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/

The Push to Relieve Mask Requirements in Schools

 

Although previous mask mandates have been seen as unfavorable by Governor Gavin Newsom, many do agree with his hopes on lifting the mask mandate in schools. Teachers unions have voiced their opinion, stating that they wished to have more time before the mask mandate was lifted. The common arguments against lifting the mask mandate are “children could put vulnerable relatives at risk or have their schooling disrupted yet again if they are exposed to the virus” and “California’s top priority is to keep schools open …that may mean sticking with masks even as the requirements for California businesses expire next week,” (Luthi and Colliver).

Arguments for why masks should be considered optional would have more to do with the feeling of being in a normal state again, as it has had a psychological impact on many students. Although some think that schools are safe enough to no longer require masks, 33% of children ages 5 to 11 have received at least one dose of the vaccine. Although these statistics are unfavorable, you do have to remember that children are less susceptible to covid. 

Last Wednesday, 450 San Francisco parents signed a letter sent to Mayor London Breed asking for masks to be optional stating that covid does not pose much of a threat to children. Many have begun to question why the business space wll become optional but will continue to stay required for schools. 

Schools probably are not ready to lift mask requirements mainly because a lot of the children are not fully vaccinated. The only people who are able to go maskless in business spaces are those who are fully vaccinated. Education is obviously different from private businesses, but many believe that in this case when the requirements change for one, they should also change for the other. The mandates that have been administered to the state of California have greatly taken away the rights many people deserve they have, which would fall under the first amendment. Now that many other parts of the nation have lifted mask mandates, the citizens of California are wanting the same change to come. 

Questions: 

Do you believe that school has become safe enough where masks can be optional?

Do you believe that the lifting of mask requirements on Feb. 15th should also apply to Schools?

Sources:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/13/teachers-unions-delay-easing-mask-mandates-california-00007979 

https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/gov-newsom-expected-ease-school-mask-mandate-monday/509-3ae05df3-1a5a-49f0-b08e-32b94738b4f3 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-let-indoor-mask-mandate-expire-vaccinated-people-rcna15276

Biden Speaks With Putin Amidst Russo-Ukraine Conflict

The Russo-Ukraine war started in 2014 and has been going ever since. As of this week, there have been threats of a possible invasion on Ukraine made by Russian president Vladimir Putin. According to Tom Balmforth and Jeff Mason, “Russia has massed enough troops near Ukraine to launch a major invasion,” (Reuters). Although there are over 100,000 Russian troops near the Ukraine border, they have denied their plans to invade. 

On Saturday, Biden and Putin spoke for around an hour, emphasizing on the fact that if Russia were to follow through with its assumed plans, “the United States together with our Allies and partners will respond decisively and impose swift and severe costs on Russia,” (Politico). Some of the U.S. forces were moved out of Ukraine and most of the embassy staff were ordered to evacuate. Although these actions did show that the U.S. does not trust Putin, the U.S. and Russian teams would keep in contact in the coming days. The U.S. was not the only nation to order evacuations of staff and citizens, with several other nations following in their footsteps to take proper precautions. 

Biden took part in a virtual meeting with leaders from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, NATO, and others discussing the rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine. During this time, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has deployed troops in Poland and Romania as the U.S. continues to prepare for the possible attacks from Russia. On Saturday, Biden also spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy about how the U.S. would respond to Russian advances “swiftly and decisively”. They also confirmed the United State’s commitment to Ukraine sovereignty. 

It is still not a sure thing that Russia will invade Ukraine even with the 100,000 Russian troops that are stationed near the border. Many still speculate that Russia will continue to pursue it’s diplomatic goals even with the wide response from other nations. The situation will continue to play out until either Russia attacks, or they retreat away from the border. 

Questions:

How do you think the U.S. would respond to a Russian attack given the sheer size of the Russian forces?
Based on Russia's track record, can Putin be trusted to hold off on an attack?

Sources:

Image: https://www.timesofisrael.com/biden-putin-speak-by-phone-as-us-warns-russia-could-soon-invade-ukraine/ 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/12/biden-putin-speak-ukraine-invasion-threat-00008439 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/12/politics/biden-putin-call-ukraine/index.html 

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-says-russia-masses-more-troops-near-ukraine-invasion-could-come-any-time-2022-02-11/ 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-tells-zelenskyy-us-will-respond-swiftly-decisively-russia-invade-rcna16043

Air Force Required to Pay $230 million

     

     In 2017, the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs experienced the worst shooting in a place of worship in history and the most devastating shooting in Texas’ history. Devin Kelly, a former member of the Air Force killed 26 people and left 22 injured before dying from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. 

In 2012, Kelly was court martialed on two counts of assault on his wife and stepson. He would receive a bad conduct discharge, along with a rank reduction and prison time for 12 months. The Air Force was supposed to enter his name into the National Criminal Information Center, but failed to do so. Kelly was able to pass a background check and purchased two firearms. 

U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez ruled in July that the Air Force was “60% liable” for the attack after failing to submit Kelly’s assault convictions. The Air Force is now being ordered to pay more than $230 million in damages to survivors and victims’ families. The lawyers for the survivors and victims’ families originally asked for $418 million, while the Justice Department had proposed $31.8 million. They would end up settling on $230 million. 

    U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez stated, “Ultimately, there is no satisfying way to determine the worth of these families’ pain.”

Questions:

Do you think money can replace the lives of lost ones?

Is there a way the Pentagon should handle cases like this?

Sources:

Image: https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/02/08/60-liable-for-texas-church-massacre-air-force-is-ordered-to-pay-230-million/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/air-force-ordered-pay-230m-sutherland-springs-church-shooting-rcna15278 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sutherland-springs-shooting-air-force-to-pay-230-million/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/08/us-air-force-texas-church-shooting-compensation/

New bills could make online shopping safer

(Image from HupSpot e-commerce blog)

On Feb. 4, the INFORM bill and the Shop Safe bill passed in the House and have now been sent to the Senate to review. Both bills aim to limit and hopefully stop the sales of stolen goods online as well as keep consumers safe from defective or dangerous counterfeit products. Although the two bills have some bipartisan support in the House and the Senate, the outcome of the Senate votes is still unsure.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Inform Consumers Act would make those who “make more than 200 sales accounting to $5,000 or more in a year” register on online sale sites with government information such as their tax or government ID. The Shop Safe Act would require online sale sights to verify sellers’ identities and authenticate goods being sold.

Vega Bharadwaj, Marieke Brock, Bridey Heing, Ramon Miro, and Noor Mukarram, researches for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as well as the U.S. Department of Commerce estimate that “$143 billion of counterfeit or pirated goods are sold domestically and abroad each year.” Although this might not seem like a lot compared to the global gross domestic product of 2020, about $85 trillion dollars, stopping counterfeit and pirated goods sales is still important in ensuring a healthy and safe economy.

The two bills seem well within Congress’ rights to regulate commerce as online goods are thought of as interstate commerce, according to Stimmel Law. Hopefully, these laws will protect consumers from buying illegal goods and discourage theft and illegal sales. However, enforcing these bills, if they become laws, might prove difficult given the vastness of the domestic and international e-commerce world. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, more than 90% of counterfeit seizures are from international mail, and many of these are e-commerce packages.

Although the U.S. Customs and Border Protection has guidelines for e-commerce shipping, their guidelines don’t seem like they would be very helpful in identifying counterfeit goods. They ask for detailed product descriptions, values, quantities, weights, the country of origin, and possible other requirements. But, it doesn’t seem like there’s a clear-cut way to check for authenticity, at least, not written in their guidelines.

Hopefully the Inform Consumers Act and the Shop Safe Act will get passed and make online shopping a bit safer, at least in the U.S. Even cutting down on the sale of counterfeit and pirated goods a little bit is still progress and these bills seem like a step in the right direction to providing consumer safety and creating a better economy.

Discussion questions:

1. What do you think of the Inform Consumers Act and the Shop Safe Act?

2. With a rise in online shopping, especially during the pandemic, how else can we keep consumers safe?

3.What form of e-commerce do you think is the most affected by counterfeit and/or pirated products?

Sources:

San Francisco Chronicle article: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Could-new-laws-about-online-sales-stop-mass-16832692.php

U.S. Intellectual Property and Counterfeit Goods research: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO-Counterfeit.pdf

Statista GDP information: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1117921/sales-losses-due-to-fake-good-by-industry-worldwide/

Stimmel Law information: https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/laws-pertaining-commerce-internet

U.S. Customs and Border Protection counterfeit products information: https://www.cbp.gov/trade/fakegoodsrealdangers

U.S. Customs and Border Protection e-commerce guidelines: https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2020-Jan/E-Commerce%20Compliance%20Guide%20for%20Online%20Sellers.pdf

Vice News video about the dangers of e-commerce: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWhUu5x-tgE

Gerrymandering practices attempt to spread through the US once again

Proposed House map by North Carolina for 2022 (Vox)

Currently, new congressional district maps are being drawn in preparation for the November, 2022 midterm elections. However, some of these new congressional maps are being challenged legally due to gerrymandering. In January, Ohio’s State Supreme Court ordered a redraw of the state’s suggested district map because it would lean the number of House representatives for the state more toward the Republican Party. And, on Feb. 4, the North Carolina’s State Supreme Court voted 4-3 to block a map proposal from their state legislature as well. North Carolina’s state legislature is currently majority Republican and the new map would have given a good opportunity for the Republican party to win a vast majority of the state’s 14 House seats, perhaps 10 or 11. Maps drawn by Democrat-controlled state legislatures are also being challenged, such as in New York.

Despite gerrymandering’s capability to affect national politics, the U.S. Supreme Court, if they follow precedent, ultimately has no real power when it comes to stopping gerrymandering. According to the Wall Street Journal, Supreme Court cases from 2004 and 2019 demonstrate the Supreme Court’s lack of true authority for involvement in gerrymandering. The cases the WSJ refers to, although not explicitly stated, are Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004) and Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). Both of these cases ended with a majority opinion that the Supreme Court can’t overturn gerrymander-affected maps because there are no set standards for deciding if a map infringes upon voter representation rights or not.

The cases reviewed in class, Baker v. Carr, Wesberry v. Sanders, and Shaw v. Reno, all seem to have given the Supreme Court some power regarding gerrymandering in the past. Whether that’s ensuring that districts are equal by population (Baker v. Carr and Wesberry v. Sanders), or deciding that race can be a factor in redistricting as long as it’s not the only factor, the Supreme Court has gotten involved in gerrymandering before. However, it seems like the difference between these cases is that Baker v. Carr, Wesberry v. Sanders, and Shaw v. Reno, dealt with equality, in population and race, whereas Vieth v. Jubelirer and Rucho v. Common Cause seem more like quarrels between political parties.

According to Vox, activists against partisan gerrymandering say that it’s a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment as victims of political gerrymandering can’t equally participate in voting and other political processes.

Partisan gerrymandering does seem dangerous for our democracy as it can drown out the voices of voters and create disproportional political representation in the House of Representatives. With the current political tension and political polarization spreading throughout the U.S., it’s extremely likely that attempts to shift House representation in the future by partisan gerrymandering will increase in the future. And, with unclear guidelines on how to determine if a district map is too politically influenced, it might get increasingly harder to stop partisan gerrymandering if state legislatures or commissioners get sneakier in the way they attempt to divide up the state. If the Supreme Court won’t make clear guidelines on how to outlaw extreme partisan gerrymandering, then it’s up to the states. 

Currently, according to Ballotpedia, “19 states take political boundaries into account when drawing congressional districts.” However, the complication with this is that only drawing district lines in accordance with political boundaries can create districts with unequal populations. Perhaps a new guideline could be created that encourages state legislatures and commissioners to make sure that their new district lines do not change the amount of representatives from each party by a certain percentage. The issue is complicated, but one that needs to be addressed in order to ensure the public’s voices are heard.

Discussion questions:

1. Do you think the Supreme Court should get involved in stopping partisan gerrymandering?

2. How do you think partisan gerrymandering will affect the U.S. in the future?

3. What is a new guideline that could be suggested to potentially limit partisan gerrymandering?

4. How do you think technology can help us prevent partisan gerrymandering?

Sources:

Wall Street Journal article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/voters-cite-anti-gerrymandering-laws-in-suing-to-block-new-congressional-maps-11644057004?mod=politics_lead_pos1

Vox article: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/27/18681923/supreme-court-gerrymandering-partisan-rucho-common-cause

Ballotpedia information: https://ballotpedia.org/Political_boundaries

Potential gerrymandering “ruler” video from Vox: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRCZR_BbjTo

A crash course video in gerrymandering by Ted-Ed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcUDBgYodIE

Vox’s more in depth view of the blocked 2022 district map in North Carolina: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/11/9/22765982/north-carolina-redistricting-gerrymandering-2021-2022 

Joe Rogan, Spotify, COVID Lies

Over the past month, critics of Joe Rogan’s podcast have grown significantly as the pandemic has dragged on and is nearing the beginning of its third year. “The Joe Rogan Experience” is the most popular podcast in the entire world and has been the focus of many critics for its misinformation regarding COVID-19. In December, Rogan hosted Dr. Robert Malone, an early researcher of mRNA for COVID-19 vaccines, who now criticizes the vaccines. Malone falsely claimed that the vaccine puts people who have already had COVID-19 at risk. As a result, critics have called for Spotify to prevent the continued spread of misinformation. However, CEO Daniel Ek asserted that Spotify would remain committed to free speech and not take on the responsibility of censorship. Rogan’s podcast is exclusively available on Spotify, who purchased the rights to it in 2020 for over $100 million, and serves as a platform for countless podcasters and musicians.

Last week, in response to Spotify’s refusal to take action against Rogan, musicians Neil Young and Joni Mitchell asked to have their music removed from the platform. Other musicians and podcasters have followed Young and Mitchell, prompting Spotify to add a content advisory to any podcast content that discusses pandemic-related topics. Although Spotify’s business is based on subscriptions and will likely not see many subscribers cancel over the controversy, its stock dropped over 20% on Wednesday as a result of its vulnerability.

Podcasts in general have a unique relationship with their audiences that promote trust through personable hosts and interesting discussion topics. However, this becomes an issue when misinformation is involved and people have a stronger belief in the content that they consume. It can also be difficult to filter the information in podcasts because of its audio format and the amount of content involved. For example, one episode of Rogan’s podcast can last for over 3 hours, meaning that there is a large amount of information and topics that are discussed. Ultimately, Spotify is in a difficult situation when considering its commitment to Rogan, the idea of free speech, and the issue of misinformation. No matter what will eventually happen with Spotify and Joe Rogan, the complicated relationship between content creators, platforms, and protection from misinformation will remain.

Questions:

Do you or anyone you know listen to Rogan’s podcast and if so what is your perspective on his content and ideas?

Is it the job of Spotify or other content platforms to protect misinformation, or is that the responsibility of content creators?

What should the government do to regulate misinformation and how does the first amendment factor into that ability?

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/31/technology/joe-rogan-spotify-controversy.html

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/02/media/joe-rogan-spotify-earnings/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60239263

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/21/1074442185/joe-rogan-doctor-covid-podcast-spotify-misinformation

 

Biden’s response to Omicron and the (endemic) future of the pandemic

covid is here to stay 

In response to the Omicron variant, the Biden administration has announced plans to distribute 400 million N95 masks to community health centers and pharmacies, limiting it to three masks per person. Furthermore, free at-home rapid antigen tests can now be ordered online, limited to four tests per household (https://www.covidtests.gov/). This begs the question: Why couldn’t anything be done earlier? “By the time the masks and tests get there, the surge will probably be over,” said Monica Gandhi, an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California San Francisco. It’s true; new cases due to the Omicron variant have already peaked in San Mateo County. The masks and tests have come too late and will most likely not meaningfully change the course of the Omicron wave. The slow response is due to many factors, the biggest contributing factor being the Biden administration's over-reliance on vaccines. Variants have decreased the efficacy of the vaccine, but the idea that only vaccines would bring an end to the pandemic was premature at best. Omicron itself was also incredibly potent; case numbers were doubling in less than two days at the wave’s peak, much faster than previous variants. In regards to the end of the pandemic, Graham Medley, an infectious-diseases modeler at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said “This will not be the last variant, and so the next variant will have its own characteristics.” It’s likely that COVID-19 will become an endemic disease – meaning it is here to stay, similar to the flu or common cold. The line for what is considered “endemic” is blurry because it depends on what societies consider an acceptable amount of deaths while the population is building up immunity. According to the Nature Journal, that could mean decades until everyone has contracted the disease multiple times and has built up an immunity to be protected from severe infection. Or not, since any models trying to predict the future of COVID-19 are highly variable and can’t predict farther than a few weeks in advance. It’s also not exactly a “natural end” to the pandemic – reaching endemic status means higher proportions of the population developing long COVID and enduring years of deadly waves.

Questions:

• What do you think about the current restrictions on COVID-19 and the mask mandates? Is it excessive or should the government be doing more to curb outbreaks?
• Do you think the free masks and tests will have an effect on the course of the pandemic in the U.S.?
• Will you be taking advantage of the free masks/tests? Why or why not?

Sources:

https://www.vox.com/coronavirus-covid19/2022/1/20/22889364/joe-biden-covid-19-omicron-plan-free-tests-masks

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/n95-masks-400-million-free-biden-administration-strategic-stockpile/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/n95-masks-biden-administration-covid-19/index.html

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00210-7

Image Creds:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-endemic-vaccines-measles-smallpox-pandemic-coronavirus-11633015316

Bad Boy Newsom Violates His Own Mandates

 

(Picture from Fox News; Don't worry it's not one of my sources)

    During the Los Angeles Rams and San Francisco 49ers game, governor Gavin Newsom was caught without a mask. Supposedly he had only taken it off to drink water and to take a picture with famous retired basketball player, Magic Johnson. Not only did it paint Newsom as a hypocrite as he is an adamant advocate for mask mandates, it also reminded people of when he didn’t wear a mask in 2020 during a party despite scolding people for not social distancing. Apart from the expected criticism, Newsom has been receiving a lot of heat from the public, California counties, and even national representatives.

Many parents expressed their anger at Newsom’s behavior and the mask mandates at schools. The situation escalated when shortly after, three California students were kicked out of class for not wearing masks. They claimed that since Newsom served as a role model for the state, if he didn’t wear a mask then it must be safe for them to do so as well. As a result, school mask mandates are being closely examined and criticized by the press.

Similarly, LA County Supervisor Kathryn Barger called out the county health department, demanding an alignment with state policy. Barger believes people should decide whether or not to wear masks since many people don’t comply with guidelines anyway. Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer countered that doing so would be similar to removing speed limits because of some driver’s speeding anyway. If that wasn’t enough, Republican National Committee spokeswoman Hallie Balch condemned Newsom and Democrats as a whole for being selfish and hypocrites. Republican state Assemblyman Kevin Kiley took a more mild approach and simply called for the ending of the mask mandates. As the blame continues to pile up, it seems as though Newsom plans to keep his head low until the public’s anger resides.

1.) Considering Newsom’s role as Governor, do you think all of the criticism is deserved?

2.) How might the public’s reaction differ if it were a smaller government official or someone with no prior history of scandal?

3.) What do you think of Barger's argument compared to Ferrer's rebuttal? Which makes more sense given the context of the pandemic?

Sources:

https://apnews.com/article/sports-health-california-los-angeles-gavin-newsom-c39bb03dea7be73c045a70c71ff5f5d1

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-01/l-a-county-health-officials-defend-covid-19-mask-order 

https://nypost.com/2022/02/01/gavin-newsom-defends-himself-over-mask-debacle-at-nfl-game/

https://www.sfgate.com/california-politics/article/Maskless-students-say-Newsom-inspired-them-16825705.php

California COVID Guidelines:

https://covid19.ca.gov/masks-and-ppe/?gclid=Cj0KCQiA9OiPBhCOARIsAI0y71CpHY7nTeU-_2rHEspI2KyGSpct_xAOgkx7WCvDmUs2W-DySdfjyu0aApgzEALw_wcB 

Pertaining to the 4 Ps

 Slightly amusing and pertinent to the plethora of policy papers being proposed in class presently:

This resonates. In grad school for policy, a prof assigned an essay defining policy & policymaking. People freaked --they expected policy was something else. The reality didn't match their idea. If people who pursue policy don't know what it is, we have a big, big problem.

— Alison Williams (@akw_DC) February 2, 2022

Wait, you mean in GRADUATE SCHOOL people are still confused about the 4 Ps? 

Admittedly it took me many years of teaching before I realized that those terms needed to be front loaded.

Trump's Secret Executive Orders

 (Photo from LA Times)

About a week ago, news of Trump drafting an executive order to seize voting machines during the election was revealed following a rally in which Trump promised to pardon all those involved in the Capitol raid if he was re-elected. Throughout this week, more information has surfaced and announced to the public, such as the existence of a SECOND executive order draft. 

Background: 

As Trump feared he would lose the presidential election, he and his staff began to brainstorm ways to cease the election. He began by asking his lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani to call the Department of Homeland Security and ask if it was legal to seize voting machines from swing states. Obviously, secretary Ken Cuccinelli rejected the idea as well as Trump’s follow-up request to form a special counsel to investigate election fraud. While the Select House Committee is investigating the situation and people involved, Colonel Phil Waldron, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, and attorney Sidney Powell have been identified as key components of Trump’s plan. Together they combined efforts to attempt to convince at least three government agencies of fraud in order to carry out the seizure in addition to meeting in the Oval Office to discuss the potential processes of doing so. Thankfully, their plans were never carried out and the orders went unsigned. As of right now, nobody knows who drafted the two executive orders addressed to the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security.

Analysis:

Having just completed an assignment regarding insurrections, those who opted to cover the Capitol raids might recognize its similarity to the attempted executive orders. Any potential uncertainty over whether or not Trump was attempting to interfere with the election can no longer be disputed following the release of the documents. George Conway, who was considered for the position of Solicitor General by Trump, gave his interpretation of the executive orders. According to him, the documents didn’t have any guidelines, follow any laws, and cited ridiculous ideas that didn’t have any connection to the actual voting process. To be more precise, they were “Bananas”, “Absolute Banana Republic stuff” if you will. Well said George. Based on the events perspiring during and after the election, it’s reasonable to assume that Trump banked on support from followers who blindly follow him. Not only did Trump attempt to use misinformation and convince government agencies to interfere with the election, he did so again after losing by encouraging supporters to protest in D.C.. For now, no evidence has been presented to support claims of the 2020 elections being rigged, exemplifying Trump’s una-PEELING behavior as an extreme case of poor sportsmanship. 

1.) What was your initial reaction to learning about the existence of the executive order drafts?

2.) What do you think would’ve happened if the Department of Homeland Security had complied with Trump’s requests? (Aside from seizing voting machines obviously)

3.) If Trump had successfully overridden the election results, how could it have changed/impacted the nation’s democratic ideals and structure?

Analysis Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/politics/donald-trump-capitol-insurrection-house-committee-mike-pence/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/01/22/george-conway-trump-draft-executive-order-sot-ac360-vpx.cnn 

Other Sources: 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/31/politics/trump-executive-orders-seize-voting-machines/index.html 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/31/us/politics/donald-trump-election-results-fraud-voting-machines.html 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/592349-no-2-senate-republican-praises-election-official-for-standing-up-to-trump 

Single-payer health care plan falls through in California

(Photo from The Los Angeles Times)

Today, California’s plan to start a single-payer health care plan fell through as bill AB1400 failed to progress through the Assembly. Single-payer health care is a type of universal health care in which a government provides a single health insurance plan for its residents and determines the prices for medical goods and procedures. According to The San Francisco Daily Chronicle, those who opposed the bill and those who supported it had differing views of the bill’s possible economic outcome. Critics believed the bill would be too costly for the state, whereas supporters argued that the bill would lower the cost of health care.

This is not the first time California has failed to pass a single-payer health care bill. The Los Angeles Times reports that two other single-payer health care bills have failed to pass the Assembly in the past five years. According to Vox, Vermont also attempted to pass a single-payer health care bill in 2014, but the bill failed because legislatures were worried about the costs of creating the program. The approximate annual cost for bill AB1400 is between $314 billion and $391 billion, which exceeds Gov. Gavin Newsom’s preferred overall budget for California of $286.4 billion.

Gov. Newsom also proposed a new health care plan which would expand California’s health care program, Medi-Cal. The change would include allowing undocumented immigrants to be eligible for full-scope Medi-Cal coverage rather than restricted-scope Medi-Cal coverage. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that this expansion would cost about $870 million dollars this year and more than $2 billion annually.

Health care is an increasingly important topic and its cruciality in our world has been highlighted with the pandemic. According to the United Nations’ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, there is a “right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health” which suggests that health care is a human right and should be protected by governments. However, the question of how to protect and provide this right has become very politicized in the U.S.

The feasibility of the single-payer health care system seems uncertain, especially if Gov. Newsom does not want to increase California’s budget. Gov. Newsom's idea for expanding the Medi-Cal program seems like a promising option for undocumented immigrants, but doesn’t seem to do much to help other California residents as well. Perhaps another option could be to expand the Medi-Cal program for all California residents, making health care more accessible and treating it more like a human/civil right, while still letting people opt into private medical insurance if they so choose.

Discussion questions:

1. What do you think about single-payer health care? What about Gov. Newsom’s plan?

2. Do you think the bill should have at least been brought to the floor for a vote? Why or why not?

3. How would you propose to change health care? Or would you keep it the same as it is now?

Research links

San Francisco Chronicle article: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/We-did-not-have-the-votes-Legislator-kills-16820618.php

Los Angeles Times article: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-31/single-payer-healthcare-proposal-fizzles-in-california-assembly

Vox article: https://www.vox.com/2014/12/22/7427117/single-payer-vermont-shumlin

Legislative Analyst’s Office report: https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4423

UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx

Washington Post video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg2ZUZo2FpU

Vox video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9x4cRWqPPM