Unemployment Rate Hits 3.9%, a Rare Low, as Job Market Becomes More Competitive

Article Link

Summary: The U.S. economy has delivered steady gains for most Americans since the Great Recession in 2009. It’s been a frustration for many. Nearly nine years into the recovery, the job market keeps delivering: The government said Friday that employers added 164,000 jobs in April, the 91st straight month of hiring growth, the longest such streak on record. More tellingly, the unemployment rate fell to 3.9 percent, the lowest since December 2000.
However, pay growth, on average, has been poor. The stock market boom and low interest rates that defined the recovery have favored the wealthy. The economy’s modest growth, though, has helped prevent it from overheating and skidding into another recession, as often happened during more robust expansions. And some economists say a low unemployment rate suggests that more Americans will soon stand to benefit from stronger pay growth.

Analysis: I believe this is a good thing as low unemployment rate means there are fewer available workers for each job opening. That gives an advantage to those looking for jobs and provides more opportunity to Americans on the margins of the labor force. Additionally, low unemployment forces employers to raise pay more sharply to attract and retain workers.

Questions:
What are your thoughts on this topic?
Do you thing the unemployment rate will keep dropping?
Does Trump’s administration deserve some credit for it?

Missouri Lawmakers Will Hold Special Session To Consider Impeaching Governor

Summary:

The mayor Governor of Missouri, Eric Greitens, has been charged with two felony charges: one for

data tampering to help fund his campaign, and another for the invasion of privacy for taking and

possessing a revealing picture he took of a woman with whom he had an affair. Prosecutors claim that

Greitens illegally used a fundraising list from his personally-founded military veterans charity, The

Mission Continues, in order to raise money for his 2016 governor campaign. The woman with whom

he had an affair claims that he took the photo without her consent, that Greitens used it to blackmail

her, and that he physically and verbally abused her. Greitens has admitted to the affair, but not to any

other claims. His trial for the charge regarding the revealing picture is set to start on May 14, directly

preceding the special session that will start on May 18. To begin the impeachment, “the Missouri

House would vote first, requiring a simple majority. The process would then move to the Senate,

where state lawmakers would name a panel of seven jurists to try the impeachment. Those judges

would ultimately decide whether to convict Greitens” (CNN article linked below).

Analysis:

I think this somewhat relates to the MeToo movement that sparked with the Weinstein accusations.

Sexual predators are finally being held accountable for their actions, including Greitens. The CNN

article mentions how none of his fellow Republicans have been eager to defend him for either of his

felonies, which definitely says something… sometimes silence is what speaks the loudest. One felony

is enough for me to question the legitimacy of any kind of government official, but two? One being

sexual harassment? Get Greitens out of there. Also, taking from a foundation one’s own foundation

doesn’t make it okay.

Questions:

1) Do you think jail time would be justified for Greitens? Or would you want to see a harsher or

softer sentence? Why or why not?

2) If this investigation makes it to a court of law, do you think he will be “let off easy” or will the

mallet come down on him because of his position as governor? Why or why not?

Sources:

NPR  

CNN

The Mission Continues homepage (also linked in the summary)

Facebook unveils plans to have a dating feature on app

Wikimedia Commons

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's CEO, announced that Facebook will launch a dating feature for its app. Zuckerberg claims that the addition will not be just for hookups, but for "building real long-term relationships." 

In the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Zuckerberg emphasized that Facebook has the privacy of its users in mind. The feature will be opt-in, and users' friends will not be able to see their dating profile. 

After Facebook announced its dating feature, shares of Match Group, the parent company of Match.com and Tinder, dropped 22 percent. However, executives of the Match Group and Tinder do not appear phased by Facebook's entrance into the dating app market. 

The LA Times article's analysis mentions that Facebook has trouble attracting the same age group that dominates dating apps. Additionally, the dating feature may be a tactic to get users to spend more time on Facebook, making it more essential to people's lives. 

Connection to Econ principles: Since we are reviewing material this week, I will make a few connections to themes from this past semester. Overall, I believe demand for dating apps is high among young adults (ages 18 to 30?). People are starting to get married later in their lives than in previous years and are taking more time at establishing their careers. Thus, they opt for the often instant gratification of dating apps while in their younger years. However, Facebook's approach at hoping to build long-term relationships may be the downfall of its success. I believe people who use dating apps on a daily basis, like they use Facebook, are not exactly looking for those types of relationships. Therefore, online daters' tastes may not align with Facebook's goal. Since the general demand for dating apps is high, there are many buyers in the market, especially with Facebook's more than 1 billion users. But like the LA Times pointed out, those buyers in the market may not be looking to use Facebook's dating feature. 

Questions:
Do you think Facebook's decision to make a dating feature is smart? Why?  
How do you see dating apps in general being used in the future? Will they become more integral in matchmaking? 

What do people lose and gain on meeting people through an app, compared with meeting people in person? 

Sources

LA Times

CNN Money

Will Trump's Tax Cuts Benefit the Economy in the Long Run?

Link to Article

GDP growth in the past year was 2.9%, steadily increasing since the recession. Ever since Trump took office, job, workforce and productivity growth had slowed, which predictably will cause the 2018 GDP to be lower than the years preceding it. With the baby boomers retiring, the workforce will see a steady decrease. And like O’Brien, a reporter covering economic affairs, had stated, “it won’t get better anytime soon when Trump is demanding that we reduce our easiest source of new workers: legal immigrants”.

While Trump’s tax cuts do increase investments in machines and technology that will bring an increase in productivity, I believe this will lead to a upward trend in unemployment rate. More efficient machines equals less of a use for human employees. So I believe the pros and cons will cancel each other out and will not benefit GDP in the long run.

Do you think Trump’s tax cuts will increase growth in the long run? Or just short term or not at all? What do you think will become of GDP in a few years? What effect do you think the tax cuts will have in the long term?

Fed set to leave rates alone amid signs of rising inflation

ABC News

Summary:

The entirety of the article linked is basically in the title: the Federal Reserve is going to leave interest rates as they are

despite a future possible rise in inflation. The New York Times article offers a more in-depth analysis of these ideas

touched on in the ABC News article.

Analysis:

In class, we learned about the Federal Reserve’s purpose and the power it has over the economy. The maintaining of the

interest rates reflects well on the economy since consistent rates mirrors a consistent economy. Analysts claim that rates

are due to rise, however, in order to discourage people from borrowing. This discouraging then lessens the

amount of money in circulation, causing the economy to grow slower. The Federal Reserve, therefore, has to closely

gauge the economy in the near future and try to prevent a recession.

Questions:

1) Based on this information on future interest rates, will you alter the way you spend your money? How?

2) Nearing entrance into the workforce, do you think you will monitor Federal Reserve activity more or less than you do now? Why?

Sources:

NYT's take

Did Michelle Wolf Kill the White House Correspondents' Dinner?

NYT Article

Summary:

Saturday, April 28 was the night of the 2018 Correspondents’ Dinner, where some individuals think

that Michelle Wolf made much too “edgy” jokes. Others believe it is hypocritical for the

Correspondents to think poorly of the jokes because “a group dedicated to advancing journalism

ought to defend a comedian’s right to free speech.” Trump is the first president not to show since

Reagan was hospitalized from being shot in 1981. However, the article states that “A complete end to

the dinner has been floated, too, though it would be a special kind of cosmic irony if Mr. Trump

presided over the fall of the event that inspired his political rise.” Trump took to Twitter (what else?)

to bash the Dinner and Wolf herself, deeming it a disaster and labeling it “fake news.” Judd Apatow,

a comedian and writer, expressed: “it’s the best part of America… This is what you’re not allowed to

do in other countries! You’re not allowed to speak openly! You’re not allowed to criticize the

president!” citing the first amendment in Wolf’s defense.

Analysis:

The Correspondents’ dinner is “supposed to be a lighthearted evening for the president and the

press”, and “is billed as a celebration of freedom of the press and the First Amendment” (ABC

News). Therefore, Wolf can say whatever she wants within the guidelines of the constitution. It

doesn’t really matter what others think; she said what she said, and cannot go back to change it. Sure,

people can disagree with it, but they cannot stop her.

Questions:

1) Do you think some of the jokes Wolf said went “too far?” Why or why not?

2) If you were supposed to be the comedian at this dinner, what would you say? Would you even accept the offer to speak?

Sources:

NYT original article

NPR

USA Today

In a first for fast-food industry, burger chain workers vote to unionize

link
The fast food industry is one of the most resistant to unionization, but this month workers at a regional Burgerville chain restaurant voted to form a union. The union vote, held last week, garnered 82% and another union vote was set next month at a second Burgerville joint. The decision to unionize came after two years of failed efforts, consisting of boycotts and walkouts, by workers to improve wages and working conditions. Workers frequently experienced poverty and were paid an hourly rate of $11.70, just above minimum wage. The Burgerville union is affiliated with Industrial Workers of the World and has also attracted attention from the Service Employees International Union.

The restaurant chain has stated over social media that the are willing to work with the employees and that they are excited to be the first unionized restaurant chain. However, some members take a more cynical outlook against the restaurant, like Suisman, a union attorney, who notes that "there is a real reluctance by the employer to formally recognize the union." Others note that the restaurant is creating an empathetic and progressive facade while at the same time paying workers poorly.

Personally, I think that unionizing is a step in the right direction, at least for the short term, because from the article it's clear the workers have tried other options and must resort to this one. However, I am not sure if this tactic of unionizing will work for all of these large chain restaurants in general. Burgerville is one of the smaller chains and so unionizing there should be easier, as bad PR would hit them harder, whereas a large corporation could easier block unionizing.

Why do you think that workers in the fast-food industry in particular have taken so long to unionize, as compared to other industries? Will unionizing be possible for these fast-food workers, and how  hard do you think the corporations will attempt to block it? Furthermore, do you think unionizing will be the long-term solution for the fast food industry?

"Crazy Rich Asians" features an all-Asian cast, first in 25 years

Courtesy of Variety

Adapted from Kevin Kwan's novel, "Crazy Rich Asians" has an all-Asian cast, which hasn't happened for a big motion picture since "The Joy Luck Club" in 1993. The movie stars Constance Wu ("Fresh Off the Boat") and is about a love story between an American professor and her boyfriend, who comes from an opulent family in Singapore. Although the cast has nearly all Asians, it hones in on the cultural aspects of east Asians (specifically Chinese and Singaporean) and does not include southeast Asians.

Some have been dubbing "Crazy Rich Asians" the "Black Panther" for Asians because of their diverse casts.

The trailer was recently released and will be in theaters on Aug. 17.

Opinion: I do not think "Crazy Rich Asians" will be the "Black Panther" for the Asian community. "Black Panther" had many historic and cultural nuances in the framing of a superhero movie. However, "Crazy Rich Asians" is lighthearted and may not appeal to as wide of an audience. At the same time, I believe it is important for major film studios to take risks on featuring predominantly non-white casts. Growing up, I did not see many Asian actors in American movies, and when I did, they often played token or stereotypical roles. I hope "Crazy Rich Asians" will do well in the box office, so film studios continue to produce movies with diverse casts and see that there is a market for such movies.

Questions:
What do you think the impact of "Crazy Rich Asians" will be?
Do you think it's important for movies to have diverse casts? Why?
What other cultures should be highlighted in a major motion picture?

Sources:

The Guardian

LA Times
Teen Vogue

Here's a link to the movie's trailer: https://youtu.be/WDhwEqxKCss

Martin Scorsese slams Rotten Tomatoes and 'the devaluation of cinema' at TCM fest

link

Last Thursday evening, Scorsese gave an acceptance speech for the Robert Osborne award at the TCM fest in Hollywood. Scorsese, a renowned director of the modern era, is described by DiCaprio as knowledgeable, committed, and drawing inspiration.

During the acceptance speech, Scorsese has stated that review aggregators such as Rotten Tomatoes lead films to be "instantly judged and dismissed" before audiences can see them and judge them for themselves. He describes the "devaluation of cinema," where movie images are being lumped together with everything else, and how there's no sense of inherent value being tied with movies. Nowadays, the content is being emphasized over the actual art form of the movie, and audiences are not even able to make decisions themselves about the movie.

While Scorsese takes a noble stance on the current state of movies, it's a stance that I don't agree with. First, I would argue that it's actually Hollywood and the consumer base that is causing the apparent "devaluation" of cinema. I mean, sure it's true that often times it's the same action/superhero movies or horror movies filled with stupid jumpscares that are still managing to fill the theatres all the time, but it's a combination of the majority of the consumer base happening to like them as a form of basic entertainment (as opposed to an art form) and Hollywood trying to cash in. I mean, the same thing was present 60 years ago with the rehashing of Westerns over and over again. But Scorsese blaming Rotten Tomatoes doesn't make much sense to me, because movie reviews have been around even before the internet, and it's simply impractical for someone to pay some crazy sums of money to see every movie in theatres and create their own opinions about it. Sure, there are some aspects of these sites that can be improved, but I find no issue with the idea itself.

Do you guys think Scorsese is right when he describes the devaluation of cinema? Do you think Rotten Tomatoes is one of the problems of modern cinema, and if so how should we change it? And what changes do you think we will see with cinema and the movie industry in the future?

"The census is a threat to the communities of color"

Washington Post Article

Summary:

Many people have reacted to Trump’s proposal to include a citizenship question in 2020 Census. The
appearance of this question is likely to reduce immigrant participation in the census. A lack of
immigrant participation may cause a racial inequality that is plainly unconstitutional, as the inequality
limits minority representation. The Census Bureau claims that they are working on a digital approach to
the Census; another factor that may limit minority participation due to a possible lack of access to the internet.

Analysis:

I think this somewhat relates to the idea of gerrymandering. This issue with the census is not as obvious
as gerrymandering, but I think it can have a similar effect if policymakers are deliberate enough. It is
also stated that individuals will be asked about their relationship status in terms of same-sex marriage/relationship
or not (see the NPR article linked below). I do not think asking citizenship or relationship status is relevant
to the purpose of the census. A quick Google search directed me to its purpose: “...accurately apportioning
congressional districts, the federal government uses census data... to determine: the allocation of federal
funding for education programs in states and communities” (This Nation).
By placing the question of citizenship on the census paired with a push towards digitization and relationship
status, I think there is an underlying motive to limit and suppress minorities’ votes, as there will be less representation
and, thus, less federal funds flowing into the heavily minority-populated areas.

Questions:
1) Do you agree or disagree with Donald Trump’s addition of the citizenship question onto the census? Why or why not?
2) What do you think are Trump’s motives in the addition of the question?
3) Do you think demographic information such as citizenship status and even sexuality is relevant to the census?
Why or why not?

Sources:

Washington Post Article

Census's Stated Plan

NPR distinguishes differences

USA Today's take

Porn star Stormy Daniels sues President Trump for defamation

link

As a part of her trial, Stormy Daniels has presented evidence of a composite sketch of a man who approached her in 2011 and threatened her to stay quiet about the Trump affair. Earlier in April, Trump made a tweet criticizing the composite sketch, stating it was essentially fake news: "A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)."

A filing against Trump has been made stating that the tweet was false and defamatory, and that he knew his "false and disparaging statements" would be heard around the world and has exposed her threats of death and other physical violence. She is seeking a jury trial and other undisclosed damages. This is the latest lawsuit from Daniels, who is already suing to be released from a non-disclosure agreement she agreed to in 2016.

Personally, I think that Stormy Daniels doesn't exactly have much grounds for argument as the plaintiff for a defamation case, as she has to prove both falsehood and malice within Trump's tweets, which would be difficult. Since she is considered a public figure, it would be even harder for her to win the case (as opposed to a private figure). However, while I do think it's not necessarily a sound decision from a purely legal standpoint, I do think that this is a smart political move from Daniels' team in order to stay on the radar and in the minds of the American public, and stay on the news headlines. Though I don't know how much this will exactly amount to, I do think she's able to push her agenda little by little and garner more support by using litigation.

Do you think Daniels will win the lawsuit for defamation that she is going to file? And what do you think will be the final result of this battle between Daniels and Trump? Will there be any long-lasting changes in response to what's going on right now, or will we continue to head in the same path?

U.S. won’t restore grizzly bear protections near Yellowstone National Park

link

Officials of the US national parks refuse to restore federal protections for Yellowstone-area grizzly bears, despite a court ruling that opposed the government's rationale for turning grizzly management over to the states. Officials disagreed with the ruling, because they state that population has already recovered. Bears outside this area (in the other 48 states) will still remain protected.

Conservation groups and Native American tribes have challenged the court ruling, stating that killing grizzly bears diminishes the population of other bears. Conservation groups claim that the bears are occupying less than 5 percent of their historical range. But this may be due to a concentration of the bears in one area and their inability to spread themselves, which is a problem in itself. 

I think that there's too much commotion being caused over the area called into question, because the facts (which the article didn't do a very good job of articulating) are that there are currently too many bears. Of course the land should be preserved, but there needs to be a balance maintained between hunting and protecting species to a certain extent, or else the entire ecosystem will be destroyed. 

Are the officials justified in their actions? Do you think primary authority over protecting specifically these species (like grizzlies) should be handed over to the states? Finally, how do you think the population of a species can be managed, and do you think hunting is an effective solution to the problem?

The War Between the Federal Government and Blue States

Article link

                                          Source: Andrea Bruce, New York Times

The battle between liberal states and the Trump administration's conservative enforcement of immigration policy is continuing in Federal Court. One main question considers whether state and local authorities should be involved with federal immigration efforts and if so, how? Another issue is whether a citizenship question should be added to the 2020 census, which California's attorney general objects to vehemently as it would only serve to distort the census and potentially divert political influence and resources from the state. Although executive powers have grown in recent decades, federal judges are exploring the question of whether executive overreach threatens constitutional principles such as separation of powers and checks against tyranny.

1. In 2019, how might the newly elected governor of California approach the antagonistic relationship that exists with the Federal Government at the moment?
2. Is it reasonable for the government to ask about citizenship on the 2020 census? Why or why not?
3. How should the Federal Court system be involved in this conflict?

Source: The New York Times

Barbara Bush, wife of George H.W. Bush and mother George W. Bush, dies at 92

Wikimedia Commons

Barbara Bush passed away last Tuesday at 92 due to her "failing health." Bush was the wife of George H.W. Bush and the mother of George W. Bush, who were both presidents. Additionally, she was the mother of Jeb Bush, a former governor of Florida.

Barbara Bush started The Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy to improve the lives of disadvantaged families by teaching kids and parents how to read. Additionally, she promoted AIDS awareness, even when it was heavily stigmatized in the late '80s and early '90s.

Although Bush did not face much criticism in the public eye, she was outspoken in interviews and did not conform to society's expectations of her appearance. She was known as "everybody's grandmother" with her premature white hair and famous faux pearl necklace.

While her husband and two sons were campaigning for the presidency, she was supportive and made speeches for them. After Mrs. Bush's funeral, Bush Sr. was hospitalized. Newspapers are running headlines that he may be suffering from a broken heart, as the pair was married for 73 years. However, Bush Sr. was officially admitted to the ICU for a blood infection.

Questions you may answer:

• How do you think first ladies should use their influence while their husbands are in office? 
• What are some of the most notable programs that other first ladies have started?
• (Do you think suffering from a broken heart is real?)

Sources
Washington Post
NY Times

Make Paid Family Leave a Priority

The gender gap in the workforce is a huge problem, but we all know that. Specifically, women after they get pregnant and have a child have a hard time returning back to work at the same place or stature they left. Only 5 states have passed paid leave legislation whereas Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Iceland and more give women anywhere from 60%-full pay for anywhere up to a year. I'm not saying we need to go from 0-60 and suddenly make all states ensure women (and even the spouse) receive full pay for months and months, but at least pay 80% of their salary for up to 3 months. The article states women are having to return back to work 2 weeks after their baby is born. Childbirth is extremely physically demanding, and no women could properly regain their strength within 2 weeks.

What do you think would be the best policy for paid leave after pregnancy for both the mother and spouse? Should this be implemented by state or federal government?


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/22/opinion/paid-family-leave.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront

What happens when a patient says, 'Doc, help me die'

Constantly people have debated whether physician-assisted suicide is humane or not. Doctor's have given their opinion on whether or not they have assisted in the death of their sick patients, or whether they would do it if they had the chance. In the article, E. Wes. Ely, a doctor explains his experience with a patient of his who was suffering from lung fibrosis and pneumonia. The patient was clearly about to die and Ely writes the thought process he went through when asked by his patient, to "help [him] die." Last year, in AP English, one of the debate topics during our debate unit was the idea of physician-assisted suicide. One side claimed this should become legal following a few guidelines like the patient must be terminally ill and about to die within the next few months.

Although my debate was not on this topic, I strongly believe in physician-assisted suicide. My dad being a cancer doctor himself, I have constantly seen him come home, extremely distraught and agitated because he knows his patient is suffering. I believe it is unfair to make a person continue to live and suffer through the pain when they aren't even happy, and when they don't wish to live anymore. Of course, there are religious reasons which makes this issue so controversial; how in most religions committing suicide is a "sin." But when a person is in so much pain they no longer wish to live, why would you want them to suffer through that any longer just for your own personal reasons?

Do you believe physician-assisted suicide should be legal or illegal? What regulations or conditions should be implemented if it is made legal (ie patient must be terminally ill).

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/opinions/caregiving-what-its-like-to-be-me-wes-ely-opinion/index.html

Conservatives Shouldn't Want Jarrar Fired

Recently, an English professor at Fresno State posted a rather opinionated and careless comment on twitter, in response to Barbara Bush's death. Randa Jarrar stated that the former first lady was an "amazing" racist and she can't wait for the rest of the Bush family to die. As a person in academia, one who's job is to teach and expand the knowledge of students, a lot believe that Jarrar made a horrible and stupid mistake expressing this opinion online, and that she should be fired.

Furthermore, the writer of the article argues that conservatives especially should not oppose Jarrar's statement because on the Fresno State Campus, they are considered minorities because of their political views, and the first amendment could be argued to protect minorities. So, if conservatives wish for Jarrar to be fired, they are only hurting themselves and their future ability to speak their mind.

I think what Jarrar said was incredibly disrespectful and uncalled for; however, the first amendment does exist to protect ones right of free speech, and this comment on twitter is included under that amendment, so she should not be fired for speaking her mind.

Do you think Jarrar should be fired? Is Jarrar's comment protected under the first amendment? Should conservatives support or oppose Jarrar?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/04/19/conservatives-shouldnt-want-randa-jarrar-fired/?utm_term=.5df056c0d2fc

Treaty to Formally End Korean War Is Being Discussed, South Confirms

Chung Eui-yong, second from left, the South Korean president’s national security adviser, visiting Washington 

Officials from America as well as South and North Korea have been negotiating to formally end the Korean War after over six decades. Kim Jong-un has told South Korean officials that North Korea would be willing to relinquish their nuclear arms in exchange for security guarantees, which would include a peace treaty and the "normalization of ties" with the US, meaning that the US has to recognize North Korea diplomatically.

This peace treaty would have to involve China, who had fought on the North's side in the Korean War. China is supportive of the Korean War's end but has not endorsed the idea of a treaty. Analysts speculate that China's enthusiasm for a peace treaty has been dampened by rising tensions with the US over trade, especially after Washington decided to prevent American companies from providing parts to ZTE.

I think that if the treaty comes to pass, the relationship between the US, South Korea and the DPRK would definitely improve, but I doubt that the US would ever consider North Korea an ally, nor do I think that they would truly consider us their ally. China has, in the past, suggested a peace treaty to the Korean War, but with the trade conflict we have with them as of now, I do not think that they would want to cooperate with the US until tensions die down.

Treaty to Formally End Korean War Is Being Discussed, South Confirms
Chinese Tech Company Blocked From Buying American Components

Do you think that Kim Jong-un is sincere about giving up his nuclear arsenal?
If the treaty is successful, do you think that our relationship with North Korea will improve, to what extent?
Do you think that China would be willing to cooperate with the US to formally end the Korean War?

Who Is Miguel Díaz-Canel, Cuba’s New President?

Recently, the country of Cuba sees Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez, Raúl Castro's handpicked successor, take the presidency. After Cuba and the Obama administration agreed to restore diplomatic relations freed up decades of stagnation and allowed interaction between the two countries to flow free. Díaz-Canel has been a bit of a mystery for onlookers in and out of Cuba. While being born after the revolution, Díaz-Canel slowly and steadily rose through the ranks of the bureaucracy through his strong belief in and loyalty to communism and the revolution. For most, he holds a stubborn duality in his views. On one hand, this fierce advocation of the socialist cause unaccepting of critics and willing to shut down their ideas; he has allegedly "led a campaign to stifle students who read and discussed literature that was not approved by the Communist Party", and was leaked in a video to verbally attack the U.S. claiming that Cuba "had no responsibility to meet its demands under the reconciliation brokered by President Barack Obama", before moving on to criticize a website he considered "subversive". However, he has also demonstrated a more liberal, approachable and friendly, modern side. He has been described as a "good listener", and has proved himself to be a strong ally of one of the country's only gay clubs. Díaz-Canel is reported to mix well with the intellectuals, artists, and youth, among whom he is well-liked and praised. He also biked to and from work instead of taking a government vehicle, although he was always trailed by personal security in vehicles. Moreover, he has pushed for internet access in Cuba to connect the country to the rest of the world. The National Assembly voted him into presidency unanimously on Thursday, welcoming him with a standing ovation.

In spite of Díaz-Canel's rigidity in his communist support, I believe Díaz-Canel to be an appropriate candidate for presidency, based on this article's descriptions of him. He's very open-minded and listens to people's concerns, which I consider to be essential qualities of a leader. He may be uncompromising when it comes to the traditionalist socialism ideas of his predecessors, but everyone has a belief they support fully and refuse to compromise on. If he is open to change and receptive to those he interacts with, I believe he will be a decent leader. What are your thoughts on Mr. Díaz-Canel and his firm standing for his predecessors' communist ideals? Do you believe Díaz-Canel has the qualities of a leader? Does he have the abilities to take on the many responsibilities of presidency of Cuba at this time, including reigniting the economy and accommodating the population's impatience with the country's change of pace?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/world/americas/miguel-diaz-canel-bermudez-cuba.html

Report Says Sean Hannity Linked To Other Trump-Connected Attorneys, Besides Cohen

A report from The Atlantic has connected Fox News host Sean Hannity to at least two other lawyers connected to Donald Trump, several days after he was revealed to be a client of Michael Cohen, Trump's personal attorney, in a raid on Cohen's office and hotel room. On an Oklahoma radio station, conservative activist Debbie Schlussel accused Hannity on the air of being "creepy" and inviting her to his hotel room. Following these remarks, Hannity claimed that the accusations were fabricated, and attorneys Jay Seulow and Victoria Toensing sent a cease-and-desist letter on Hannity's behalf to the station charging Schlussel's accusations as defamatory. Sekulow is employed by Trump, and Toensing had been prepared to join Trump's legal team as well before unidentified conflicts suddenly prevented the addition. Toensing has refused to reveal whether she still represented Hannity, saying she was unwilling to disclose her clients' identities. Toensing and Sekulow have also frequently been guests on Hannity's program.

In response to Alan Dershowitz, retired Harvard law professor and frequent guest on the show who called him out for not disclosing his relationship with Cohen, Hannity said the relationship was "minimal" and "minor". The next day he declared to have "occasional, brief conversations.... about legal questions I had or I was looking for input and perspective", but that he'd never been represented legally by Cohen. While I believe Hannity should have divulged that he had a personal connection to Cohen before defending him on air, but that the privacy of all involved parties (i.e. Hannity, Toensing, Cohen, and Sekulow) should be respected unless there is reason to suspect foul play. Do you believe Hannity's claims not to have been legally involved with Cohen? What are the implications of Hannity's indirect links to Trump? How much right to privacy should Hannity hold in this situation?

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/18/603471930/besides-cohen-other-trump-connected-attorneys-linked-to-sean-hannity