New York Governor Kathy Hochul Signs Executive Order Forbidding New York State From Doing Business with Russia

         On Sunday, February 27, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed an executive order forbidding New York from doing business with Russia. This order will remain in effect as long as the federal government’s sanctions on Russia remain. Hochul announced that the state of New York will not support Russia in any way as they continue to violate human rights and harm innocent lives as they invade Ukraine. 

This executive order is an example of the governor exercising her power found in the state constitution and the implied powers given to state chief executives. Because this issue is time sensitive, given the recent invasion of Ukraine, Hochul’s use of an executive order was strategic because she did not need approval from Congress or state legislatures. As we learned in class, executive orders are used when efficiency is crucial in emergencies. Although an executive order does not require other branches to weigh in, going against the checks and balances, it shows that sometimes having one person in power can create change more quickly. 

The executive order includes canceling investments in Russia, although it is unclear the direct impact that this will have on the Russian economy. Hochul pointed out that New York’s economy is larger than Russia’s. The US has already announced several new sanctions on Russia, covering about 80% of Russian banking assets. Additionally, the US, European Union, UK, and Canada all declared that some Russian banks would be expelled from SWIFT, a financial messaging service. Despite these attempts to hurt the Russian economy, along with Hochul’s order, Russia has made sure not to rely on other countries for the last few years; it relies heavily on domestic production of goods.  

Hochul has also announced that New York will welcome any Ukrainian refugees and has pointed out that New York has the largest Ukrainian population in the country. As people flee Ukraine to avoid the Russian invasion, Hochul hopes to make New York a safe place for these refugees. 

Personally, I support the governor’s executive order, and I think that it is important that the US, and the rest of the West, do everything we can not to support Russia economically. Although it is unclear the exact impact this will have on Russia’s economy, every small thing helps this ongoing battle. Additionally, I greatly admire Hochul’s efforts to welcome Ukrainian refugees as they try to find a safe place to live. 

Questions:

1. Do you think other governors should follow Hochul’s lead?

2. How do you think this executive order may impact the daily lives of Russian citizens?

3. Do you think the US should be more aggressive with sanctions on Russia and its allies?

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/hochul-orders-new-york-halt-business-with-russia-invites-ukrainian-refugees/3574152/ 

https://abc7ny.com/new-york-state-russia-executive-order-russian-business-entities/11606061/ 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/26/business/russia-economy-sanctions/index.html 

https://www.nga.org/governors/powers-and-authority/

photo: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/andrew-cuomo-resign-kathy-hochul-08-11-21/index.html

Arizona Starbucks becomes first outside New York to unionize

This past Friday, workers at a Starbucks outside of Phoenix voted on unionization, resulting in a 25-3 confirmation of the motion. This made them the only Starbucks in the U.S. outside of New York to do so, and a spokesperson for Starbucks responded to the news by stating that the company "will respect the process and bargain in good faith," highlighting an apparent willingness to cooperate. The goals of the union include creating a stronger front through which to negotiate terms including benefits, safety protocols, pensions, pay, and others, and workers at this store expressed the difficulties associated with effects of the pandemic, especially the issue of being understaffed. 

The election for the decision of whether or not to unionize was intended to occur a week before its actual date, delayed by a request by Starbucks for a review with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington D.C. Starbucks contested whether it was permitted for a single store to hold this type of election, stating rather that if a desire to unionize was present, that all branches in the store's district should vote. The decision of the Labor Relations board was to deny this request by Starbucks, seeing no issues at hand with the actions being carried out by the branch store in Mesa Arizona. The union organizers in Arizona believed this to be an example of "union busting," also claiming other tactics employed by Starbucks such as having upper level management shadow workers in order to ensure they aren't planning to unionize. 

After the first two Starbucks stores in Buffalo New York recently motioned to unionize and successfully elected to do so, multiple other stores across the country are beginning to file petitions to the Labor Relations Board, wanting to similarly conduct their own elections. The actions of these stores and the growing interest in unionization within the company has solicited a response from executives, which have claimed that "the company functions best when it can work directly with its employees," clearly suggesting that they are opposed to the action of unionizing. This issue has led to certain recent conflicts including the firing of seven employees who drove a unionizing campaign, with Starbucks defending the firing by stating how they had opened a company store after the time it was supposed to close. Despite the historic decline in unions, it appears that within younger age groups they are becoming increasingly sought after. A second store in the area of Mesa has filed to conduct its elections, with results being confirmed on March 18th, and over a hundred stores (out of the 9000 nationwide) have already submitted their petitions to the Labor Relations Board. There are economic implications to this process too, as Starbucks shares have declined roughly 11% in the past year, harming its market value. 

I think that there are challenges behind the unionization of individual stores across the nation, making it difficult for the overall company to regulate its employees and have separate dealings with the separate unions. Keeping in mind as well that a collective bargaining agreement is not a requirement, negotiations could be dragged out and cause decreased support and enthusiasm amongst union members. Given the store based nature of the current unions I do not see there being a large free rider problem, and instead to believe that early on there will be very active participation within the unions, and motions to conduct negotiations with the company management. Yet again however, with minimal success there could become a decentralization of the union or even a disbandment altogether. It is tough to say anything now, so it will be interesting to see how the situation evolves and how negotiations between the unions and Starbucks as a corporation go, as this could have significant implications for other major companies. 

Sources: 

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/25/starbucks-restaurant-in-mesa-arizona-votes-to-unionize.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-starbucks-becomes-first-new-york-unionize-rcna17809

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/business/starbucks-union-vote-mesa-arizona/index.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2022/02/25/arizona-starbucks-votes-to-unionize-in-first-such-victory-outside-new-york/?sh=2ad9e5df33ca

Questions:

Do you think that the newly formed unions can have successful negotiations with Starbucks?

Is it advantageous for stores to unionize? 

Will employees in other companies potentially consider this more?

3 Former Officers Also Found Guilty for Violating George Floyd's Civil Rights

 

        On May 25th, 2020, George Floyd lost his life due to irresponsible police officers that held him down due to suspicion that he used a counterfeit $20 bill. Even though Floyd stated that he couldn’t breathe, Derek Chauvin had held his knee on his neck and inevitably killed him. 

Almost 2 years later, on February 24th, 2022, a verdict was determined for the three officers that were responsible for George Floyd’s death. While Chauvin was found guilty of murder and some other murder/manslaughter charges, there were three others that have been on trial since May 25th; Alexander Keung and Thomas Lane were responsible for helping Chauvin restrain Floyd while Tou Thao had prevented bystanders from interfering.

In an article by Daniella Silva from NBC news, she said that “severe punishment is unlikely” though the actual prison sentencing is still to be decided as of writing this. Silva, along with Rochelle Olson and Andy Mannix of the Star Tribute, comments about how the “federal sentencing guidelines recommend three to four years in prison” though they can face up to a lifetime sentence. 

While Chauvin is currently serving a state sentence of over 22 years, it’s said to be harder to place a sentence on Keung, Lane, and Thao due to their circumstances being so unique; in the words of Christy Lopez, a law professor and former deputy chief, “[there’s no] case where they were prosecuting officers [for] failing to intervene against a superior officer.” The sentences are yet to be announced. 

We’ve learned that the Supreme Court sets the precedents for how similar cases should be ruled, often using the ones that have gone through the court of appeals. I personally do not see this case going to the Supreme Court due to the officers seeming unlikely to appeal the decision. I believe that it’s unlikely that the three will receive sentences that are longer than Chauvin’s, though Floyd’s brother, Philonise Floyd, mentions that their punishment “can never be justice,” and rather that it’s “just accountability.”

Questions:

1. Would you give Thao, Lane, and Keung life sentences? If not, why?

2. Many people disagree about what the actual job of the police is; I’ve heard some people say that it’s their job to prove someone of crimes, to uphold the law, and to protect citizens. What do you believe the inherent job of the police is? Is there a priority (ex. Protect the people before upholding the law)?

3. Chauvin’s sentence was announced on June 25th, 2021 (roughly a little over a year after the murder of Floyd) and another year has passed before the other three officers were found guilty. Should the 3 of them have been tried at the same time as Chauvin? Should their sentences also take into consideration what Chauvin’s was?

Sources: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/us/jurors-have-reached-a-verdict-in-the-trial-of-3-officers-over-george-floyds-death.html 

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/24/us/george-floyd-trial-verdict 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jury-reaches-verdict-federal-trial-3-officers-george-floyds-killing-rcna17237 

https://www.startribune.com/after-guilty-verdict-for-ex-minneapolis-officers-prison-sentences-state-trials-fate-hangs-in-balance/600150660/#:~:text=For%20Thao%2C%20Kueng%20and%20Lane,of%20St.%20Thomas%20School%20of 

Biden Nominates Ketanji Brown Jackson as Supreme Court Justice

    

    On Friday, February 25, 2022, President Biden announced his nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson as the next Supreme Court Justice. If confirmed, Jackson would be the first Black woman to be a Supreme Court Justice. Justice Stephen Breyer announced his plan to retire in late January, opening a spot for Biden to choose a liberal judge in a conservative court. Justice Breyer was nominated by President Bill Clinton and was generally considered a more liberal judge known to be the “most pragmatic justice on the bench.”

Ketanji Brown Jackson is a highly-respected Federal Appeals Court Judge who graduated from Harvard Law School in 1996. Jackson started as a public defender, was a federal judge for nine years, and just last year, Biden appointed her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This position is viewed as the first step toward a Supreme Court nomination, and after Biden appointed her to this position, many speculated that she would later be his official nomination. Throughout her time as a trial judge on the Federal District Court in Washington D.C., she helped block Trump’s attempts to fast-track deportations and rejected the claim that Presidents have “absolute immunity” from congressional subpoenas by making Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGhan II, testify on Trump’s obstruction of justice. Most of her past opinions indicate that she would be as liberal as Justice Breyer if confirmed as a Justice. 

Throughout her career, Jackson had to be confirmed by the Senate three times, the most recent being for the U.S. Court of Appeals. Although the Senate is extremely divided at the moment, she was able to win the votes of three Republicans: Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina. With this past support from Senate Republicans, there is hope that the Senate will confirm Jackson as Supreme Court Justice. However, some conservative congressmen criticize Jackson’s education and her past rulings, claiming that they are “too liberal.” Additionally, Lindsey Graham has made it apparent that he wants J. Michelle Childs to replace Justice Breyer. Although he does not have the power to nominate a justice, he is a major player in the confirmation process. Without his vote, it could be difficult to get the support of other Republicans and, therefore, the confirmation.

As we learned in class, to be a Supreme Court Justice, the President must nominate someone and earn the Senate’s confirmation with a simple majority. The next step in this process is for Jackson to go to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she will be questioned on her past rulings and judicial philosophy. Democrat Dick Durbin will lead this Committee, and almost all members of this Committee have worked on a Supreme Court nomination before. Although this is usually a complicated process, Jackson’s recent nomination indicates that it should go smoothly and efficiently. After the questioning, the Senate must consider the nomination in an “executive session” and then vote on whether they think she is suitable to be a Supreme Court Justice. 

Personally, I think that the Supreme Court would greatly benefit from having Ketanji Brown Jackson on the Court. Because currently the Supreme Court mostly consists of white men, I think that it is important to make the Court more diverse. I hope that the Senate does confirm Jackson, but I am concerned that the Republican Senators may make this difficult. I also think it is crucial that Jackson starts her confirmation process and the questioning as soon as possible as the White Houses’ resources and energy will be directed toward Ukraine and Russia in the near future. 

1. Do you think that Ketanji Brown Jackson will be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice? 

2. How do you think having Ketanji Brown Jackson on the Court will affect the Supreme Court decisions?

3. Do you think that the recent events in Ukraine will affect this confirmation process? 

Sources:

https://www.oyez.org/justices/stephen_g_breyer 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/26/us/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court.html?name=styln-scotus-nominations&region=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=Article&variant=0_Control&is_new=false 

https://theconversation.com/four-steps-to-appointing-a-supreme-court-justice-54715 

California Begins Removing Mask Mandate

 

LA County no longer requires people to wear masks indoors if they are vaccinated. Around the country, mask mandates are beginning to expire, and since both the daily averages for new cases and hospitalizations, many are seeing little need to continue the mandates. After seeing the lack of mask-wearing at the Super Bowl, Janice Hahn (County Board of Supervisors) tweeted that "Keeping mandates in place that aren't followed just erodes the credibility the public has in our ability to make good, sound decisions". The people essentially made a decision for themselves: if they didn't want to wear masks, they weren't. Also at the Super Bowl, LA Mayor Eric Garcetti was heavily criticized for not wearing a mask. Celebrities like Ellen Degeneres, Lebron James, and Antonio Brown also rarely wore masks during the event - all sending a message that California is moving past masks. California also recently switched to an "endemic" approach that focuses on bringing back a pre-COVID lifestyle. 

Some school districts, however, have heavily relaxed their mask mandates. According to Tim Taylor from the California Small School Districts' Association, some schools "have decided to stop disciplining or excluding students from school if they don't comply with requests to wear masks". Even larger school districts, like El Dorado Union High School District released a statement saying that they wouldn't exclude students who refuse to wear masks from campus. Students and parents are both siding against mask mandates, for example students at Oak Ridge High School staged a walkout protesting mask-wearing last week. Although the El Dorado Hills mask culture is a far cry from Bay Area mask culture, the sentiment could be similar. 

In California specifically, according to the LA Times around 78% of residents have at least one vaccine, and recently less than 2% of individuals who've contracted the virus have died. It appears that spikes are beginning to die down after the most recent wave of Omicron. However, if the virus continues to spread at all, mutation is a serious risk. There are currently 10 variants being monitored, and 2 variants of concern (Delta and Omicron), but vaccination rates are high enough that further spread shouldn't be major cause for concern, especially since booster shots are shown to heavily improve protection against the disease. In a school situation though, students who contract the virus could spread it to their (possibly aging) parents or even grandparents. Even if states are ready to relax mask wearing in public areas, should schools follow suit? 

Questions:

If mask wearing rules are loosened outside of schools, would it make a difference if students wore masks in school?

What would it take for schools to go maskless?

What are the political implications of Gavin Newsom easing restrictions quickly? Could this be to appease disgruntled Californians and not because he thinks it's right for public health?

How should we learn from other countries' models (on both sides of the spectrum) for fighting the pandemic?

Sources: 

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/23/world/covid-19-tests-cases-vaccine

https://edsource.org/2022/some-california-school-districts-are-defying-state-law-and-making-masking-optional/667805 

https://www.latimes.com/projects/california-coronavirus-cases-tracking-outbreak/

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant-classifications.html 

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2022-02-24/los-angeles-county-eases-covid-19-indoor-mask-mandate

Russian Invades Ukraine

 

                                                                                                                 Ukrainian Soldiers holding flag after recapturing Kyiv Airport

    On February 24th, Russia officially invaded Ukraine with this war only just beginning. Escalation has been going on for weeks with Russian troops and military vehicles building up right outside the border. On early Thursday morning, Russia sent air strikes into Ukraine as an act of unjustified attacks on Ukraine prompting the start of the full war. Ukraine has been able to hold off Russian troops from getting further into the country all while Russia has shelled cities and even towns all across Ukraine. Russia had started invading all across Ukraine from the north and the east side of the country that shares a border with Russia. Ukraine's capital of Kyiv has been targeted by Russia as its main objective while shelling all militarily advantageous locations. 

According to Ukrainian officials, Russian forces have taken over the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl which was the source of the world's largest nuclear disaster. All across the country,  Ukrainian people are trying to flee the country and escape to bordering countries to the west like Poland which has a buildup of NATO and American troops. While the US has not entered the war directly they have been helping from afar with the "Biden administration will also be sending $200 million worth of anti-armor missiles, ammunition and other equipment to Ukraine" (Politico). Surrounding countries and other NATO countries have not declared war knowing the risks involved in the huge escalation of this war which has been the first real war as part of the 21st century. With both countries having advanced weaponry and as fully standing governments this is one of the first huge conflicts in an extremely long time.

As stated in a New York Times article, this war is different with the goal to expand the country and its influence back to the previous power of the USSR. "A Russian invasion of Ukraine would look like the kind of war that has been largely absent in the past 80 years and that was once common. It would involve a powerful nation setting out to expand its regional dominance by taking over a neighbor. A war like this — a voluntary war of aggression — would be a sign that Putin believed that Pax Americana was over and that the U.S., the European Union and their allies had become too weak to exact painful consequences"(New York Times). With some more context, "Pax Americana" refers to a time after WWII when most of the world was at relative peace from the influence of America. This seems to have disappeared and now Putin is trying to take advantage of the current situation of political disarray especially, in the United States. Putin is trying to change the course of the world's government as stated by Larry Diamond of Stanford University as a trend of "democratic recession"(New York Times). This could possibly be a violent takeover of an autocracy taking control over a democratic country. But the costs for Russia have been huge with the US promising huge sanctions against the war with other countries following suit. Russia's economy has greatly fallen as a result from sanctions and the negative light of its attacks on Ukraine.

This kind of event has not happened to the world in such a long and it feels helpless to simply just watch as even though we are in the 21st century, full country-on-country war can still happen. Losing Ukraine to Russia would be a huge issue to the rest of the Democratic world and to other nearby countries while only showing the rise of an autocratic takeover. 

What should the US or NATO's actions be?

Should what should be the punishment for Russia's attack on Ukraine and why do you think Putin wanted this?

What overall thoughts do you have on the Ukraine-Russian conflict?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-invasion-scrambles-prospects-for-global-economy-11645699066

https://www.the-sun.com/news/4768049/ukraine-russia-news-kyiv-airport-capture/ (just image)

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukraine-maps.html

https://www.newyorker.com/books/double-take/russias-war-on-ukraine-in-context

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/briefing/ukraine-russia-war-pax-americana.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/us-allies-ukraine-weapons-russia-invasion-527375

COVID and the US Economy

  

         Ever since the COVID-19 pandemic hit in January of 2020, economies worldwide have suffered, and many were worried about the recovery time. However, about two years after we all entered quarantine for the first time, economists claim that the US economy is on its way to recovery. According to CNN Business, both the California and United States economies are currently 89% back to where they were in February of 2020. 

        Looking more closely at this data, we can analyze the rate at which people filed for unemployment. In April of 2020, the US peaked unemployment with just about 23 million Americans filing for unemployment benefits for at least two weeks in a row. While this statistic is extremely high, I am not surprised, given the impact that COVID had on our everyday lives at that point, ultimately affecting the job market. The Bureau of Labor Statistics claims that at this time, the US hit an unemployment rate of 14.7%, a pandemic-era high. We can also compare this statistic to the highest unemployment rate during the Great Recession: 10%. Because the COVID unemployment rate is significantly higher than that of the Great Recession, one of the United States’ worse economic declines in history, the impact COVID had on the overall economy is evident. However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics claims that the current US unemployment rate is 4%, significantly lower than the unemployment rate in May of 2020. Furthermore, in February of 2020, the US unemployment was 3.5%, indicating that the economy is slowly getting back to what it once was. Finally, as of December of 2021, overall job postings have increased by 129.4% compared to February 2020. In the healthcare industry, in particular, job postings have increased by 173.42%. This increase makes sense because of the increased demand of healthcare workers in light of COVID. Overall, this improvement in the overall job market indicates an improvement in the US economy. However, unemployment is only one factor of our economy’s overall status because inflation is still high, and many small businesses, such as restaurants, are still recovering from COVID.

        How does the US economy compare to the economies of other countries? Well, in the third quarter of 2021, the US exceeded its pre-COVID GDP level while other countries, such as Japan and some large countries in Europe, followed closely behind. GDP is known as Gross Domestic Product, and the better a country’s GDP, the better its economy typically is. According to Booker, the US has a strong GDP compared to the rest of the world because many countries in Europe entered another lockdown while the US was extremely aggressive about distributing vaccinations.  

        In class, we learned about economic security: the protection against economic risks such as work injuries, unemployment, inflation, business failures, and poverty. Although the economy is recovering now, the COVID-19 pandemic has proved how weak our economic security is. I think that there should be changes made to the system to prevent the high levels of unemployment and economic instability that COVID caused.  

Questions:

1. How do you think the future of COVID will affect the economy?

2. What could be put in place to prevent a weak economy in the future in the case that there is another COVID surge?

3. How do you think COVID affected the “broad goals of an economic system”?

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/business/us-economic-recovery-coronavirus 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/12/08/a-most-unusual-recovery-how-the-us-rebound-from-covid-differs-from-rest-of-g7/ 

https://www.bls.gov/lau/ 

https://www.fpri.org/article/2020/03/covid-19-crisis-political-and-economic-aftershocks/ 

Putin Officially Orders Troops into Separatist Regions of Ukraine for "Peacekeeping"

Russian and Belarusian forces in a military exercise in September 2021 via AP News

The conflict in Ukraine has been continually escalating in the past few weeks, with efforts for diplomacy consistently resulting in unmet demands. In his speech today, Putin accused Ukraine of escalating the conflict, though as of Sunday, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense has claimed that “pro-Russian forces had violated the ceasefire agreement 20 times, including through using mortars, anti-tank grenade launchers and artillery systems to shell over a dozen Ukrainian settlements. One Ukrainian soldier was killed during the attacks, and another was wounded” (Politico). Today, Putin has claimed that regions in Eastern Ukraine (which are occupied by pro-Russian forces) are independent from Ukraine, utilizing his statement as justification for the official decree he signed just hours later that has ordered Russian armed forces into the pro-Moscow regions of Eastern Ukraine. The decree officially states “peacekeeping functions” in these Eastern regions as the justification for the invasion, though countries like the U.S. are predicting a much broader operation into more of Ukraine due to the organization and loading of amphibious ships and airborne unit equipment. The U.S. Secretary of State even added that Putin has “directly contradict[ed] Russia’s claimed commitment to diplomacy, and is a clear attack on Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.” Russia’s actions are being condemned internationally, with many European countries and even Australia promising that the actions will be met with consequences.

Satellite image of Russian forces organizing near the Ukrainian border via NDTV.com

Will Russia’s actions be the leadup to World War III? Probably not. Biden has implied that he will do everything possible to avoid direct American-Russian troop conflict and has said that American troops will not be deployed into Ukraine, recognizing the dangers of such a direct conflict by saying that we’d be living in a “very different world than we’ve ever been in” if it would happen. After today’s events, however, he has also said that “it is going to be a disaster for Russia if they further invade Ukraine and that our allies and partners are ready to impose severe cost and significant harm on Russia and the Russian economy.” Both Russia and America have an incredible interest in not conflicting directly with another; however, both groups are evidently willing to intervene if either threatens their security, as shown with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine because of the threat of them joining NATO (which would add another NATO nation to its border) and the movement of American troops to Poland (which borders Ukraine, serving as an opportunity of expansion of Putin decides to broaden the invasion). If either side felt threatened enough, war could be possible. The US ambassador to the United Nations has said this:


“President Putin asserted that Russia today has a rightful claim to all territories, all territories from the Russian Empire, the same Russian empire from before the Soviet Union from over 100 years ago. That includes all of Ukraine. It includes Finland. It includes Belarus and Georgia and Moldova, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Lithuania. Latvia, and Estonia. It includes parts of Poland and Turkey.”

Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations

While NATO may not directly intervene in a Russian invasion of Ukraine (outside of HEAVY sanctions), they would protect neighboring countries if Putin decided he wanted to broaden the invasion. A war between NATO and Russia would be devastating for the world.


America has the largest military in the world and the highest international military budget by a large margin. Backed by NATO, the U.S. would without a doubt defeat Russia in a traditional war; however, in 2022, modern weapons of advanced countries pose a new threat that, if used by Putin, could force NATO’s hand if Russia does decide it wants more. On the topic of a potential war between NATO and Russia, Putin says, “of course, NATO’s and Russia’s potentials are incomparable. We understand it. But we also understand that Russia is one of the leading nuclear states and by some modern components, it even outperforms many. There [would] be no winners.”

President Putin in his speech about Russia's nuclear arsenal

I apologize for the lengthy post, but this continually escalating conflict has the potential to develop into an international threat. Though an all-out war between Russia and NATO remains extremely unlikely, an official Russian invasion of Ukraine could be a stepping stone to something bigger.


What do you think are the implications of the (likely very near) Russian invasion of Ukraine?


Is NATO’s response to the Ukraine-Russian conflict appropriate? What should/could be done differently?


What do you think will be the outcome of the current Ukraine-Russian conflict, or how do you think the conflict will evolve?


Do you have any other comments about the Ukraine-Russian conflict?

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-21-22/index.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/20/tension-rise-as-russia-continues-to-mobilize-troops-near-ukrainian-border-00010407

https://metro.co.uk/2022/02/08/vladimir-putin-threatens-nuclear-war-in-europe-if-ukraine-joins-nato-16066912/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/us/biden-ukraine.html

Trump’s app "Truth Social" launches in the app store today

 

Becoming available for download Sunday night on Apple’s App Store, Truth Social has quickly climbed the charts, reaching No. 1 early Monday. Owned by the Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG), the company Trump made after leaving the presidency, Truth Social is a Twitter-like app that was created a year after Trump was banned from Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms for his incendiary language following the January 6th insurrection. 

In Truth Social, instead of tweets, posts are called “truths” and reamplification of “truths” is known as “retruths.” Users of the app are also referred to as “truthsayers.”

After the launch, the app has run into many technical issues. Upon downloading the app, people were met with various error messages. As seen in the image above, those who got past the error messages were able to join a waitlist that has grown to over 160k. Despite these difficulties, according to The Insider, “TMTG CEO Devin Nunes told Fox News that he expects Truth Social to be fully operational by the end of March.”

Similar apps to Truth Social that are popular with conservatives include Rumble, Gettr, Parler. According to CNN, Parler “was removed last year from Apple and Google's app stores amid allegations that Jan. 6 rioters used the platform to incite violence.”

There was a version of the site that briefly became accessible to the public last October which allowed people to claim usernames and create accounts. According to the Washington Post, “one account under the handle “donaldjtrump” posted a photo of a pig defecating.”

Trump also launched a blog called “From the Desk of Donald Trump” which was reported to have very low viewership. It was shut down after 29 days because Trump was upset by media coverage concerning his blog’s tiny following. 

Related to the civil liberties and civil rights that we went over in class, Trump and his conservative toolbox has frequently claimed that the Twitter ban is a violation of his First Amendment rights. However, one's First Amendment right still has limitations. The 1919 SCOTUS case Schenck v. United States concluded that the First Amendment does not protect speech that promotes violence or harm against others -- the "clear and present danger of a significant evil" test. The 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio expanded on this test -- it concluded that speech "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action" is not protected under the First Amendment. 

Furthermore, according to Newsweek, Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act "protects social media companies and other websites from liability for content their users post. Companies cannot be treated as publishers, only hosts who can act as moderators 'in good faith.' " 

Nevertheless, the debate continues as to how much power social media companies should have in regulating user content on their platforms and whether Trump's ban was indeed a violation of his First Amendment rights in the context of how prevalent social media is today. Or, you could circumvent that debate entirely, hastily re-create the megaphone that Twitter ripped away from you, and reap the benefits of a loyal fan base -- willing to download your half-baked app, create hype, and boost your stock (generating millions of dollars for you!) but unwilling to read your half-baked blog posts.

Questions: 

1. Does Trump’s ban from Twitter and other social media platforms constitute a violation of his First Amendment rights? Has social media become so ingrained in today's culture that being banned from social media is akin to censorship? 

2. If Trump were to again use incendiary language similar to what he said on January 6th on his platform Truth Social, is there any basis on which he could be charged with a crime? (yelling “fire” in a theater)

3. What are the dangers of Trump creating his own conservative echo chamber, besides trying to motivate his followers to overthrow the government again? 

4. What do you think about Twitter, Truth Social, and other similar apps?

Sources and image creds:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/21/tech/trump-truth-social-app-store/index.html

https://www.cnet.com/news/trumps-truth-social-debuts-in-apples-app-store/

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-truth-social-app-initial-review-sign-up-waitlisted-2022-2

https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-social-media-app-truth-social-outage-minutes-launch-2022-2

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trumps-social-media-app-launches-year-twitter-ban-83027675

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/02/21/truth-social-app-donald-trump/

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-twitter-violate-president-trumps-first-amendment-rights-1560673

Senate Republicans Introduce their own Russia Sanctions Package after stalled Bipartisan Negotiations

Recent Senate sessions, concerning the present conflict between Russia and Ukraine, have been taking place in the past weeks as the situation continues to escalate without foreseeable resolution. Currently, it is estimated that there are over 150,000 Russian troops stationed at the border, and just recently after having claimed that they would decrease troop presence the Kremlin in fact advanced an additional 7,000 troops to the already massive stationed total. The situation has drawn international concern and sent various nations and organizations such as NATO into important and time sensitive talks. The U.S. has been involved in monitoring this border crisis and working towards coming up with a solution that prevents violent conflict while also punishing Russia's aggression, yet the challenging politics of the U.S. government have presented obstacles to the decision making process. 

Weeks of negotiations in the Senate between Democrats and Republicans regarding whether or not to impose sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline (which supplies Germany with gas from Russia) have resulted in a 55-44 vote (60 votes were needed to pass it), resulting in no implementable action. Republican senators however, led by Senator Jim Risch, have proposed a new sanctions package called the Never Yielding Europe's Territory (NYET) Act. Hoping to solicit Democratic Support so that it may be passed quickly, this sanctions package labels out various actions to be taken in the instance of Russian invasion. Firstly, in the event of an invasion the U.S. would immediately place sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, along with on Putin's "cronies, enablers, and major banks." Alongside this, $500 million would be provided to finance Ukraine's military, U.S. funding for military excersises in Europe would be doubled, and a new State Department Foreign Military Financing program for Eastern Europe would be created, enabling the U.S. to assist its allies there (protecting them from future territorial aggression/threats such as the current one from Russia). The U.S. is no stranger to conflict in Eastern Europe: since the Russian invasion of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 which resulted in occupation of the region, the U.S. has contributed over $2.5 billion to aid Ukraine. 

It remains to be seen whether enough cooperation can lead to an agreement on the NYET Act, and if this is a good option to purse, yet I think that it is important for there to be genuine bipartisan consideration of Congressional Proposals. If it is passed, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, a subset of the U.S. Department of the Treasury is the agency that would be involved with regards to enforcing sanctions on Putin and Russia. Time sensitive matters such as military conflicts convey urgency to Congressional hearings and decision processes, and there are fewer options to delay action by means such as filibuster due to the nature of the problems. I believe it to be an unfortunate reality that even when pushed to problem solve in a condensed time frame due to the severity of an issue, that the government still is adhering to partisan politics and policy, an effect of the increasing polarization and general party loyalty amongst elected officials. The best outcome that was achieved thus far by both "sides" in Congress has been a statement of unity supporting Ukraine, a symbolic notion that achieves nothing truly tangible. Hopefully there can be more consensus with respect to a course of action as it seems as though the situation truly does not have much time before something happens either in the form of invasion or retreat. 

Questions:

What are your thoughts on the NYET Act (is this a good/realistic proposal, are certain parts better than others)?

Should more U.S. money be channeled into aiding Eastern European nations, given how much has already been expended on the behalf of maintaining security there?

Is it better to make diplomatic statements, or pursue more direct actions (such as sanctions) when in a stand-off with another nation?

Sources:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/16/russia-adds-7000-troops-to-ukraine-border-despite-claims-it-would-withdraw-some-forces-us-says.html

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/15/politics/russia-sanction-package-negotiations/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-republicans-offer-russia-sanctions-bill-after-bipartisan-talks-stall-2022-02-15/

http://www2.gtlaw.com/practices/export/pdf/HowBestToRespondOFAC_AdministrativeSubpoena.pdf

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/16/nato-says-russia-is-increasing-troop-count-at-ukrainian-border.html

Ottawa’s Freedom Convoy and connections to ⅙

            For the past two weeks, there have been ongoing protests and blockades along the US-Canada border against the COVID-19 vaccine mandates and restrictions. The protests, coined the “Freedom Convoy,” first converged in Ottowa on January 29th, leading to a rally at Parliament Hill. While the original cause for these protests was an outrage for requiring truckers to show a vaccine passport when crossing the US-Canada border, the protest’s values have broadened to include even vaccinated Canadians looking to decrease COVID-19 restrictions, and those vehemently against the current prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau. These protesters have refused to leave until all COVID-19 restrictions have been lifted – despite some of these restrictions (like the US-Canada Border vaccine mandate) having two countries involved, thus Canada lifting the vaccine mandate wouldn’t amount to anything if the US still requires it to cross. Despite a lack of widespread reports of violence from local police, this protest has been anything but peaceful – creating huge blockades in cities like Ottawa have put a stop to many people’s livelihoods and interruptions to daily life. Some have even characterized this event as closer to a “siege” or “occupation” rather than a “protest.” 

However, in a very ⅙-esque attempt, far-right-leaning groups in Canada have called for a storming of Parliament Hill, the Canadian equivalent to the US Capitol Building, in order to get what they want. 

While these plans have been publicly denounced by the event organizers, the fact is that these sentiments are growing in Canada, and could inspire a similar anti-COVID-19 restrictions protest in the US too, since right-leaning media outlets have reported this event in a positive, nearly inspirational light (The US already has similar protest, but not nearly to the extent with what is happening in Canada right now). The sentiment is the same in Canada or the US – 'freedom lovin patriots' who want less government control. And while the protests are part of a vocal minority – 90% of Canadian truckers are fully vaccinated – the number of people aligning with the sentiment of ‘fighting for freedom’ is growing at a scary rate. It’s inspiring similar protests around the world, such as in France. While people should retain some wary eyes at how the government protects their rights, the danger of being too untrusting is being easily manipulated – latching onto the first politician who “seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument” – the Oxford Language definition of a demagogue. 

Serious moves to de-escalate and disband the protests are still ongoing. Just this Monday, Trudeau announced the Canadian government is enacting The Emergencies Act for the first time since it was passed by parliament in the late 1980’s. According to CNN, it can “temporarily suspend citizens' rights to free movement or assembly,” thus making the current protestors viable to arrest. While the Emergenices Act also allows for Trudeau to bring in the military, this power has not been exercised. 

In any case, protests like the one in Canada are a threat to democracy – while protesting is all good and dandy, the idea that one group can just hijack and make the government do whatever that group wants is and should be scary. Trudeau has tried to de-escalate the situation at hand by talking about how restrictions might lessen in the near future if case numbers continue to go down, but I think offering any concessions to what is essentially an occupation in Ottawa is setting a dangerous precedent for future groups to do the same. The most important course of action that needs to happen is to label events like ⅙ and the Freedom Convoy a complete and utter failure, so as to ward off any inspiration for future groups. The government cannot give in to any of the demands that these people are making.

 Questions:

1. How do you think the Canadian government should have/should be responding to these protests? Should the military be brought in, or would that lead to more violence?  

2. How else can the Freedom Convoy be related to growing disdain for the government in the US? 

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/world/americas/canada-trucker-protest.html

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/11/americas/canada-truckers-protests-covid-friday/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/americas/canada-truckers-protest-monday/index.html

https://fortune.com/2022/02/15/canada-freedom-convoy-protesters-block-2-more-bridges-to-us-justin-trudeau-new-emergencies-act-powers/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/15/freedom-convoy-canada-trudeau-border-emergency-act/