Congress Approves New Disaster Relief Bill

Article:
Washington Post

Image: Aftermath of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico

     On Tuesday the Senate approved a bill that authorizes the use of 36.5 billion federal dollars on disaster relief from hurricanes and the recent wildfires in California. This story isn't all that complicated but the part about it that I find the most interesting is that the Senate approved this bill with a vote of 80-19. This shows a clear willingness for bipartisanship in the face of disaster.
     My question to all of you is: Do you think that politician's willingness to negotiate with the other political party in the face of disasters like the recent storms and wildfires is a good sign for bipartisan ship, or do you see it as a bad sign that the two political parties seem to only be able to work together when the country is literally falling apart?

Russian news outlet RT has influence in American media

Articles:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-state-news-outlet-rt-thrives-on-youtube-facebook-1508808937

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/technology/youtube-russia-rt.html

RT has a large presence on YouTube with over 2.2 million subscribers, 2.1 billion views, and 4.5 million followers on Facebook. This Russian news organization openly bombarded Hillary’s reputation during the 2016 presidential election, drawing attention to the email incident, and make accusations, such as her having hidden ties with Islamic extremists, or being in very poor mental/physical condition. Twitter even reported that RT had spent almost 300 thousand dollars to “promote tweets to US users” (WS journal). YouTube recently removed RT from a list of channels that had premium advertisers, denying any political motives for doing so.

I don’t doubt that RT is a platform for propaganda, used by Russia to influence American politics. Social media has given RT free reign to spread whatever false information they desire, and because they aren’t violating any of the guidelines set forth by such media platforms, there is nothing that can be done to impede their influence.

I don’t think that RT should have to be penalized for trying to influence the American people through propaganda. Even though RT has gathered a large amount of views and subscribers, I know that YouTube subscribers aren’t invested in RT’s content; they don’t pay for their subscription. Also, I don’t think censoring RT would reflect good on America. Taking away a major freedom just because of Russian propaganda would be going overboard.  

Optional questions

Has social media allowed for more false information to go around?

Does social media pose any benefits in American politics?

Do you think RT should have the freedom to spread false information to carry out their agenda? If not, where should the line be drawn when it comes to other countries influencing American Politics?

Transitional Brexit deal must be agreed this year, City warns government

Main Article

Why The City of London ≠ London

Brexit 411

The City of London (the small half-mile financial hub of Europe, not to be confused with the city itself) has warned the May Government that businesses will start activating their Brexit contingency plans, move away from London, and set up shop elsewhere in Europe unless the May Government and Parliament can enact a transitional deal with the European Union by the end of 2017. 

In a letter to Chancellor of the Exchequer Phillip Hammond before next month’s budget, Catherine McGuinness, the most senior policy official at the City of London Corporation – the local authority for the Square Mile -- said the UK was facing a “historically defining moment” and warned that the timetable for business to prepare for transition was “tightening very rapidly.” 

The implications of McGuinness's message are clear: unless the May Government and the EU leadership comes up with a plan fast, banks and businesses will leave London, taking thousands of jobs with them in the process. Many Britons know all too well about the days before the financial boom of the 90's that lead to London as a financial hub for Europe and the world-a world of frequent Dole lines and austere Thatchernomics. This reality is already happening already, with individual banks and businesses enacting and devising contingency plans.

However, the path towards a final Brexit deal is unclear-the Conservative party, aided by UKIP and a plurality of eurosceptics, advocates for a "hard Brexit" where the UK will break completely away from the EU-the EU would regard the UK like Japan or Brazil, with no connection between the two entities at all. However, the Labor Party and most other groups advocate for a "soft Brexit" like in Norway and Switzerland, where some ties with the EU could remain. For example, Britain could leave the Schengen free-movement zone and not have to make any contributions to the EU, but still could remain in the single market or participate in the EU Erasmus Student Exchange program. 

At this point, it doesn't matter wether Brexit helps or hurts Britain economically-the decision has already been made by the British people, and they voted to leave. I personally favor a soft Brexit-if Britain could remain in the single market, for example, they'd still benefit from the presence of European banks and businesses without tariffs-but if the British people truly do have a desire for strong borders, then perhaps they could negotiate an exit from the Schengen Zone.

How could Brexit and it's aftermath affect the way the world does business? Do you favor a soft Brexit or a hard Brexit? If a soft Brexit, what aspects should Britain keep, and where should they part ways with the European Union?

Trump and Corker Escalate Battle Over Taxes, in Personal Terms

Article Link

President Trump renewed his attacks on Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) on Tuesday, chastising him for his skepticism over a $1.5 trillion tax cut. Mr. Corker responded by going on national television to say that Mr. Trump was “debasing” the United States and that the president struggled with the truth.

In a tweet on his personal account, the President responded by stating that Corker "couldn't get elected dog catcher in Tennessee" and that as the chair for the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, "helped President O give us the bad Iran Deal." Corker responded by referring to the White House as a daycare center in a responding tweet.

This virtual shouting match between the President and Senator Corker bodes ill for the President's relationship with the upper house of the United States Congress. President Trump has a history of hostility with the Republican-held Senate (even bearing hostility towards his fellow republicans in the Senate), from the contentious Cabinet hearings to Trump's vows that he'd work with "Chuck [Schumer] and Nancy [Pelosi]" on the issue of the debt ceiling in open defiance of the Republican leadership. Trump's fight with Corker even put a key vote on tax reform in jeopardy (which barely passed 51-48.)

I'm honestly shocked at the way Trump is not taking advantage of his situation-many Republican senators and representatives in the majority of both houses of Congress expected a good relationship with the president, if not a stooge in the White House who could help along the republican agenda once in office. I'm also wondering how this adversarial relationship could affect possible impeachment and removal proceedings (should such proceedings ever occur.)

Appeals Court Grants Detained Teen Abortion

Articles:
LA Times
Washington Post

Image:

     Today the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled in favor of Jane Doe (pseudonym), a 17-year-old detained by federal immigration authorities in the state of Texas, and mandated that the federal authorities allow her to have an abortion.
     This 6-3 ruling came after a three judge panel (of the same court) overturned a lower court's ruling to allow Doe to seek an abortion. The decision by the Appeals Court simply sent the case back to a lower court in which the judge promptly reinstated the previous ruling (allowing Doe to seek an abortion) and mandated that the government "promptly and without delay" transport the teen to a Texas abortion provider.
     Conservatives say this ruling opens up a precedent for unaccompanied minors being able to obtain abortions on demand. Liberals say that the government can not restrict a woman's right to an abortion even if she is undocumented and a minor. What do you think? Should Doe be allowed to have an abortion? Does Roe v. Wade apply to undocumented immigrants and/or minors?

Russian Radio Presenter Stabbed in the Neck

Moscow Times Article
Secondary Article

Image

Earlier today, Tatyana Felgenhauer, a radio presenter for Russian news station Ekho Movskvy, was stabbed in the neck in her newsroom. Officials are unsure of the motive, but conclude that it was likely a personal attack. Russian news agency Interfax says that Felgenhauer knew the alleged attacker and the attack had nothing to do with her journalism, though RIA Novosti (used to be Russia’s international new agency) backs what Russian police have said about the attack being personal.

Boris Grits, the attacker, claims that he has “I’ve only known the victim telepathically for 5 years,” and that Felgenhuaer has “been sexually harassing me for 2 months. Every night, using telepathic means of contact, she entered and sexually harassed me” (Moscow Times).

Many journalists, however, believe that the attack was caused by the growing hostility of Russia’s political climate. The editor in chief of Ekho, Alexei Venediktov, supports this claim by citing the arson attacks in response to the movie based on Russia’s last czar (Nicholas II).

Rex Tillerson makes an unannounced visit to Afghanistan

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made a sudden quick stop to Afghanistan to meet with President, Ashraf Ghani, following a suicide bombing on Kabul that killed 15 people this past Saturday. Tillerson was only on Afghan ground for 2 hours before leaving for Qatar as a part of his week-long Middle East visit. What was actually discussed in the meeting has not been publicly announced, however, it most likely points to defense strategies for Afghanistan in order to prevent other attacks like the one on Saturday.

The suicide bombing also took place the day after more suicide bombings at mosques outside of Kabul killed almost 60 people. The attacks haven't been claimed by anyone yet, although ISIS seems to be the ones behind it. Back in August, President Trump announced a strategy for the war in Afghanistan, which put a focus on pressuring Taliban to the point of surrender and would concentrate less on nation-building.

Tillerson's visit in Afghanistan also prompted a step up with security after Taliban forces launched a rocket attack that was aimed for Defense Secretary James Mattis, who already departed the country. The visit also came after a stop in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where he called for foreign fighters in Iraq to go home and let the Iraqi people deal with situation themselves.

I personally find it suspicious that Tillerson would secretly take a visit to Afghanistan. Even though i understand it might spark criticism if he does announce the visit it is still his job to visit countries and deal with foreign policies. Who knows what they might have talked about? Maybe it's something about the recent bombings or maybe it could have been something else.

Why do you think Tillerson made this pit stop unannounced? What do you think was discussed between Ghani and Tillerson? Do you believe that ISIS could be the ones responsible for the attacks?

CNN Article
Picture Link

Republicans Pass Fiscal Budget in Senate, Hopes for Tax Reform

Article 1

Article 2

Louisiana Situation and Analysis

Some charts that breakdown the current tax policy

Image

This Thursday, the Senate passed a budget for fiscal 2018. The House must create its own budget and the two budgets from the houses will be compared and compromised on in order to create the finalized budget for 2018. The tax reforms that Republicans aim to implement will determine how they obtain the budget, and many Republicans are hopeful that this will be the start to their promised tax reforms, and framework for these tax reforms has been announced. After the failed attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act, successful tax reforms are extremely important for approval rates.

This framework “calls for just three tax rates -- 12%, 25% and 35% -- but allows for the possibility of a fourth,” which is a large simplification of the seven current tax brackets. The issue is that this would decrease the government budget, and is “expected to increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion” over ten years (Barret and Mattingly). This new plan would increase the tax rate on the lowest bracket by 2%, which for the cap income for this bracket would mean an additional $186.5 lost to taxes, which most likely would’ve gone to necessities. It also means that for each person earning the lowest income for the highest tax bracket, the government will collect $19,246.44. Republicans hope that this amount saved by the rich will be put back into the American economy.

However, examples of previous tax cuts have shown that they don’t always stimulate the economy. For example, Bush’s tax cuts “added 1.7 trillion dollars to the national debt over 10 years.” In addition, Louisiana’s governor Bobby Jindal supported the largest tax cuts in the state’s history. Currently, “Louisiana’s budget shortfall is projected to reach $1.6 billion next year and to remain in that ballpark for a while” (Dreher), and Jindal, who refuses to raise taxes, took millions out of funding from health care and higher education. According to Representative Patricia Smith, “We’re going to end up placing fees and all kinds of things on ordinary citizens, just so Jindal can say on the presidential campaign trail that he didn’t raise taxes,” meaning that citizens will still have to make up for the budget shortfall even though Jindal didn’t raise their taxes.

Even though the Republican tax reforms and Louisiana’s tax system aren’t the same, I believe that Louisiana’s situation paired with past national tax cuts make a strong case that they don’t create lasting stability. In Louisiana and during Reagan’s presidency, there was a (relatively) brief surplus of money which eventually crashed. While the framework of the tax reform is not terribly drastic to my understanding, it still cuts down government revenue a lot, which means that the government will have to cut funding from certain programs (likely health care and possibly education). I understand why people who believe in a smaller government would support tax cuts, tax cuts can create debt that only an even bigger government than what we currently have (FDR's New Deal expanded government to proportions it had never been before, and even though that debt wasn't caused by tax cuts, the solution is big government and tight regulations).

Afghanistan's Capital Attacked, Leaves Dozens Dead

Article 1
Article 2
Timeline of Taliban Rule in Afghanistan
Public Confidence Survey

Kabul in August of This Year

On Saturday in Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, a gunman opened fire in a Shia mosque during prayer and killed at least 39 civilians. The Islamic State has since claimed the attack, though has not provided evidence. There was also an attack on a Sunni mosque in the Ghor province with left 20 civilians dead.

In addition, (also on Saturday) a suicide bomber killed 15 Afghani army cadets. The Taliban claimed this attack. Including this incident, 250 lives were taken due to bombings this week. The three bombers on Saturday took 74 lives.

Kabul has been attacked more than 10 times this year alone. After the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan in 1993, it has been very unstable despite the adoption of a new Constitution (that has some similarities to the American constitution, including a three branch government) in 2004. A 2015 survey by the Asia Foundation found that “57.5% of people across the country believe the country is moving in the wrong direction, and 67.4% fear for their personal safety.” This shows that less than half of Afghani citizens believe that what their government is doing is right, and almost 70% live in fear.

Does the fact that America gave support to the anti-communist Mujahidden forces that became the Taliban make America responsible in helping Afghanistan achieve stablity? If so, to what extent?

5 Former Presidents Make Appearance at Concert to Raise Funds for Hurricane Victims

Link to Article: http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/living-presidents-attend-texas-hurricane-relief-concert-50630060

On Saturday, the 5 former U.S. presidents came together at a concert in Texas to raise funds for victims of the tragic hurricanes. Despite battling Parkinson’s disease and having to rely on a wheelchair, at age 93 Mr. Bush attended the concert, showing his support and sympathy towards those affected. According to George H.W. Bush’s spokesman, the president's’ raised $31 million.

When the former presidents had the opportunity to speak, not one of them made any comments regarding Donald Trump or any other political issue. All politics aside, these 5 men simply came together in efforts to unite the country and reveal that, “the heart of America… is greater than our problems” (Hillary Clinton).

Overall, there seems to be a sharp distinction between how former presidents dealt with national tragedies versus how Trump has been handling the issues recently. Is Trump doing a good-enough job dealing with such issues? What are your reactions to the 5 former president's actions?

How Fiction Becomes Fact on Social Media

Article

Recently, rumors and conspiracies have been spreading like wildfire over the internet. There’s no shortage of these, whether it be that Russia hacked into Twitter and Facebook to sway voters, or that the Las Vegas shooter was an “antifa” supporter. Even if we believe we won’t fall prey to misinformation from online sources, particularly social media, studies have shown that users of sites like Facebook will still absorb the information. These falsities then are able to spread and grow over the internet, and can distort information even further through an effect similar to the game “telephone.” Some people seem to find it easier to believe something if they’ve seen it multiple times, even if the source of the information is unreliable. This is seen through the usage of memes, another way false information can be spread, and then taken as fact. Once people see something online that they may want to be a part of a discussion on, they share it without checking if it’s from a reliable source.

This article strongly relates to the social media lessons we covered. In class, we learned that social media makes it easier in elections to spread misinformation and gain notoriety. This article explains how this spread of misinformation can happen. While there are certainly some benefits to the growing use of social media, this is one of the most negative aspects of it.

The increase in amount of falsities in the media is alarming. Do you think combating the sending of false information is a realistic goal?

How do you think we could prevent the spread of wrong information?

Do you think social media has a place in politics? If so, what should it be?

Former presidents lead Texas concert for hurricane relief

Link to Article

Photo by AP Photo/LM Otero

This evening, all former presidents who are still living gathered to support hurricane relief efforts at a concert in Texas. Four of the five men- Obama, George W. Bush, Carter and Clinton- also delivered short statements about the necessity of unity in the country during times of hardship. President Trump did not make an appearance at the event, but made a video where he shared his sympathies regarding the natural disasters.
Former presidents George H.W. Bush and Clinton have been known to attend and aid charity events in the past to help raise funds for natural disasters. Trump, however, has a track record of criticizing Puerto Rican leadership when they were struggling to ensure citizen safety and health following the catastrophe. When the hurricanes were at their peak destruction, many complained about the president speaking out against Puerto Rico and tweeting from the comfort of the golf course, rather than taking action to provide help. Trump's lack of empathy towards those in need and the idea that former presidents step in more than him, can be interpreted as careless. It is quite possible that Trump could not attend the concert this evening due to his duties, however, it is also not unreasonable to conclude, based upon his actions in the past few months, that he was not there for self-involved reasons.
Regardless of whether you support Trump or not, do you find his leadership skills to be adequate or could they be improved? If so, how?

Attached are some Gallup polls reflecting nationwide opinion on Trump's leadership in 2016 and 2017. In the second poll, there is a clear divide between Republicans and Democrats regarding whether or not people believe that he "cares about individuals." Only 2% of Democrats participating in the poll rate this ability as a 4 or 5 on a 1-5 scale, compared to 64% of Republicans. This data emphasizes the drastic polarization in today's politics, as mentioned by the author of The Atlantic reading.

Ted Cruz, Who Is "Not the Zodiac Killer", Embraces the Meme

On Wednesday morning, Senator Ben Sasse tweeted a Lee Harvey Oswald comment as a nod to Trump's past claim that Senator Ted Cruz was the son of President JFK's killer. Cruz responded with an infamous cryptic note by the Zodiac Killer himself, breaking his silence on the long running meme. 

Although the evidence doesn't prove that it's almost impossible that Senator Cruz is the Zodiac Killer (for example, the Killer's last murder was on 1969 and Cruz was born on 1970), it still doesn't prevent people from creating jokes about it. The creation of the years-long meme has been dated back to 2013, but began to gain popularity during the 2016 Presidential Primaries. A poll conducted by Public Policy Polling on February 2016 asked Florida Republicans if he was the Zodiac Killer, along with general election-related questions, and concluded that 10% believe that they thought the Senator was the infamous murderer while 28% were not sure. Even Cruz's wife, Heidi, was asked about the issue and denied that his husband had any connection with the Killer. 

In 2017, the meme hasn't been as mainstream as it was last year, however, the public was soon reminded of it thanks to Cruz's tweet. The tweet, however, garnered mixed reactions from Twitter. Some praised Cruz for having a good sense of humor about a truly strange joke, while others believe that the meme is dead and it's time to move on. 

In my opinion, I think that it's pretty cool of Cruz to bring some comedy from the political world to the public. Even though it's not really common for serious politicians to make jokes, it's still nice to know that it's possible for them to acknowledge memes especially during a time of political polarization. 

Do you agree with those who praise Cruz for acknowledging the meme or do you believe that it wasn't necessary for a politician like him to recognize the joke? Why or why not? 

NY Times Article
Picture Link
See the original tweet here

Richard Spencer Supporters Shoot at Protesters

Main Article
Alternate Article

Image

Today, three Richard Spencer supporters were charged with attempted homicide in Gainesville, Florida. The men pulled over and began confronting a group of protesters, “making Nazi salutes and shouting chants about Hitler” (Svrluga). When a protester hit the men’s car with a baton, the men pulled over and opened fire on the protesters. The men fled (though they threatened the protesters that they were going to kill them) and a protester got the license plate of their car.

The shooter, Tenbrink, was also involved with Charolettesville at the “Unite the Right” rally which turned violent. The police tracked down the men and Tenbrik admitted to the shooting attempt. The three men were charged with attempted murder.

Do you think that the white nationalist views of the alt-right is causing these people to normalize literal nazism or have these people felt this way and use the alt-right as a way to express these views?

Senators grappling with how to regulate online advertising in the wake of the 2016 election

Article Link


Al Drago, the New York Times

With Facebook and Google attracting 85% of all digital political advertising, the Senate is trying to figure out how to regulate the content and source of these ads. Russian companies anonymously purchased at least $100,000 of ads on Facebook, where more than half of American adults now get their news. Given that the Trump campaign spent $85 million on its Facebook strategy, which designed numerous iterations of targeted advertising to prospective voters and that Federal election laws prevents foreign influence in elections through advertising, government regulatory intervention will be necessary to protect the integrity of future elections. The Klobuchar-Warner-McCain bill calls for greater transparency and accountability for online political advertising.

Discussion Questions:
1. Will it be enough to know the source of online political advertising and how do you believe content could be regulated?
2. Do you believe companies like Facebook, Google, and Youtube need to do more to patrol the political advertising on their websites or is this the government's responsibility?
3. How can the integrity of next year's midterm election and the 2020 presidential election be better protected given all of the meddling and false information that plagued the 2016 election?

Former President George Bush Breaks Silence on Trump

Main Article

Video of Speech

Transcript of Speech

Image Link

This afternoon, former President George W. Bush gave a speech in New York City at the George W. Bush Institute and began his speech by expressing joy that “friends of ours from Afghanistan, China, North Korea and Venezuela are here… these are people who’ve experienced the absence of freedom and they know there’s a better alternative than tyranny.” He went on to say that “the great democracy has faced new and serious threats.”

Though President Bush does not state Trump’s name in his speech, many of Trump’s policies and much of Trump’s rhetoric is criticized. Bush says that “too often we judge other groups by their worst examples” and that “nationalism has turned into nativism,” which can easily be tied to Trump’s jaw-dropping statement about Mexicans in June of 2015 (the video at the top of this article is a fun flip flop here). Bush also says that “We cannot wish globalization away,” which also could be targeted at Trump, who threatened to withdraw NAFTA if Canada and Mexico refuse to renegotiate. Bush again returns to the increased tension between races, and states, “Bigotry or white supremacy in any form is blasphemy against the American creed,” which again could be targeting Trump, who has said that laziness is a trait in black people and said that the majority of Mexican immigrants are rapists.

This speech connects very closely to the “How American Politics Went Insane” by Jonathan Rauch. Bush reflects on the inefficiency of the government and states, “In recent decades, public confidence in our institutions has declined. Our governing class has often been paralyzed in the face of obvious and pressing needs.” This paralysis could be due to the weakening of parties or middlemen as a result of voters distrusting the system as Rauch claims, though Bush states, “We know that when we lose sight of our ideals, it is not democracy that has failed. It is those charged with preserving and protecting democracy.” Those “charged with preserving and protecting democracy” undoubtedly includes the administration and legislatores. Bush’s reflection also agrees with Rauch’s when he states “discontent deepened and sharpened partisan conflicts… Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and fabrication.”

The polarization which both Bush and Rauch refer to has “paralyzed” the government by weakening the ability to compromise and has also caused people to believe facts from their party which makes us “more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and fabrication.”

Other articles: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/without-mentioning-trump-george-w-bush-rebukes-trumpism/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-george-bush-takes-trump-mentioning/story?id=50591447

How has Trump impacted people’s views and perceptions of Republicans?

Has Trump changed what it means to be Republican? If so, how?

8-year-old child with Disabilities Handcuffed by Officer Sumner

Link to Article: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/handcuffs-little-kids-unconstitutional_us_59e127fce4b0a52aca1809ad

Link to video (warning: painful to watch): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72vu6nxZX58

This past week, a video of a 3rd grader with disabilities being handcuffed has gone viral through social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. The video captures the child crying out and stating that he is in pain. The officer ignores his pleas and refuses to unhand-cuff the child and continues to tell the boy that he “must suffer the consequences” when he misbehaves.

When questioned, Officer Sumner attempted to justify his actions by explaining that the 54lb boy swung at the officer with his elbows (...maybe because the child has ADHD?). Ultimately, when the case was taken to court the judge found the entire situation extremely disturbing and ruled the officer’s actions as unconstitutional for it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Social media site users are furious with the officer’s actions and many argue that this is an abuse of power, as well as claiming this to be torture. What is your reaction to this? Did the officer handle the situation appropriately or are there other ways he could have gone about it?

Richard Spencer speech at Florida campus sparks mass protest

Article Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41683713

Getty Images

On Thursday, October 19, Richard Spencer delivered a hateful speech at a university in Gainesville, Florida. Although Spencer denied being a white supremacist, he is known for conveying pro-Nazi and racist beliefs. Students and citizens gathered outside of the event and protested, telling Spencer that "Nazis are not welcome here." The university did not condone Spencer speaking but by law and his right to freedom of speech, they were required to give permission. The massive protests resulted in Florida's governor declaring a state of emergency and police were on standby, though the opposing sides were mostly peaceful.

As aforementioned, the university did not have much of a say in the matter because of laws protecting rights to the first amendment, even though they knew it would cause immense controversy. Do you think this is ethical? Should the university be allowed to deny speakers they disagree with, or is it important to uphold constitutionality in this situation? Why or why not?

Edit: Later news revealed that supporters of Spencer were violent and shot at protesters.

Only 5% of Santa Cruz Fire Contained

Link to Article: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Homes-evacuated-in-Santa-Cruz-Mountains-as-new-12283892.php

On Tuesday, October 17, a wildfire broke out in the Santa Cruz mountains and forced those near the Boulder Creek area to evacuate immediately. Over 600 firefighters attempted to contain the fires but unfortunately, at least 5 were injured. The fire went so far as to reach the southwest of San Jose. Additionally, according to SFGATE, only 5% of the fire was able to be contained.

The NorCal fires have been intensifying for a couple of weeks now and the issue continues to persist. While the wildfires are taking place mainly in Sonoma and Napa, as well as some SoCal locations, they're seemingly getting closer and closer to the center of the bay area. One of Santa Cruz residents says that while he was aware of the fires, he never imagined he would be in a situation where he had to evacuate his home because of them.

This seems to be the case for many of us, we don’t take direct action until we are being threatened by such issues. Therefore, what can we do in order to prevent or be prepared for emergencies like these? How can we help those who have been impacted by such tragedies? Is enough being done?

Security Officers Fired for United Airlines Dragging Episode

Two of the four officers involved in the United Airlines controversy back in April—in which a passenger named David Dao was forcibly dragged from his seat and out of the flight when refusing to give up his seat—have been fired by the Chicago Department of Aviation after an investigation, while the other two officers remain suspended. The investigation concluded that the four officers "mishandled a nonthreatening situation that resulted in a physically violent and forceful removal of a passenger." The report also included the fact that "the employees made misleading statements and deliberately removed material facts from their reports."

In case you forgot about the incident, on April 9, 2017, a United Airlines flight to Louisville, Kentucky was overbooked and the flight crew offered $800 credit for any volunteer to give up their seat, the crew resorted to using a process that would determine a passenger who either had paid the lowest fares, checked in the latest, or were not part of a connecting flight, to be removed. Dr. David Dao was the unfortunate passenger who was chosen to be removed, but when he refused to give up his seat, the airport's security stepped in and forcefully removed him from his seat, sustaining multiple injuries in the process. After threatening to sue the company, United paid him a confidential amount of money as compensation.

In reaction to the firing, Dao's lawyer has stated that his client saw it as unfortunate that the officers lost their job, but reacted positively to United's new policies. The airline company rolled out a new policy that raised the maximum amount of credit given to volunteers who give up their seats to $10,000 from $1,350 as well as creating additional methods of making sure flights won't be overbooked again. Chicago's Aviation Department also issued a new rule that would only send officers into planes for disturbances at the request of the Chicago Police Department.

I believe that firing the officers will not impose peace nor any feelings of safety among the people since this action was only done in Chicago and not in other US cities. This action was done way too late in my opinion because I don't get the reason why an investigation was needed in the first place when the evidence of brutality is seen in the videos online.

Do you believe that justice came a little too late for the officers? Should all of the officers be fired? Do you also believe that United Airlines or Chicago's new policies will change anything?

NY Times Article

Queen B and J Balvin Collab in Support of Puerto Rico and Mexico

Link to Article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/beyonce-remixes-mi-gente-for-hurricane-and-earthquake-relief-jbalvin-mexico-puerto-rico/

Link to Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APHgDFRpCi0

On September 28, J Balvin's hit single "Mi Gente" featuring Beyonce was released. Through Instagram, Beyonce announced: "I am donating my proceeds from this song to hurricane relief charities for Puerto Rico, Mexico and the other affected Caribbean islands...".

During the midst of September, Puerto Rico was severely affected and devastated by Hurricane Maria. It left nearly 4 million Americans without power on the island, killed and destroyed the homes of hundreds, and up to this day, the Caribbean island continues to struggle getting back on its feet. Mexico faced similar devastation after being hit by two major earthquakes within a two week range. Over 400 individuals were killed as a result of the destruction caused by the earthquake. Aware that both Puerto Rico and Mexico were in desperate need of aid and support, Beyonce and Latin artist, J Balvin, collaborated to support both locations with financial assistance.

On October 3rd, Trump visited the Island and belittled the damage caused by Hurricane Maria, suggesting that it was “not a real catastrophe” when compared to Hurricane Katrina. He continued to show merciless behavior when tossing supplies to the people as if it were a lottery game, and blamed Puerto Rico for being a financial burden to the nation.

Thoughts on Trump’s attitude and behavior towards Puerto Rico?

Is the government doing enough to support countries in times of need (such as Puerto Rico)?

Reaction to Beyonce’s actions? Is she handling the situation better than Trump himself?