Dodger Stadium's COVID-19 Vaccination Site Encounters Protest

 

Capable of vaccinating about 8,000 people a day, Los Angeles' Dodger Stadium has become one of the city's key mass vaccination sites. On Saturday, however, Dodger Stadium temporarily shut down and halted vaccinations for an hour when about 50 maskless protesters gathered at the entrance to disrupt the operations. Coming from both anti-vaccination and right-wing groups, the protesters discouraged those in line from getting the vaccine by asserting how dangerous and unsafe it would be. They also discredited the pandemic, lockdowns, Gavin Newsom, news networks, and more.

The protesters' tactics mainly included shouting and holding up signs, although one allegedly "dressed as a police officer" and ordered people to exit. Los Angeles' fire department and police officers entered the scene to close Dodger Stadium as a precautionary measure, which ultimately lasted an hour. Eventually, the site reopened and resumed as usual; anyone who wanted the vaccination could still receive it. Overall, no violence ensued and no arrests were made. However, city officials and those in line were frustrated by the delay that had occurred.

We’re at the mass vaccination site at Dodger Stadium to get my mom the vaccine. The anti–vax protestors have approached the entrance to the site. The LAPD have now closed the gate. We have been sitting here for about half an hour. Nobody is moving. pic.twitter.com/GrJPA5wrqx

— Mikel Jollett (@Mikel_Jollett) January 30, 2021

What took place reflects the danger of misinformation. In general, the anti-vaccination movement has gained a substantial following. The protesters' misleading assertion of a "99.6% survival rate" for COVID and use of scaremongering are only part of a larger wave of misinformation, emphasizing a distrust in science. Such can be particularly dangerous, especially when considering that Los Angeles County reports an average of 7,000 new cases daily and a total death toll of 16,700. As the rollout of vaccines have mixed outcomes due to logistic issues, distrust and conspiracies will also be a challenge.

LA Times

CBS 

NBC 

NPR 

 

Republican Senators Propose a Less Expensive COVID Relief Bill

 

Image credits

With such a narrow majority in the Senate, the Democrats face a few possible outcomes for getting Biden's proposed COVID relief bill passed. This plan (called the "American Rescue Plan") is estimated to cost about $1.9 trillion and includes things like stimulus checks, testing and tracing, and vaccines. As we learned in class, Congress holds the "power of the purse" and has the power to approve this plan, upon which the money will be delegated to the bureaucracy to execute (for example, the department of Health and Human Services will be in charge of vaccinations).

However, because $1.9 trillion is a huge sum of money, many republicans are opposed to the bill, and have enough seats to hold a filibuster if needed. This leaves democrats with a few options. One would be to abolish the filibuster, then vote it through with their simple majority. Another would be to bypass the filibuster with a process called reconciliation.

While it may be possible to work around the republicans on such a narrow majority, Senator Portman claims it would not be advisable to set such a polarized tone, or as he put it, "poisoning the well." Instead, an opportunity for compromise has arisen with a group of 10 republican senators (including Senator Portman) proposing a less expensive relief bill, estimated to cost less than a third of Biden's original plan. This plan could earn bipartisan support, or at the very least, the 50 democrats + these 10 republicans would be enough to break the filibuster.

However, it isn't quite that simple. Senator Schumer warns of "repeating the same mistake" the democrats made during the 2008 crisis, when they compromised for a stimulus far too low. "The dangers of undershooting our response are fare greater than overshooting it," Schumer continues.

What is the best course of action for the democrats in this situation? Is it better to take advantage of their majority, or to settle for something smaller in favor of lowering tensions?

Biden's plan

CNN

NPR

Who's Been Changed? Post-Capitol Riot

   Since the Capitol riot on January 6th, over 150 people have been charged for their involvement in the siege. For over 100 of the cases, authorities have used social media as evidence, most of the evidence coming from the defendant's own social media accounts. Of those charged, most have been charged through federal cases rather than non-federal. The number of opened cases is expected to grow.

    So what have the defendant's been charged with? In order for many to be arrested quickly, they have been charged with misdemeanor crimes, however, more significant charges, such as sedition and conspiracy, are entirely a possibility for those who have been arrested. For example, two members of the Proud Boys, a far-right nationalist group, have recently been charged with conspiracy (along with ten other counts including assaulting an officer and civil disorder) by federal prosecutors. Both these defendants were already facing lesser charges connected to the Capitol attack. These cases are an example of the effort by DC prosecutors to prove that the attacks on the Capitol were planned in advance by groups, such as the Proud Boys.

    Since the attack, self-described white-nationalist Richard Barnett has been charged with knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority after taking a picture sitting with his foot up on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's desk. QAnon & Trump supporter Jacob Anthony Chansley was arrested on the same charge after storming into the Capitol shirtless wearing a buffalo horn headdress. They are two of many who have been arrested.

    Because the rioters committed crimes against the government in the Capitol they have violated federal laws and therefore their cases are within the jurisdiction of the federal court. The defendants will likely carry penalties that are much more severe that those levied by state courts, such as a lengthy prison term, expensive fines, restriction from certain occupations and more. Furthermore, the attack on the Capitol cases are being prosecuted by the US Attorney's Office for DC and being investigated by the FBI; US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; US Marshals Service; US Capitol Police Department; and Metropolitan Police Department. 

Is charging and arresting hundreds of those present at the Capitol siege enough to protect the legitimacy of the US Democracy that these rioters do not believe in?

Does the US need to put a check on lawmakers and leaders who encouraged the Capitol attack? What about the lawmakers who justify the attack after the fact? What would be the most effective way to do this? 

WP on "Who has been arrested"

GW University tracking the cases introduced

NYTimes on more the extreme conspiracy charges

GameStop Stock Skyrockets

We’ve all probably heard of the famous GameStop stock by now. For those who don’t, Gamestop, a relatively dying stock, just skyrocketed to 347 dollars per share from just a small average of 3 dollars from the past year.This is not natural and toxic to the economy, teens overnight became millionaires, investigations have begun into why it’s happened, and investors are waging a war with a subreddit on Reddit.

But what is actually happening? Well, a common tactic for investors is short selling; very simply put, short selling is the act of betting that a certain stock will decline. Redditors took this very simple concept, and toppled it by just telling people to invest in GameStop. With the power of social media, they blew up the GameStop stock by over 1000%. By telling everyone to buy the stock, demand skyrockets, and so does the price, optimal for quick selling. Short sellers make their profit by subtracting the price of the stock bought and the price of the stock sold, so naturally, hedgefund managers wouldn’t be too happy seeing themselves in a very deep hole of debt. They are in debt because of the short squeeze of the GameStop stock, with more and more people buying into the idea of instant money, the finite amount of stock can’t support everyone, and because those who are buying in all the craze actually own the stock, hedgefunds are nearing bankruptcy because they can’t pay back the stock.

This is troubling because a stock that averaged 3 dollars in 2020 just became equal to a S&P 500 stock, essentially breaking the system. Even more troubling, is the politics involved now. An economic battle is happening, a David and Goliath scene of redditors toppling the kings of the stock market. To stop this from happening again, regulation must be placed to prevent an imbalance. Here are the two sides and their reasoning.

Let’s call the profiteers the Redditors.

• They are people stuck at home in a pandemic looking to make money.

• They feel oppressed by the hedgefund corporations

• Found public information of possible corruption in headfunds

And then the hedgefunds.

• They are rich people who know their way around the market

• They just almost lost all their money to a loophole

• But Melvin Capital (hedgefund in question) illegally short sold 120% of the finite GameStop stock

The SEC(U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) is the regulator of the stock market, and they need to create a failsafe against these anomalies. Alongside the Biden Administration, they are monitoring GameStop and working to find a way to prevent this. However, this upsets many people because it is a controversial fix. The SEC must find a way to both please the hedgefund, and the small investors. Hedgefunds in particular are known to dislike regulation on the market, but now are begging for regulation to stop this. Some groups are even stating that a new regulation could be inherently corrupt because they will favor hedgefunds because they have more impact on the market.

Lastly, the app Robinhood, is also under question because they have shut down the sale of the GME stock. This is important because this is a way to drive down the prices of the GME stock, beneficial to the hedgefunds. This is also illegal, market manipulation.

What do you think? Are small investors wrong for abusing a loophole in an inherently biased market? Are hedgefunds wrong to accuse small investors while fully knowing that short selling is dangerous?

The Hill

Summary

GME Price

Market Watch.

Judge Bars Biden From Enforcing 100-Day Deportation Ban

 

Under the direction of the Biden Administration, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a 100-day moratorium on deportation as a campaign promise and to pave the way for Democratic immigration policies. The moratorium would, DHS claims, allow it to reset its priorities. Deviating from Trump's policies, the Biden Administration wishes to focus on protecting undocumented immigrants who have lived in the US for a long time while preserving public safety. This is reflected in the 100-day ban on deportation, which applies to those apprehended before Nov. 1, but not others who may pose a national security risk or entered the US after Nov. 1. 

However, US District Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump appointee, issued a temporary restraining order preventing the 100-day ban from being implemented for 14 days after the state of Texas sued DHS for instructing immigration agencies to pause deportations. Tipton argued that there was insufficient reasoning behind the moratorium and that it would have violated a federal immigration law that requires the deportation of noncitizens within 90 days of the deportation being issued by an immigration judge.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who led the argument against the 100-day ban, claimed that not only was federal law violated by the deportation ban, but also an agreement between DHS and Texas made before Trump left office. Under the agreement, DHS would consult with the state before exercising any changes in immigration policy. The Biden Administration and other legal experts, however, argue that an outgoing administration should not have the power to interfere with the policy goals of an incoming administration. The administration believes it has the ultimate discretion to implement immigration policy and that DHS has no right to surrender its control to a state. Tipton noted that the violation of this agreement was not part of his rationale and needs further examination.

Nevertheless, the restraining order was an early blow to Biden's immigration policy. In response, Paxton, also a right-wing Trump loyalist, says,

VICTORY.

Texas is the FIRST state in the nation to bring a lawsuit against the Biden Admin.

AND WE WON.

Within 6 days of Biden’s inauguration, Texas has HALTED his illegal deportation freeze.

*This* was a seditious left-wing insurrection. And my team and I stopped it.

— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) January 26, 2021

While a final ruling has yet to be issued, it has nevertheless been proven that Biden's plan for immigration will face multiple challenges by conservatives in the foreseeable future through the judicial system. Biden's defeat is a reminder of Trump's legacy in the judiciary, specifically how Trump's judicial appointments, which include ideologues, establish a conservative nature in the courts that will impede Biden's advancement of his agenda. 

AP News

Vox 

CNN

Washington Post

 

 

The Debate Over the Filibuster

     

    In The Federalist Papers: No. 22, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the supermajority rule, a filibuster requirement, would lead to "tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue" and "contemptible compromises of the public good."

    With the arrival of a Democratic-majority Senate, many are calling on Democratic Senators to eliminate the filibuster, a Senate rule that requires a supermajority (two-thirds) vote rather than just a majority (more than half) vote to pass most bills. The filibuster protects each Senator's right to speak as long as necessary on any issue, with the debate on an issue only ending when the Senate reaches an agreement through a two-thirds majority vote. but It has since become a way to block legislation as a two-thirds vote is difficult to obtain. It has been used by both parties and has defeated bills on African American suffrage, federal anti-lynching laws, climate change, gun control, immigration, and more. While it has been used by both parties, the filibuster favors the conservative ideology as it functions as a legislation blocker and therefore preserves the status quo, which aligns with conservative action.

    Those who wish to abolish the filibuster, including President Obama and many liberal-leaning Senators, claim that it is a necessary action to take in order to pass Democratic legislation, for example the necessary legislation that makes voting more accessible to all. Others Democratic Senators who are skeptical of eliminating it indicate that they may consider it if Republicans start rejecting compromise in the Senate and cause stalemates on many issues. Those who oppose removing the filibuster, including moderate-Democratic Senators and President Biden himself, point to the many times the Democrats have used the filibuster to their advantage, such as with President Bush's judicial nominees and abortion restrictions.

    As of now, Senator McConnell has dropped his demand that the Democrats promise to preserve the filibuster, however, the inevitable rising pressure of activists to eliminate the rule as Republicans begin to block legislation means that this debate is certainly not over.

    Should the filibuster be abolished? Would removing the filibuster allow the Senate to better represent the American people, rather than continue to favor the status quo of conservative legislation and ideology?

Senate.gov History on the Filibuster

WP on Why Democrats Should Preserve the Filibuster

NYTimes on Obama's Perspective

NYTimes

California Ends Strict Virus Restrictions

    As of Monday, January 25th, San Mateo County has lifted the Regional Stay at Home Order, following Gov. Newsom who lifted the strict stay-at-home order in favor of allowing local authorities to control reopening plans. As for San Mateo, outdoor dining and personal services are able to resume this week. While the rate of new coronavirus cases and the infection rate in California is slowing, this lifted order comes at a time in which LA County is still overwhelmed with COVID-19 patients and new, more contagious variants of the coronavirus are appearing in the US, following Europe, Africa, and South America.

    So why did California lawmakers decide now was a good time to lighten restrictions? Besides the flattening rate of new COVID-19 cases, lessened restricts also benefit many businesses. In fact, LA county leaders especially have been faced with frustrated business owners, upset about forced closures. Without scientific proof that transmission occurs often in outdoor dining circumstances, it has been difficult for California leaders to justify outlawing outdoor dining and similar restrictions. Furthermore, state leaders are reflecting on the past months, commenting that California was not as overwhelmed with the virus as predicted and therefore were feeling positive about the future of COVID-19 in the state.

    While some restrictions have been lifted, it is important to note that the state will still be regulated by a system of rules based on the prevalence of the virus in each county.

   Some criticisms to California's lightened restrictions include; Chairwoman Patterson of the CA Republican Party: "This Governor's decisions have never been based on science... It's sad and pathetic," and the reality that California is behind on vaccine rollout.

    The fact that Gov. Newsom said he rushed to lift the restrictions as quickly as possible is discomforting. Even if the numbers do indicate that it is safe to reduce restrictions, Newsom's recent actions seem to be fueled by economic pressure. Is lifting restrictions truly going to be solution for the 9% unemployment rate or the series of restaurant and hotel closures? Is this really the right direction for the state even as worry rises regarding the vaccine rollout and hospitalization numbers?

County of San Mateo

COVID Act Now - CA Data

NYTimes

ABC 7 News

CA Office of Communications 1/15 Announcement

LATimes Editorial

Biden Spends First Week in Office Removing Trump's Ban on Transgender Military

 

In July of 2017, Trump posted three tweets about transgender people in the military. Quickly summarized, Trump and his generals decided to place a ban on transgender people trying to enlist or current transgenders in the military, arguing that the extra costs of maintaing their medical costs were too much.

So why is this relevant now? Well, on the first Monday after Biden’s inauguration, Biden and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin signed an order to reverse Trump’s ban on transgenders in the military. This is part of Biden’s general executive order to advance equity in agencies and communities, both racially and by sexual orientation or gender identity. Biden pushes this executive order by extending the policy built from the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County trial. The Bostock v. Clayton County Supreme Court trial ruled against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

Those discriminated against by Trump’s abrupt twitter posts have been in the crossfire of three presidents. First fought for by Obama to promote equity in agencies, then reversed by Trump in an executive order, and reversed once again by Biden this week, their situation seems to never rest. This is devastating because many Americans rely on military benefits.

What does this new bill entail for those affected by this new executive order? Most of those who were affected by Trump’s ban will likely be allowed back into the military, and most of the cases transgender people have been fighting in will likely be withdrawn as there has been little opposition with the new house and new president.

AP News

Executive Order Text

NYT

NYT

Surge of Student Suicides During Covid-19 Pushes Some Schools to Reopen

 

Although the linking of teen suicides with the closing of schools is difficult to conclusively research, the growing rates of mental health emergencies and suicides all point to the toll on mental health Covid-19 has. 

In the Las Vegas Clark County school district, there were 18 kids who had committed suicide between March (the closing of schools) to December, which was double the entire last year's amount. The Clark County Superintendent, Jesus Jara, decided to reopen schools, stating "When we started to see the uptick in children taking their lives, we knew it wasn’t just the Covid numbers we need to look at anymore. We have to find a way to put our hands on our kids, to see them, to look at them. They’ve got to start seeing some movement, some hope.”

An increase in emergency calls in more than 40 states among all age groups shows growing problems related to mental health amidst Covid-19. Many reports of these suicidal thoughts stem to one thing - a lack of connection. The most common suicide reason or feeling of disconnection has been attributed to many kids feeling hopeless being unable to see their friends or participate in school activities. The inability to access the mental health services that their schools had offered could also be taking a toll. 

With all this research and statistics, this puts many at a crossroads. If you keep schools closed to mitigate the risk of Covid-19, the mental health of many students will definitely decline and suicide rates could increase. However, if you open schools to help students with their mental health, you increase the risk of Covid-19, and students could be infected and later risk transmission to high-risk individuals such as their parents or grandparents. 

Anyway you look at it, it's an extremely morbid situation that Covid-19 has put us all in. And although Biden has set out an aggressive plan to speed vaccinations, increase testing, and help districts reopen schools in his first 100 days, we can only hope for the best. 

New York Times

Executive Orders Issued to Combat Covid

 

In his first day in office, Joe Biden kept true to his promise to fight Covid-19 harder then Trump did, signing 10 executive orders outlining his new strategies to take down Covid. Some of these orders include: no longer holding back any doses of the vaccine, manufacturing things such as syringes and needles through the Defense Protection Act to help prevent supply chain bottlenecks, as well as taking a much more hands on approach to how individual states vaccinate. In the Trump Administration, vaccines were not initially given out right away and after they were, Trump had no real plan for how each state should use these vaccines, he kind of just let them figure it out on their own. With the Biden Administration, states are now being given a liaison to oversee vaccine distribution, this person is helping the state government set up more testing and vaccination sites, speeding up the process to eradicate Covid. Biden hopes that with this new plan showing much more initiative than the previous administration did, that Americans will have a renewed trust in the government's handling of the pandemic.

With all of these new initiatives taking place, Biden hopes to be able to re open K-8 schools within 100 days. However, he warns that “things are going to continue to get worse before they get better”. The grim reality of the pandemic, is that the USA will surpass 500,000 deaths by the end of the next month.

Does Biden’s new executive orders put us on the right track to end Covid?

Is reopening schools in the next 100 days a realistic goal?

CBS

CNN

 

The Senate’s Hindrance of the Impeachment Trial

Ever since the House voted to impeach former President Trump a little over a week ago, Americans have been waiting to see when the Senate will have a trial. Many have worried about the conflicts that would arise as President Biden is just starting his presidency, and the Senate has a lot of roles they must fulfill. Yesterday, the Senate decided to delay the trial for two weeks during which they will focus on confirming cabinet nominations and work on a relief bill. 

Yesterday, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer stated: “We all want to put this awful chapter in our nation’s history behind us, but healing and unity will only come if there is truth and accountability. And that is what this trial will provide.” Senate Democrats clearly still want to engage in this trial, despite the opposition coming from the other side of the aisle. 

According to the Washington Post, Senator Graham played a role in the push for a delay. In regards to pushing the trial back a few weeks, Graham said: “I think it’s fair to the Senate; I think it’s fair to the president.” During this time, Trump and his legal adviser, Bowers, will have time to prepare. It was only two weeks ago when Senator Graham was verbally attacked at the airport by a mob of Trump supporters calling him a “traitor” and a “garbage human being.” The GOP bond must run deep for Graham to continue advocating for the fallen president.

This coming Monday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will deliver the papers to the Senate. After this, the country must anticipate February 8th for the start of what will surely be a controversial trial.  

1. What do you think about the Senate's decision to delay the trial? 

2. Do you think that we will start to see some bipartisan unity over the next few weeks from Congress?

The New York Times

Washington Post

Washington Post

The Return of Dr. Anthony Fauci

We are now in the midst of President Biden’s second full day as head of state. We are also beginning to see more and more of some of the undoing of Trump’s previous actions, one of which is President Biden’s recent effort to re-establish Fauci’s role. It was only last October when former President Trump called Dr. Anthony Fauci a “disaster.” However, yesterday, Dr. Anthony Fauci was present at the daily White House briefing. This raises the question: is Dr. Fauci really back for good? Last year, we saw Dr. Fauci publicly disputed President Trump’s words regarding the pandemic. After which, according to an article from NPR, “Trump implied he was considering removing the doctor from his coronavirus task force.” After this, the country saw much less of Dr. Fauci at the White House briefings. However, Dr. Fauci is now back and calls it a “liberating feeling.” At Thursday’s briefing, free from the grips of the Trump administration, Dr. Fauci also revealed that he had deemed it necessary to contradict the President because his words were “uncomfortable [as] they were not based on scientific fact.” According to The New York Times, the significance of Fauci’s words at this briefing lie in the fact that he spoke “without the possibility that Mr. Trump or his aides would undercut him, challenge him or try to silence him.” Now, the country turns towards President Biden and officials like Dr. Fauci on their actions regarding lessening the impact Covid-19.

1. What do you think about Dr. Fauci once again becoming the public representation of the White House for the pandemic? 

2. Do you think having Dr. Fauci back at daily briefings will be beneficial? 

The New York Times

NPR  

Biden Recommits the U.S. to the Paris Climate Agreement

His first day in office, Biden signed 17 executive orders, one of them notably being the recommitment to the Paris Climate Agreement from the U.S. This landmark agreement was first adopted in late 2015 by nearly every country, and was a huge milestone of Obama's presidency. The goal of this agreement was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit the increase of global temperatures to below 2 degrees Celsius.

However, a year later during Trump's campaign, he promised to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement and announced it again the following year after he was elected. Fortunately, the terms of the agreement make it so that the U.S. could not formally exit until Nov. 4, 2020. However, this does not discount the over 100 other environment policies that the Trump Administration rolled back. 

President Biden has of course, recognized the gravity of Trump's actions and has been fast at working trying to fix Trump's previous policies. With the largest team of climate change experts ever brought in the White House and a very firm stance on climate change, President Biden is expected to take a lot more action on climate change soon. As soon as next Wednesday, "Biden plans to sign an executive order elevating climate in domestic and national security policy; direct 'science and evidence based decision-making' in federal agencies; reestablish the Presidential Council of Advisers on Science and Technology and announce that U.S. data that will help underpin the Climate Leadership Summit that Biden will host in Washington in late April."

Biden's environmental agenda on his first day has widely surpassed that of any other president, but these policies will take a lot of time and commitment to complete. The U.S. has a lot of catching up to do in the 4 years Trump was president, but with a strong support system and the Democrats taking control of the House and Senate, I think Biden will be able to not only tackle this issue, but also a lot of other important ones during his presidency. 

Washington Post

New York Times

Trump's Departing Pardons

On the final day of his presidency, Donald Trump issued 73 pardons to free people from the various crimes they were charged with. Among the people he pardoned, two of the most newsworthy people were Lil Wayne and Steve Bannon. 

Steve Bannon, a former leader of the Trump Campaign was at one point Trump’s right hand man in the oval office, however, after some differences the two had, Bannon was fired from his job and removed from the White House. Up until this day, Bannon was facing criminal charges for funneling money donated by Trump supporters, to the “We Build the Wall” campaign, for his personal use. Although Trump is now out of office, pardoning Bannon was worth it to him, as he is a witty political strategist who knows the ins and outs of the Republican Electorate. The day before the riots at the capitol in early January, Bannon was on Facebook spreading misinformation and encouraging people to go to the capitol saying, “they are trying to steal the election”. If Trump wants to somehow get back into politics, pardoning Steve Bannon and keeping him as an ally is beneficial to him, as Bannon is clearly aware of how to play and manipulate Trump’s supporters.

Another person pardoned by Trump on Tuesday was Lil Wayne, formally known as Dwayne Michael Carter, a New Orleans based rapper who was charged with illegal possession of a gun in Miami in 2019. The White House said that Carter, "exhibited this generosity through commitment to a variety of charities, including donations to research hospitals and a host of food banks".  While it is true that Carter does donate money to various charities, many people suspect that it was his loyalty and praise of the Trump Administration that granted him this pardon.

At the end of the most presidencies, there is usually a wave of pardons that happen. While some presidential pardons are more controversial than others, it is clear that having some type of loyalty or use to the departing president helps your chances of being pardoned. 

Do you agree with Trump’s pardons?

Should pardoning citizens be a power of the president?

Forbes

CNN

BBC

California, Bay Area Opening Mass Vaccination Sites

 

Pharmacist Brian Kiefer draws saline while preparing a dose of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine at UC Davis Health in Sacramento, Calif.

California is starting to open mass vaccination sites to accelerate vaccinations and accommodate the increased number of Californians now eligible for the vaccine. The new guidelines announced Thursday allow providers to vaccinate people in Phase 1b (essential workers and people 65 and up), but only if vaccines have been made available to everyone in Phase 1a. Many counties are still working through Phase 1a, leading to delays for those in Phase 1b1.

Officials hope that mass vaccination sites at places like Dodger Stadium and Disneyland will significantly increase the number of vaccinations they are able to do each day. ‘“We recognize that the current strategy is not going to get us to where we need to go as quickly as we all need to go,” Newsom said. “So that’s why we’re speeding up the administration not just for priority groups but opening up large sites to do so”’1. At Dodger Stadium, the goal is to vaccinate 12,000 people every day. Previously, Dodger stadium had been a testing site, but LA mayor Eric Garcetti said Thursday that ‘the city shut down coronavirus testing at Dodger Stadium and at the V.A. in Westwood because “we needed personnel from two testing sites just to match what we need for vaccinations in one”’3. A big reason for this is that vaccinating is more complex and time-consuming than testing. Most of the testing consisted of self-administered swabs, while vaccinations require a health professional to do the injection and monitor the patient for 15 minutes. “The timing is also delicate: Staff have to thaw and prepare enough doses to keep the line moving quickly, but not so many that the shots expire”. A complete vaccination also requires a second dose, which creates even more logistical work even after a patient has left the facility”3.

In the Bay Area, it’s likely that within the next few weeks mass vaccination sites, like the one at the San Mateo County Event Center, will be able to start vaccinating those in Phase 1b1.

1. SF Chronicle

2. AP

3. LA Times

Will the GOP ever move past Trumpism?

As we are now nearing the end of Trump’s presidency with President-elect Biden’s inauguration on this coming Wednesday, many questions arise regarding the future of the GOP. The Trump presidency will be ending during a time of extreme crisis, especially with the recent impact of the Capitol Hill riot. According to an article from The Atlantic, Republicans will attempt to “pretend [the Trump era] never happened.”

But, is this really possible? Recently, the Republican party lost two seats in Georgia. The losses that the Republican party have suffered may be the direct consequences of the divisive rhetoric of the Trump era. Additionally, the recent bipartisan impeachment highlights the weakness of the GOP. Where does this leave the Republican Party? All of this points to the fact that the GOP will need to strengthen their party away from the ideals that the Trump presidency has highlighted. This may mean returning to the traditional conservative ideals that some have let go of: ideas like limited government and low taxes. 

Speeches about it being the time for healing and unity that have been continuously spread by Republicans since the riot may play a huge role in what the GOP will attempt to accomplish following the end of the Trump era. However, many will not be fooled by these Senators and other public officials since their critics are focused on the hypocrisy they are displaying after they condoned Trump’s actions for 4 years. 

As of now, we must look to what will pan out in the upcoming weeks. According to the NPR article, a Republican pollster discovered that “43% of Trump voters say they would definitely vote against any lawmaker who supports impeachment.” The impact of this on Republican Senators and the future of the GOP are undetermined. As Don Jr. said: "This is Donald Trump's Republican Party."

1. Do you think it will be possible for Republicans to ignore what has occurred over the past 4 years?

2. What necessary steps do you think the GOP must take?

NPR

The Atlantic

Biden Seeks Quick Start With Executive Actions and Aggressive Legislation

As Biden takes office in the coming week, we can expect plenty of action from the White House that aims to set the tone for his first 100 days and signal that the country is moving past outgoing president Trump. Moving past Trump is “an immensely complex challenge, requiring him to balance demands for accountability after Trump incited the riot against those who worry about further dividing the country”1. To me, it seems that Biden will focus on trying to unite the country rather than focusing on accountability, choosing to leave that to Congress and state AGs. In his words, “when Kamala (Harris) and I are sworn in, we’re going to be introducing, immediately, significant pieces of legislation that will deal with the virus, deal with the economy, and deal with economic growth”1. “Many Democrats say the best way for Biden to unify the nation and restore faith in government is to achieve tangible results on issues that matter to all Americans, including the coronavirus pandemic and the economy”1. Along with those issues just mentioned, climate change is another challenge that Biden plans to focus on from day one in office.

Action on climate change from the Biden administration will include both rolling back Trump’s environmental policies, many of which were aimed at rolling back Obama-era policies, as well as instituting new climate policies. Due to fundamental disagreements between congressional Republicans and the incoming Biden administration on how to best address climate change, we will likely see many executive orders. John Holdren, a former Obama science adviser who worked closely with the Biden campaign, has said that “one of Mr. Biden’s earliest executive orders would revive an Obama-era mandate that every agency in the government incorporate climate change into its policies “2.

Whereas Trump faced many legal challenges to his early executive orders, the Biden administration does not foresee those same issues. Ron Klain, the incoming chief of staff stated that "the legal theory behind them is well-founded and represents a restoration of an appropriate, constitutional role for the President"3. While Biden likely won’t face immediate legal pushback on his executive orders, I think it’s safe to expect that further on in his term we will see challenges to the actions he plans to take on things like citizenship for undocumented immigrants and climate-related legislation. Inauguration day is this Wednesday, so we won’t have to wait long to see how the Biden administration's first days play out.

1. AP

2. NYTimes

3. PBS

4. NYTimes

Impact and Future of Conservative Media

           

The integrity of the November 2020 presidential election remains to be contested by a few individuals and organizations. In particular, Fox News has been spreading all sorts of conspiracy theories and “disinformation,” especially ones about Smartmatic, a company that provides electronic voting technology. Other voting technology companies have also threatened to sue various right-wing media outlets with a “Red Slime” or libel lawsuit. After what happened at the Capitol, how much would you attribute the mob uproar at the Capitol to the information provided by these media outlets? These things are hard to argue, and there is a fine line that needs to be carefully considered. 

With President Trump leaving office, many people believe that the storm is over, but that might not be the case. Typically, ideologically minded news outlets perform well numerically (and perhaps getting their message across effectively) when their political rivals are in control of the presidency. MSNBC's ratings spiked during George W. Bush’s presidency and now again in Trump’s presidency. Looking at this trend, it looks like Fox News and other right-wing media organizations will be seeing new highs in ratings during Biden’s presidency. However, with the consumers of the right-wing media possibly believing that the entire election and now presidency having been stolen, what kinds of new theories or scandals will satisfy their demand for the “unhinged?” With Trump’s defeat, more conservative news consumers seem to be leaving Fox News for farther right media outlets like OANN and Newsmax. According to the 1st NYTimes article, “in the month after the election, Newsmax viewership rose 497 percent between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m., while Fox suffered a 38 percent decline.” 

With the rise of television and media, the president has increasingly become the focal point of attention of the entire nation and world. In general, the president’s media image is unique credibility that holds significant advantages, allowing the president to manipulate the national agenda to their party’s and his or her liking and silently block out interference. 

Political recognition can make or break a campaign, political confrontation, and more. Recent examples may include Andrew Yang’s presidential campaign during 2019-2020 and Bernie Sanders presidential campaign during 2016. For example, MSNBC completely left Andrew Yang off polling charts even when he had higher percentages than other candidates on the chart itself. While quite well-known now, their lack of political recognition (albeit their political views and agendas played a much larger role in their lack of result) hindered them from ultimately making it far in the nomination process. 

That being said, great power requires great responsibility. In his four years, Trump seemingly has caused a rise in the conservative-news consumer’s demand for the “unhinged,” and what caused the Capitol insurrection goes beyond toxic partisanship. 

How will conservative media evolve in the coming Biden administration?

NYTimes

NYTimes #2

CNN News