Fire fuels protests over "zero Covid" lockdowns in China

 

    Throughout the entirety of the pandemic, China's Covid restriction policies have stood out as the most controlling and most strict in the world. This is because the use a "zero Covid" strategy, which seeks to reduce cases through strict quarantines, lockdowns and testing on a mass scale. While this policy has been effective in restricting the spread of Covid, it has led to the constant restriction of peoples freedoms leading to a growing dissent towards the government.

 

    Things were only made worse when last Thursday, a fire broke out in an apartment building in Urumqi, the regional capital of Xinjiang. At least ten people were killed and nine injured during the incident. Urumqi has been on full lockdown since August, so when the fire broke out, the response time was slowed due to the massive amounts of restrictions possibly contributing to the number of deaths and injuries.

    The incident was the final spark to peoples growing distaste for the strict Covid restrictions, as the people of Urumqi took to the streets in protest shortly following the incident calling out in chants of "end lockdowns."

    The protest in Urumqi was not an isolated event either. Across China, people are starting to take action against the government, and the "zero Covid" lockdowns that the government says is necessary to their safety. In Zhengzhou, workers at an iPhone factory turned to violence against hazmat-suited security officers over a delay in bonus payments and chaotic Covid rules. In Chongqing, a rallying speech was given by an individual protesting the lockdown in his residence saying, "Without freedom, I would rather die!" And in Shanghai residents boldly called for Xi Jinping and the Communist Party to step down.

    The government was quick to censor all media outlets regarding the protests, yet footage and images still spread across China and the rest of the world. This only added to the growing outrage at the imposed restrictions. 

    The main ethical dilemma revolves around peoples freedom versus their safety, and the government's power to regulate both. While the policies imposed by the government greatly restrict people's freedoms, the have had an undeniable impact on the impact on the limited spread of Covid in China. Yet, in my, and many others' opinions, these policies, and the methods in which they are being carried out, are simply not worth it at this point in the pandemic. 

    Since the protests, the government has said that they would ease lockdown measures in neighborhoods categorized as "low risk" by authorities "in stages." Yet, whether this will have any significant effect on peoples personal freedom remains to be seen.

Sources: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/27/world/asia/china-covid-protest.html?auth=login-google

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/26/asia/xinjiang-urumqi-china-lockdown-protests-intl-hnk/index.html

The most controversial World Cup ever is underway

The World Cup, the biggest sporting event of the biggest sport in the world, has officially started. The tournament watched by billions across the world is taking place 6 months later than it usually does due to the immense heat in the summers of the host country, Qatar. That is just one of the many (and one of the much less contentious)… to put it lightly… quirks of the World Cup in Qatar. 

Qatar, a small gulf state in the Middle East, has never qualified or played in a World Cup, and to many, it would seem to lack the size and necessary infrastructure to host one. So how, and why, is Qatar hosting the World Cup? Simply put, way, way, way, too much money. Qatar’s World Cup bid to FIFA was estimated to be at least $200 million, more than any other country before. According to the New York Times, “American investigators and FIFA itself have since said multiple FIFA board members accepted bribes to swing the vote to Qatar” -- just one of the numerous corruption scandals that top FIFA officials have been mired in over the last decade.

Qatar being revealed as the World Cup host

To prepare for the influx of players, staff, and more than 1.5 million fans, Qatar has also spent over $220 billion building roads, hotels, air-conditioned stadiums, and more, making it the most expensive World Cup ever (for reference, the second most expensive World Cup cost $14 billion in 2014). Although Qatar sits on massive pools of natural gas and oil responsible for making it the highest GDP per capita country in the world, it still seems hard to justify so much money for an event that lasts only one month. 

The controversial hosting of the World Cup has been overrun with criticism. Firstly, human rights advocates are alarmed by the Qatari government’s treatment of migrant workers it employed to build all of its ambitious infrastructure projects. 36 workers have died while completing the stadiums, and thousands have died in the last 10 years since construction began. There are reports of thousands of migrant workers being trapped and unable to leave their jobs, with workers reporting that employers have taken their passports and threatened them for complaining about living conditions. According to Amnesty International, ”staff of one labor supply company used the threat of penalties to exact work from some migrants such as withholding pay, handing workers over to the police or stopping them from leaving Qatar.” 

Secondly, being the first Islamic country to host a World Cup, many policies have been heavily criticized by western media: homosexuality is illegal in Qatar and punishable by up to 3 years in prison. Although Qatar has stated that it will “welcome all” for the World Cup, LGBTQ fans are staying away. Not all religions are treated equally, and someone found to be “proselytizing for other religions or criticizing Islam may be criminally prosecuted,” according to the US embassy in Qatar. Any speech that is also determined to be critical of the Qatari government is also grounds for arrest. On Friday, Qatar backtracked on a previous agreement and announced alcohol would be prohibited in and around stadiums, a ban that complicates Budweiser’s $75 million deal with FIFA. 

The "Rainbow Laces" campaign

While Qatar certainly is not as radical as a country like Saudi Arabia, Qatar’s general conservatism seems incongruent with recent progressive campaigns that have made their way through the soccer community, such as the English Premier League’s “Rainbow Laces” campaign, a show of support and inclusion for the LGBTQ+ community. 

Taking a step back and looking at all the corruption, human rights abuses, hundreds of billions of dollars, and media attention surrounding the World Cup, it is easy to wonder how a simple game is the root of all of it. The World Cup raises greater questions about our societal values: does society as a whole place too much emphasis, money, and time on sports when there are other more pressing issues at stake? Probably. But will billions of people still flock to their TVs to see Messi, Neymar, Mbappe, and Ronaldo show off their one-in-a-billion talent by running around a field for 90 minutes? Inevitably. 

World Cup final viewership

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/19/sports/soccer/world-cup-qatar-2022.html

https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/qatar-abuse-of-world-cup-workers-exposed/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/19/football/qatar-world-cup-2022-lgbtq-rights-spt-intl/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/19/1137783957/world-cup-qatar-fan-restrictions-alcohol

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/18/sports/soccer/world-cup-beer-qatar.html

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/11/world-cup-2022-qatar-media

Elon Musk Reinstates Donald Trump’s Twitter Account

Since Elon Musk has purchased Twitter for $44 Billion, he has received an immense amount of criticism for his actions, such as laying off half of the company’s employees and implementing questionable policies into the site to foster “free speech,” such as allowing users to purchase a blue check mark next to their name that comes with Twitter Blue (because somehow charging $8 a month for users to promote their posts is “free speech”). 

But Musk has also used his platform to influence US politics. Leading up to the Midterm elections, Musk urged his followers to vote red in a tweet. His support for Republican politics continued when on November 18, Musk posted a poll asking if Trump’s Twitter Account should be reinstated to the website. It was banned in the wake of the January 6th insurrection due to the violence that then President Trump incited. Unsurprisingly (because the majority of his followers are right-leaning, in large part because of the “freedom of speech” persona that Musk puts on), the result of the poll was in favor of Trump’s reinstatement. The next day, Musk posted the results of the poll and said that Trump will indeed be reinstated. He prefaced his announcement by saying “The people have spoken,” implying that the results of a poll to his followers can be extrapolated to the website as a whole or the entire American population.

Donald Trump's twitter account amasses nearly 6 million followers just a couple of hours after being unbanned

Musk’s announcement comes at an interesting time in the political world of the US, as Trump recently announced that he will be a candidate in the 2024 Presidential Election. Shortly after Trump’s announcement, US attorney general Merrick Garland appointed a special counsel to determine if Trump should face criminal charges for his role in the January 6 insurrection and for the mishandling of national security materials. Getting charged for these crimes would hurt his chances at receiving the GOP nomination. Although it’s obvious that many of Trump’s supporters have no problem with his wrongdoings, the charges would funnel some support to likely opposing GOP nomination candidate, Ron DeSantis, which could alter the result of the nomination.

The event that set in motion Trump’s calls for violence was him losing the 2020 Presidential Election to Joe Biden, and Republicans just did worse than expected in the 2022 Midterms, so it will be interested to see how Trump utilizes his newly restored platform and how it may affect the US political scene over the next couple of years.

It's been a bad couple of weeks for crypto investors 📉

Bitcoin, Ethereum, Luna, FTT -- everyone has heard of cryptocurrencies over the past few years. The decentralized digital currency market, while a subject of numerous memes, has also just experienced a multi-billion dollar collapse. This implosion was due to the bankruptcy of one of the biggest crypto trading companies, FTX. 

FTX founder, Sam Bankman-Fried

Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of FTX, who was hailed as some sort of crypto-superhero-savior only a couple months ago, has lost billions of dollars in a matter of days. Founded in 2019, FTX quickly became one of the largest crypto companies, with its own currency, FTT. Binance, one of the other crypto giants, was one of its earliest investors. However, FTX’s rapid growth quickly made it a competitor. When suspicion arose due to the research company, Alameda, also founded by Bankman-Fried, having $14 billion worth of FTT, investors started to pull out. On November 6, Binance stated it would liquidate hundreds of millions of dollars of FTT. This sparked a mass wave of panic, a classic bank run, except a remixed 2022 version. Users attempted to pull out billions of dollars of crypto investments, too much for FTX to handle. 

It turns out, people were pulling out money FTX did not have (classic). The Wall Street Journal reported that FTX had used its users' investments for “risky bets” tied to the company Alameda. On November 11, FTX declared bankruptcy, being valued at $32 billion only months ago. More than a million investors in FTX have had their assets frozen or lost, as “Reuters reports that between $1 billion to $2 billion of customer funds have vanished from the failed crypto exchange.”

Steph Curry in an FTX commercial

Marketed as a “safe, easy” way to get into crypto, FTX is now being investigated for fraud. Bankman-Fried, along with celebrities who helped promote FTX, including Tom Brady, Stephen Curry, and Shaq, were named as defendants in a class-action lawsuit, with investors comparing FTX to a Ponzi-scheme “designed to take advantage of unsophisticated investors from across the country.” 

Although this ordeal will not end the crypto market, it raises further questions about its reliability. There has always been an air of skepticism regarding online currencies (Elon Musk literally called Dogecoin a “hustle” on SNL). I mean, how many people really know what cryptocurrency is and how it works? The public is already aware of crypto’s volatility, but FTX was supposed to be the “reliable” company. What is clear is that if the market is going to recover from this scare, there needs to be much more transparency to build up investors’ trust. Crypto is inherently risky -- there may be no way around that. But a good place to start might be letting users know where their money is going and not secretly transferring $10 billion of it to a separate company. 

This issue also has connections to recent elections. Bankman-Fried “helped bankroll Democrats’ overperformance in the midterms” contributing “more than $40 million to Democratic candidates and a network of super PACs that promoted crypto and public health policies.” In exchange for writing multi-million dollar checks for politicians, Bankman-Fried became the number one guy for politicians to turn to when making new policies regarding crypto. But any influence he had in Washington has quickly disappeared. It turns out you can buy influence, but politicians will likely tread lightly dealing with crypto and crypto magnates in the future. 

Sources:

https://sports.yahoo.com/tom-brady-stephen-curry-shaq-and-naomi-osaka-among-celebrities-sued-in-class-action-crypto-lawsuit-181117155.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/12/1-billion-to-2-billion-of-ftx-customer-funds-missing-report.html

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftx-tapped-into-customer-accounts-to-fund-risky-bets-setting-up-its-downfall-11668093732

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/18/business/ftx-crypto-downfall-explained/index.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/10/crypto-megadonor-sam-bankman-fried-00066062

Does the Murdoch family have too much power?

This is hilarious and creepy at the same time.

Fox News Channel always had a conservative slant -- Roger Ailes, George H.W. Bush's campaign manager in 1992, was, after all, a founding member of the team -- but it hasn't always had the agenda-setting power that it appears to wield now in Republican politics. Try to re-imagine the past 2 years of politics if FNC had emphatically and clearly stated that Joe Biden clearly won a clean election in the fall of 2020, instead of allowing conspiracy theories to be amplified by numerous hosts and guests, followed by giving Tucker Carlson a platform for his "replacement theory" level of toxic racism and Q-adjacent fearmongering. Well, what Rupert giveth, Rupert can taketh away. Here is the page 26 coverage of Trump's formal announcement that he is running for President again from the Murdoch-controlled New York Post:

As a savage takedown, this is classic, but does it really mean that the Fox-affiliated political news empire will be taking sides against Trump? Maybe:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/15/murdoch-press-turns-on-donald-trump-in-favour-of-defuture-ron-desantis

My take on this is that while I wish Fox et. al. came to realize that Trump was a danger to the republic they are still loyal to, I think this is just another example of profit maximization within the confined sphere of conservative media. Fox could lose viewers if the Trump fans turn the channel to positive coverage they feel entitled to. However, Fox will make WAY more money if there is a competitive Republican primary than if there is not. They will end up hosting most of the TV debates in any nomination campaign between Trump, DeSantis, and others. So, Fox is more likely to take Trump down a peg while giving Trump challengers in the GOP airtime and a viable chance. If Trump wins the Republican nomination (and isn't disallowed from state ballots due to the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause) then I fully expect Fox to be as anti-Democrat as ever.

All the cable news channels made extra $$$ from the drama of the 2016 campaign and Trump's outrage of the day way of dominating the media space, so Trump running is good for business. But Trump having a competitive race is even better for business. And Joe Biden having a Democratic challenger is better still! Keep this in mind as the national political media, not just Fox, hypes 2024 throughout 2023.

Republican Party's claims of fraud and media coverage

After Catherine Cortez Masto's win in Nevada, the Democrats have taken the Senate with 50 seats. Before the race, Republican candidate Adam Laxalt had planned to "fight election fraud," and at a campaign event, criticized Trump's campaign for investigating voting fraud too late. However, there was no evidence of widespread fraud in Nevada during that presidential election, and the state had thoroughly investigated the Republican Party's claims of fraud. Now that Laxalt has lost, he has thanked his supporters and decided not to claim election fraud had taken place.

In the last few years, election fraud has been a major concern for Republicans, as evidenced by Laxalt's statements long before any voting had even started. After the 2020 election when the Trump campaign filed many lawsuits contesting the results, dragging on political races may become the new norm. 

With these claims of fraud being so widespread while having little evidence supporting them, many voters may believe this misinformation, particularly from biased media sources. Given that many journalists adhere to the principle of fairness by providing coverage of all perspectives, it's easy for readers to fall victim to misinformation if they do not think critically about the content they consume. For example, if a Republican voter only watched FOX News for political coverage, they may believe that there is truly election fraud taking place. The issue appeals to American values such as democracy and fairness, and creating anger and fear surrounding the issue encourages voters to participate in politics. While this may garner more support for the Republican Party who has advocated for greater transparency with voting, it is based on false claims.

Regardless of whether claims of election fraud continue to surface, it is in the best interest of readers to assess the outlets they get information from and to not blindly believe claims they see from politicians or journalists.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/12/us/elections/senate-control.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20221113&instance_id=77434&nl=the-morning&regi_id=101588001&segment_id=113030&te=1&user_id=439bfc2dccf8aadb282e824e81f98296

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/04/1120904265/claims-voter-fraud-donald-trump

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/22/us/politics/adam-laxalt-election-fraud.html

NBA Takes Election Day Off

 

 

Coach Steve Kerr encourages NBA fans to vote

In an unprecedented move, the NBA did not hold any games on Tuesday, November
8, Election Day. The move was announced on August 156, but it is the first
time that the league has altered its schedule in an effort to encourage voter
turnout.

This isn't the first time the NBA has taken steps to encourage civic
engagement among its fans and communities, though. Back in 2020, when access
to voting was limited because of the state of the pandemic, 14 teams used
their arenas or practice facilities as polling locations or voting centers.

NBA figures are using their voices to spread the message, as well. While the
Warriors were hosting the Sacramento Kings after a sequence of road games
that spanned 11 days, Warriors Head Coach Steve Kerr addressed the crowd
before the game. He pointed out that players across the league were wearing
shirts that tell fans to vote and that all Warriors players and coaches are
registered, encouraged fans to create a plan to get their vote out while the
polls are still open, and informed watchers that if they're not registered,
they have the ability to do so and vote tomorrow (in California).

The NBA, although it announced the schedule change well before both the 
season and Election Day, has received some backlash from media and fans, who
claim that the worlds of sports and politics mustn't interfere with each
other. However, NBA teams plan an average of once every two days, so
scheduling a day off isn't harmful, nor does it lack precedent. Additionally,
the NBA is making sure to keep its recommendations nonpartisan, simply
encouraging a greater number of citizens to make a plan to vote.

The time that it takes to vote is a deterrent for many would-be voters.
Many, including myself, believe that Election Day should be a national
holiday to reduce this deterrent to voting. A major sports league using its
influence to encourage civic engagement is definitely a step in the right
direction for increasing voter turnout and accessibility. 

Sources:
https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/why-are-there-no-nba-games-election-day
https://theathletic.com/3772755/2022/11/07/nba-election-day-games/
https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/bulls/ct-chicago-bulls-nba-election-day-schedule-20221107-ja5dseknrzgktgugxzk2n4e7ei-story.html

Results of Midterm Elections Continue

Image of Capitol Hill 

November 7 has come and gone without a definitive outcome for the state of the House or the Senate. As of now, both Republicans and Democrats hold 49 seats in the Senate and Nevada and Georgia seem to be the two states that will establish the majority. We’ll hopefully know Nevada’s results soon and if it turns in favor of Republican Adam Laxalt, which it is currently, Georgia’s runoff between incumbent Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker in December will be the final decision.

As of yesterday, incumbent Mark Kelly won Arizona, awarding the tying 49th seat to Democrats. Kelly ran more so as a moderate, hoping to appeal to the independent voters of the state. His support for abortion and securing stable water supply in a hard-hitting drought for Arizona proved popular among residents. Also, Kelly’s incumbency likely contributed to his ability to raise more money than his Trump-endorsed election-denier opponent, Blake Masters, and maintain a small lead against him throughout the race. 

If Democrats want to keep a majority in the Senate, they only need to win one state and Vice President Kamala Harris serves as the tiebreaker, but a Republican majority in the Senate would be more difficult, needing to win both Nevada and Georgia. Thus, Democrats are projected to slightly edge out the Republicans and take the Senate, creating a similar situation to how it’s been the past two years. However, Republicans are predicted to take the House with razor thin margins, currently leading 211 seats to 203. This creates a threat of congressional gridlock where one party controls the House and the other the Senate. In this situation, compromise between parties is crucial and should produce bipartisan legislature that reflects a broad range of ideas and people. Unfortunately, in our largely polarized political climate, this ideal outcome seems beyond our capabilities. 

Alas, all eyes will be on Nevada and Georgia as the results for midterm elections continue. 

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/election-results-congress-senate-house-11-09-2022/in

dex.html 

https://www.rutgers.edu/news/what-happened-red-wave

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/09/first-thing-red-wave-fails-to-materialise-as-democrats-beat-expectations-in-the-midterms  

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/nov/11/democrat-mark-kelly-arizona-senate-blake-masters

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/3727864-corporate-america-braces-for-congressional-gridlock-gop-investigations-in-2023/ 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/12/nevada-senate-control-2022-elections-00066610 

https://www.kiplinger.com/politics/afteru-the-midterms-expect-gridlock-to-reign-on-capitol-hhill 

Abortion in the Midterm Elections

 

After Roe v. Wade was overturned, the controversial issue of abortion has been a major topic of debate, and during the midterm elections, was a major deciding factor for who people voted for. 

Abortion has contributed to further political polarization, as both Democrats and Republicans have taken a stance on the issue and have taken advantage of support from pro-choice and pro-life people. Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, supporters of abortion have been more politically active as there is more at stake, giving the Democratic party a competitive advantage. Democrats have repeatedly stated that abortion is on the ballot, mobilizing more voters who care about the issue, and these same voters have voted for Democrat candidates more than Republicans in the midterm elections based on their stances on abortion. This is a shift compared to the past, as Republicans have long used the issue of abortion to garner more support by appealing to Catholics and evangelicals who are against abortion. 

More recently, Democrats have also broadened the issue of abortion by connecting it to values such as freedom and democracy, garnering wider support for their party. They've spent almost half a billion on advertisements about the issue, according to the New York Times. At the same time, they've portrayed Republicans as having extreme beliefs, anchoring their messages on people's fears of losing their freedom and right to choose. These strategies have also contributed to polarizarion, driving voters further away from the center. 

While these strategies' full effects have yet to be seen, according to CNN, 27% of voters overall stated that abortion was the issue most important to them. Additionally, in an exit poll in Pennsylvania, many voters prioritized the issue of abortion over the economy as the top issue on their minds, which could be promising for Democrats.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/10/us/politics/abortion-midterm-elections-democrats-republicans.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20221110&instance_id=77130&nl=the-morning&regi_id=101588001&segment_id=112703&te=1&user_id=439bfc2dccf8aadb282e824e81f98296

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/09/politics/abortion-rights-2022-midterms

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/09/abortion-rights-american-voters-democrats-midterms

Controversy over reparations for “loss and damage” due to climate change

 

In lieu of the upcoming COP27 to be held in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, a select few rich and high-emission countries have become partial to paying reparations to “underdeveloped”(overexploited) nations suffering the consequences of severe climate change such as droughts, floods, hurricanes, and an extreme increase in temperature. 

However, the controversy lies in the possibility of opening up unlimited liability directed toward the countries providing the funds. Essentially, there is fear present that the countries producing the most carbon emissions will be held responsible for their unceasing harmful actions.  

This specific issue referred to in the conference as “loss and damage,” calls for massively industrialized nations such as the U.S., EU, and China to provide supportive funding for developing nations that have suffered massively from disasters as a result of the changing climate, yet lack much responsibility at all for the crisis itself. Despite having contributed little to none of the cause of global warming as a result of harmful emissions, such vulnerable nations tend to endure the worst of the aftermath. 

Among the nations to potentially be compensated are island states such as the Maldives, Vanuatu, and Jamaica. Currently, the situation rests in the hands of the International Court of Justice, whose opinion would carry much more legal weight and moral authority.

Sources:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/05/climate-change-china-emissions-00064736 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/06/climate/loss-and-damage-climate-cop27.html 

https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/cop27-what-is-loss-damage-compensation-who-should-pay-2022-11-06/ 

https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/cop27-summit-begin-with-plea-discuss-climate-compensation-2022-11-06/ 

Midterm Elections See the Most LGBTQ+ Candidates in History

 

The pride flag flies in front of California’s state Capitol in Sacramento

With midterm elections just around the corner, it’s essential to recognize the notable increase in openly LGBTQ+ candidates running this year. For the first time in history, every state and territory in America has an openly gay candidate running for an elected office position. California has the most LGBTQ+ candidates, 178, while states like Mississippi have one. 

Political science professor Gabriele Magni attributes an increase in candidacy to the recent uptick in anti-LGBTQ legislature such as Florida’s “Parental Right in Education Act” or more commonly the “Don’t Say Gay” law which outlaws teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten to the third grade. This makes both LGBTQ+ youth and teachers feel “othered.” The 82 openly gay candidates running for school board positions versus 43 in the previous cycle suggests the more recent urgency to address anti-LGBTQ+ curriculum being pushed in schools. 

Also, The Human Rights Campaign cites around 300 anti-LGBTQ+ legislatures that have been proposed this year, such as Alabama’s law which criminalizes doctors from giving patients gender-affirming medical treatment. The sheer number and severity to which anti-LGBTQ+ bills are being put forward seemingly encouraged so many LGBTQ+ candidates to run and advocate for the needs of their community in Congress, state and local levels. Magni says that “when we ask LGBTQ candidates why they are running for office, many say that they feel the urgency to run in order to protect LGBTQ rights” 

Sources:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/6/historic-number-of-out-lgbtq-candidates-running-us-midterms 

https://www.metroweekly.com/2022/11/election-2022-pathways-to-lgbtq-victory/ 

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2022/10/27/us-lgbtq-candidates-midterm-elections-record-numbers 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/dont-say-gay-law-brings-worry-confusion-to-florida-schools 

https://time.com/6167472/alabama-anti-lgbtq-legislation/ 

California Proposition 28: Funding K-12 Art and Music Education

 

    On Tuesday, November 8th, Californians will receive the opportunity to cast their votes on seven different propositions. Proposition 28, one of the seven propositions, is an initiative to provide K-12 public schools more funding for art and music education. 

    In 2019, a survey organized by Ipsos, a company that specializes in public opinion and research, revealed that 90+ percent of Americans believe that the arts play a significant role in our education system. Students that receive education in the arts are shown to perform better in STEM subjects, develop out-of-the-box thinking, and have better rates of attendance and mental health. Yet, when school districts face deficiencies in their budgets, art and music programs are usually the first programs to get cut. Only one in five public schools in California have a full-time music or art teacher even though all California colleges within the UC and CSU systems require at least one year of a VAPA (Visual and Performing Arts) course. Thousands of students, especially those in low-income and marginalized communities, are deprived of arts and music education, and are not guaranteed a well-rounded education as a result.

    Austin Beutner, the former superintendent for the Los Angeles Unified School District, authored Proposition 28 which will provide approximately one billion dollars per year for art and music programs in public schools. Because the funding for these programs would be secured through a legislative requirement, taxpayers don't have to worry about paying additional money for the proposition. If the proposition is passed, the funding given to the schools must be used to support art and music education. Schools can use their funding to pay for supplies, training, teachers, and art/music partnerships. Prop. 28 supports both traditional music and art classes such as theater, drawing, dance, choir, and band, along with contemporary art classes including video, film, graphic design, and computer graphics. Annual audits and reports of schools' fundings will be required to guarantee that the funds are being spent properly.

    So far, committees in support of Prop. 28 have received over 11 billion dollars. Supporters of the proposition include California's Democratic Party, local art organizations, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in California, and local music/art educational groups. Additionally, famous musicians such as Katy Perry, Barbra Streisand, Graham Nash, Earth Wind & Fire, and Sheryl Lee Ralph have shown their support for Prop. 28 through social media endorsements. The creators of the popular 1996 sitcom, "Everyone Loves Raymond", even donated $1 million dollars to support the proposition! Although there aren't any organized opposing groups, critics of Prop. 28 believe that the money will come at the expense of other essential state-funded programs. However, based on the lack of opposing groups, it won't be surprising if Prop. 28 is passed.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/02/us/california-prop-28.html

https://abc7.com/california-proposition-28-election-performing-arts/12295529/

https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2022/propositions/prop-28-arts-education/

https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/Americans-Believe-the-Arts-Are-an-Important-Part-of-Society-and-Education

Is Throwing Food at Famous Paintings an Effective Way to Raise Awareness Towards Climate Change?

    

Just Stop Oil activists after tossing tomato soup onto Van Gogh's 134 year old painting

"What's worth more, art or life?...Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting, or the protection of our planet and people?" (Phoebe Plummer, Just Stop Oil Activist).

    On October 14th, two protestors from Just Stop Oil, an environmental activist group, launched tomato soup onto Vincent van Gogh's "Sunflowers". On October 23rd, members from the climate activist group, Last Generations, dumped mashed potatoes all over Claude Monet's "Les Meules". This past Friday, activists from Last Generation tossed pea soup onto Van Gogh's "The Sower". Although none of the paintings were damaged due to protective glass, the protests have sparked controversy and conversations internationally.

    A simple search of "soup protest climate change" brings up over 3 million results. Throughout the last month, these protests have made global headlines, increasing awareness and publicity towards climate change activist groups such as Just Stop Oil and Last Generation. Members of Just Stop Oil have protested against new gas and oil production by throwing paint onto the main office of a fossil fuel lobbying group and have blocked streets in London, causing over 570 members to get arrested. Similarly, members of Last Generation have blocked streets and sprayed fake oil on the Berlin chancellery. However, none of these protests have received as much international attention as the painting protests.

Members of Just Stop Oil blocking streets in London

    Even though the protests have gone viral, much of the media attention the groups have received has been negative. Many are afraid that the negative portrayal of the protests will cause individuals to develop negative associations with climate activism and advocacy. Others believe that the protests are a form of reckless vandalism. After conversing with people in my own life about the protests, I've realized that although many have heard of the activists' actions, a much smaller percentage realize that the paintings were not harmed. Additionally, the media has not emphasized the protestors' goal: to halt oil and gas production. The actions the activists took during the protests have overshadowed the message the protestors were trying to convey, making their protests less effective.

    Despite the backlash, the activists are glad that their protests have received media coverage and attention. Phoebe Plummer, one of the activists who threw soup onto Van Gogh's "Sunflowers", shares,"[W]e're not asking the question if everyone should be throwing soup on paintings. What we are doing is getting the conversation going so we can ask the questions that matter."

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/20/opinion/just-stop-oil-soup-sunflowers-climate.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/28/learning/how-far-is-too-far-in-the-fight-against-climate-change.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/climate-protesters-throw-soup-van-goghs-sunflowers-91500234

https://time.com/6224760/climate-activists-throw-food-at-art/

https://wwd.com/fashion-news/fashion-scoops/harrods-knightsbridge-store-just-stop-oil-1235395222/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vincent-van-gogh-sunflowers-painting-soup-protest-london/