurred.

Even with this political reformation, Chile is still very politically divided. This is reflected by the general election for the new president that will be taking place today. Currently there are two prime candidates that are on the forefront of the election. First,  Gabriel Boric is a young and recent politician who is currently the candidate of the Apruebo Dignidad (the Approve Dignity). This is a left wing coalition party formed during the constitutional convention. Boric has been focusing his campaigning on the social reforms that had been the main focus of the previous protests and constitutional convention. His opponent is Jose Antonio Kast, a previous presidential candidate in the 2018 election. Kast is part of the Republican Party of Chile which also has the wider support of the Christian Social Front a conservative coalition of right-wing parties.

While Kast’s campaign has been focused on the traditional conservative values: anti- abotion, tax cuts for businesses, and focalization of social policies. Kast has also pushed for more extreme measures such as a withdrawal from the UN, increased funding to the police (even stating the police were in the right to crack down on the protesters), criminalizing same sex marriage, and building of a barrier to prevent ilegal immigrants from entering the country. Kast has also been credited with saying very controversial things, such as his support for the police crackdowns, and even supporting the previous military Junta that used to be in power. Despite all, this he still has a very good shot at winning the election as many polls predict him winning the most votes in the first round of voting.

Many factors can be attributed to this. Boric’s coalition has much of its support from the Chilean communist party, which many Chileans view as too radical, even more so than Kast. Though Boric has tried to appeal to moderate voters, many still feel that his coalition, should he win, would be too unstable and liberal.  Though in reality due to this course of action by Boric some in his own coalition view that he is too moderate and may choose not to vote for him in the first round of elections (Chile being a runoff election system). This is compounded by the fact that many Chileans feel that little change has come from these protests and reform, feeling that Boric’s promises are empty. Many decide that Kast’s promise of stability and economic development is more important than social change. I also think the values Boric has campaigned for such as pushing for a smaller carbon output and indeginous peoples rights are simply things that the average citizen feels are not important during a period of economic decline. 

Since the election is taking place today, I do not know the results of how the election will play out. My prediction is that while Kast may win out in the first round of elections, I think the run off vote Boric will have a greater chance of winning as the further leftwing parts of his coalition may reconsider and be forced to vote for him. 

1. What are your personal opinions on how the election will turn out?

1. Or if you write this when the election is over explain what factors you think contributed to whoever’s victory

2. Who would you have voted for in the election if you were to vote, or are voting in the Chilean election

3. Do you think Boric should have kept with his strategy to try to appeal to more moderates or should he have stuck with more liberal policies to keep his coalition more cohesive?

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/chileans-head-polls-with-two-radically-different-visions-ballot-2021-11-21/

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/former-protest-leader-boric-seeks-bury-chiles-neoliberal-past-2021-11-17/

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/20/americas/chile-election-kast-boric-intl-latam/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/04/americas/chile-constitution-assembly-intl-latam/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/21/world/americas/chile-election-boric-kast.html

Jose Antonio Kast

Gabriel Boric