Coronavirus in Italy spreads Fear among European Countries

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

There have been over 150 documented cases of the coronavirus in Italy, lockdown in at least 10 towns, and schools have been closed in major cities. I found it interesting that some European countries have decided to rethink their open border policy and have more “strict” security laws. 

On Sunday night, a ship brought migrants from Libya and kept them in quarantine for 2 weeks just for precaution. Most of Europe is on their tippy toes because they have opened their doors for immigrants and are now frightened. Fears of foreigners spreading the virus across oceans has already increased the likelihood that some governments around the world will impose new border or travel controls.  

Prime Minister of Italy, Giuseppe Conte, stated, “the country had taken precautions, including barring flights from China in January. These measures seemed to have paid off even if now it looks like it didn’t.” This large epidemic in Italy seems to have passed all their security because people have been taking flights from China to Italy by not declaring their original departure point and/or have not quarantined themselves during the virus’ incubation period. 

It is crazy that one of the people that died from the coronavirus had not been to china or any place reported to have the virus. Health officials are trying to figure out how he contracted the virus; he had not been to China. Many cases in Lombardy, officials say, may be traceable to that one case.

1. Do you think we will find a cure for the coronavirus?
2. What restrictions/policy changes should be put in place to ensure that the coronavirus does not spread at all or not as fast?
3. Are you scared of the coronavirus?

Russia is Helping Trump and Sanders in their Presidential Election

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

It seems strange to me that Russia also wants to help Sanders win the democratic party. But apparently, there is a plan to this. According to experts who have spent these last 3 years analyzing Vladamir Putin’s tactics, they say that he is eager for a compliant counterpart in the White House, one less likely to challenge his territorial and nuclear ambitions. Although Sanders and Trump have completely different views, they both do not have the ambition to pursue policies that will negatively affect Putin’s plan to restore Moscow’s influence in the world. 

Victoria Nuland, served both Republican and Democratic administrations, says, “Any figures that radicalize politics and do harm to center views and unity in the United States are good for Putin’s Russia.” Putin’s primary goal is to get the United States’ support to lift the sanctions that were imposed after he annexed Crimea and accelerated a war against Ukraine. The intelligence analyses suggest that supporting Sanders in the primary and Trump in the general election, Putin will be able to increase his chances to achieve his goal. Sanders wants Russia to stay out of the election. I believe that Putin is learning from his mistakes from the 2016 election and attempting to evade government agencies and technology companies from learning into their secrets to accomplish his goal.

It seems like Russian hackers are pretending to be Americans and post to increase the uncertainty of validity of American elections. This means that the bandwagon effect will be successful if people hear and follow other peoples’ opinions. As a result, Russia is not only supporting the leading candidates of both parties, but influencing the peoples’ opinions about the candidates through social media.

1. Why do you think Putin is supporting both Sanders and Trump? Why not Trump only?
2. How are Russia’s efforts different from 2016?
3. What do you think will happen as more information is uncovered about Russia’s efforts?

Joe Biden needs to win South Carolina to be safe

Article 1

Extra Source

Article 2

Article 3

Currently in the Presidential race, the county delegate count stands with Sanders at 46%, Biden at 20%, Buttigieg at 15%, Warren at 10%, Klobuchar at 5%, and Steyer at 4%. Furthermore, the world’s political attention now rests at the next candidate debate on February 25 and the next contest in South Carolina on February 29. Although it may seem Sanders is a clear winner for the democratic party by far (yay), Biden still survives. According to entrance polls, Biden won 36% of African Americans while Sanders only won 27% of their vote. Additionally, Biden won voters of 65 and older, the only age group that Sanders lost.

The next step for Biden’s candidacy is South Carolina. Biden has never trailed in any poll in South Carolina and whose majority-black primary electorate will most likely support him. However, Sanders has growing support from African Americans in South Carolina as well. It’s important to note that if Biden does win South Carolina, he will go into Super Tuesday with some delegate votes that will help him in the long run. Biden’s currently projected to win two delegates from the caucuses.

Nevertheless, there is a huge gap of ideals between older African Americans and younger African Americans, South Carolina state Rep. Kambrell Garvin, a Warren surrogate, says “Younger African Americans like Joe Biden, but a lot of us aren’t supportive of Joe Biden, because we want a change in policies. We aren’t looking to tinker around the edges.” I think Sanders should be clear about his intentions with policy changes and how they will affect African Americans.

Lasty, 33% of the total delegates (1,344) will be up for grabs on Super Tuesday alone. This means that every candidate is fighting to get a bigger lead to be one step ahead of every candidate before March 17, where almost 61% of the delegate votes will be allotted.

1. Who do you think will win South Carolina? By how much?
2. What impact do you think whoever “wins” Super Tuesday will have on the candidates?
3. Who do you believe will have most of the delegate votes by March 17th?

Bloomberg Shredded in his First Democratic Debate

Debate
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Extra Source

First off who is this Mike Bloomberg, well to state he's the man behind the Stop n' Frisk policy, and has shown consistent support for other racist policies like redlining. The former New York City mayor is currently using his immense funds to buy online advertisements on YouTube, Instagram, FaceBook, Google, and countless other platforms. From Feb. 9 to 16 he spent over 5.4 million dollars on Google ads. alone, which is about 10 times the amount his competition spent on ads. for the same platform! This year alone, “Google and Facebook have served up 2 billion Bloomberg ads, which works out to 30,000 a minute...Since joining [Bloomberg] the race in November, he has outspent all other candidates combined on Google [advertisements] by more than $10 million,”(The Washington Post). Normally using your own wealth to fund your campaign and get ahead of your competitors wouldn’t be such a point of controversy, I mean Ross Perot did exactly that when he ran for the presidency in 1992, but the problem arises when you use that money to buy your way into debates even when you don’t fit the DNC’s criteria.

The Democratic National Committee required candidates to prove their grass-roots support by earning a certain number of unique donors to qualify for a debate. But in the most recent debate, the DNC changed this rule allowing Bloomberg to participate for the first time. This was very suspicious considering how the DNC only let Bloomberg in, despite there being other candidates like Tulsi Gabbard who had already met the donation requirements but were still not invited. Well this is in fact because Bloomberg actually paid off the Democratic national Committee to let him on to the debate. During the debate all of the presidential candidates were quick to criticise Bloomberg for past sexism and scandals with women, and how he forced many to sign non-disclosure documents about incidents involving him. They also proceeded to attack him for his background of being a billionaire even comparing him to Trump. A great example of this was when Elizabeth Warren stated in the debate that the, "Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another," and Buttigieg later commenting about how, "Most Americans don't see where they fit if they've got to choose between a socialist who thinks that capitalism is the root of all evil and a billionaire who thinks that money ought to be the root of all power," (clarification: Buttigieg was referring to Sanders and Bloomberg, not Trump, I know there are too many evil billionaires running for president these days).

Personally I believe that the democratic candidates didn’t crucify Bloomberg enough during that debate, considering that he not only had connections to the late Jeffrey Epstein, but he [Bloomberg] was also one of the contacts found in Mr. Epstein's black book of names. He was also photographed socializing with Ghislaine Maxwell who was deeply involved with human trafficking and the pedophile rings that Epstein had set up. Actually I know why they didn’t mention any of this, because all of them most likely have connections and donors that were also part of this conspiracy. So I guess this little section is more food for thought, but I do encourage you all to look into this stuff because dear lord does this rabbit hole not end!

1. What are your thoughts on the DNC's actions regarding this most recent debate? Should there be any punishment for these actions, especially because of their unfair treatment of candidates?

2. Should there be any limits on candidate's personal spending on their campaign? Or should we require platforms to give each candidate a certain amount of free ads. (or airtime on TV)?

3. What do you you personally think about Bloomberg?

Trump criticizes Oscar winning film, Parasite

During a rally on Thursday, President Trump criticized the Academy Awards for
bestowing their top prize to Parasite, a South Korean movie. He asked “what the hell
was that all about” when stating that the winner was a movie from South Korea. He
even goes further to state how “we got enough problems with South Korea with trade.”

Parasite, a movie on class discrimination and greed and how it would affect relationship
between the very wealthy Park family and poor Kim family. Parasite has also made history
by becoming the first foreign language film to win Best Picture at the Oscars earlier this
month. They had also received Oscars for Best Director, in which Director Bong Joon Ho
also made history by becoming the first Korean director to win the Oscar, Best Original
Screenplay, and Best International Feature Film. Many people were thrilled at how well
Parasite did especially considering the lack of diversity in Hollywood this year. 

I personally had the chance to watch Parasite recently and I had enjoyed the movie so
much I watched it three times... in one night. I thought that it was a well directed movie
with a very interesting plot. I admired how it had made such a resonating comment on
society, the socioeconomic class status and the disparity between different classes. It was
a well made movie with amazing cinematography (in my opinion) and I think that it fully
deserved the Oscars that it earned, thus making it very disappointing that Trump would be
so quick to discredit the movie because it was a foreign film especially when it seems as if
he hadn’t even watched it since he stated himself, “Was it good? I don’t know.” Though
disappointing in the way that he acted, I’m not very surprised by it. Hopefully in the future
we will be able to see more representation and diversity in the movies being nominated,
actors, actresses, as well as directors. 

Have you watched Parasite? What did you think of it and do you think it deserved the Oscar’s it received? 
Do you think foreign media or culture is making an impact on American culture? How so?

Andrew Yang drops out of the presidential election

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

On Tuesday, February 11th 2020 Andrew Yang had dropped out of the presidential race. Yang’s platforms mainly focused on his universal basic income policy where the government would give 1,000 a month to every American age 18 or older who wanted it. This would help people who lost their job due to automation or new careers pay for “exploring their creative side, and spend more money in the communities where they lived ''. Yang said that the cost of this plan, which many are estimated to be in the trillions would be funded by a Value Added Tax. 

Yang’s longevity of his campaign was a surprise to many Americans since he had outlasted many

sitting senators and governors. His campaign wasn’t very well known until they had announced

that they raised $9.9 million in the third quarter with another $16.5 million the following quarter. 

However, despite all this he had only gained about 1% of the raw vote from Iowa and no delegates,

thus prompting him to drop out. 

I personally wasn’t following Yang very closely until I had seen an interview done where Yang

addressed his lack of media coverage, such as a time when CNN had left off Yang in an election poll

graphic sometime in mid 2019 and another instance where he was called “John Yang” on MSNBC.

While both of these two were accidents (I believe) and not done out of intent and things likes this

can happen. The show apologized and corrected their error to which Yang accepted their apology.

Still, even though this might not be seen as important to others I still wonder if this would’ve

happened to any other candidate.  

I’m not sure if Yang continued how much support he would have or would have gathered,

but his political support had seemed to consist of mainly young and male voters and now

many people are speculating that his departure from the election could potentially help

Senator Bernie Sanders numbers. 

Additionally, as a fun fact CNN reported that they have added Yang as a political

commentator so we can expect to see more of him for the remainder of this race!

1. Do you think that Andrew Yang dropping out would help other candidates' numbers?
2. Do you think that Andrew Yang would run again for the 2024 presidential election? 
3. How much of an effect do you think media coverage has upon a candidate and their campaign?
4. Can a lack of media coverage prompt their actions in dropping out of the race? 

Space Hotel?

https://futurism.com/the-byte/plans-moving-ahead-space-hotel-iss

   Axiom Space and NASA are taking the first steps towards creating a space hotel attached to the International Space Station. While this may sound odd or out of character for NASA, we are currently living an era where private companies, such as Boeing, Virgin Galactic, Lockheed Martin, and SpaceX, are growing into prominence (to amounts possibly greater than NASA). The future of space is, right now, leaving government hands and going private. Forging the new industry of space tourism along the way.
   The first "module" (or space hotel room) launches are set for 2024. In years after, the hotel will separate and form its own spacecraft.
   These rooms will, of course, be first for the extremely wealthy and, many years down the road, more available to others (resembling car and plane travel). They will start more limited in technology, amenities, and activities and, over time, grow to resemble something like a space cruise ship. (Surprisingly and possibly uncoincidentally, Axiom is the same name as the spaceship in WALL-E, performing the same function too).

1. Would you ever go to space?
2. Do you think private companies that are less know, like Axiom, will be as safe as NASA? Will they be able to compete with the likes of Elon Musk (SpaceX) and Richard Branson (Virgin)?
3. Is there still a need to spend taxpayer money on NASA with these companies in the same field?

Upcoming New Hampshire Primary

Article

NH Polls

US Polls

Iowa Results

Dem Debate

   The first primary of the 2020 Election is happening this Tuesday in New Hampshire. This comes just after a confusing and messy Iowa Caucus and Friday's Democratic Debate. The results in Iowa were close and hard to predict (as there was no preceding Iowa poll, like most years had). But, in New Hampshire, a relative consensus has been reached on who will take the most delegates.

   According to five polls, Senator Bernie Sanders will win New Hampshire, but not by a large margin. I believe this is a result of a few factors. The first being an obvious elements of any campaign, policy lots of people can get behind. The second is how his particular campaign is run (mobilizing younger voters and campaign contributions from average people). The third factor, specific to this primary, is that his state of Vermont, which he has held as a senator since 2007, is right next to New Hampshire.

   And while Mayor Pete has performed better than expected, winning Iowa by a small margin, and Vice President Biden and Senator Warren have performed worse than expected, this is set to change on the national scale (as Iowa and New Hampshire have a higher proportion of white voters than the US does).

   In the debate and throughout their campaigns in New Hampshire and the nation, candidates have been discussing civil liberties and civil rights issues and policy, such as gun control (Second Amendment), abortion (privacy), and civil rights and race as a whole. They will continue to do this until someone becomes President and then makes––or influences––policy on these topics.

1. Who do you think will win New Hampshire? Who will win the nomination?

2. What do you attribute to Mayor Pete's strong, early performance?

3. What are some civil liberties and civil rights policy you think Democrats will/should roll out if they take the presidency?

Senate Acquits The President

https://www.wsj.com/articles/senate-expected-to-vote-to-acquit-trump-on-impeachment-11580908525

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1142157838153895941

   President Trump has been acquitted by the Republican-run Senate, ending the impeachment process that started in September. As a result, he retains his position and is viable for reelection in November.
   Minutes after the mostly predictable vote ended, the President tweeted a video in which he runs for, and wins, reelection, not just in 2024, but every election year after that. Some Republicans who voted to acquit did so because they believe Trump had "learned" something from being the third ever impeached president. But, after this tweet (and the firing of everyone who testified against him), Americans have to question if this was simply an excuse to not give an inch to Democrats and keep their man in the running for 2020. The issue here is that the President now has evidence he can do, and get away with, anything he wants. Republicans will always defend him, purely for political reasons. They voted against witnesses in the face of crucial new information from National Security Advisor Bolton. And they voted to acquit with only one breaking of ranks on one article (Mitt Romney, R-UT).
   While Democrats may have proved their point through this whole process, they may regret doing so as the election comes. Many Trump supporters feel Democrats in Congress are trying to undemocratically overturn their vote in 2016. This will motivate them to, this election, vote in droves, defending their decision four years ago.
   In this situation, sympathetic Republican voters will exercise their First Amendment right to speech, press, and assembly (civil liberties) to express their opinions on acquittal and 2020, get people to the voting booths, and push their candidate.

1. Should the President have been acquitted?
2. Did he learn his lesson?
3. How can Democrats address the possible political ramifications of the impeachment process?

2020 State of the Union Address

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/05/politics/donald-trump-nancy-pelosi-state-of-the-union-analysis/index.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIkkknoAlQo&feature=emb_title
(Written on 2/5 but didn't post)

   Last night, the President gave his third State of the Union address. Typically in these speeches presidents include the statement "The State of the Union is strong," but this year President Trump broke with tradition, asserting that the "state of our union is stronger than ever before." This was received with an exalting standing ovation on the right (Republican) side of the House chamber, and disagreeing frowns and head shakes from the left (Democratic) side of the chamber––a side Trump hardly even looked at during the speech. The Democratic side was even missing ten members, including AOC, who boycotted the event. This goes to show the sharp divide the government, and country, is currently facing (especially in the midst of the Senate impeachment trial). This was furthered by Trump's rejection of Speaker Pelosi's hand, her unconventional announcement to begin the speech, and Pelosi's tearing of a copy of the speech.
   To some, this customarily formal speech seemed more like a show this year, with awards, surprises, and grand reveals. Here, the President is relying on spectacle as a campaign strategy, rather than facts (which he skewed, lied about, and sometimes blatantly ignored throughout the night).
   Trump, as usual, played heavily on the current strength of the economy, falsely claiming that it is the best ever, with the most jobs ever created. And while the economy is getting better and better, it has been doing so since before his presidency (and is only really benefiting the rich in the process).
   This annual address connects to course content as the President awarded the Medal of Freedom to Rush Limbaugh, an extremely conservative, racist, homophobic, misogynistic shock-jock radio host. This action was a nod to white supremacists across America––in the face of the 2020 election––as Limbaugh is vehemently opposed to the Black Lives Matter movement, has tried to place the blame from slavery away from white Americans, and has once said that slavery had merits. This act, awarding a bigot over of one of the few remaining Tuskegee Airmen (during Black History Month), sends a message that, like his first term, Trump's (possible) second term will do little to further civil rights in America. (It is also important to note that Trump's speechwriter, Stephen Miller, is a white nationalist).

1. What did you think of the President's speech?
2. Will this help is 2020 election bid?
3. What does his address, and the response to it, say about polarization today?

A few words about the mess in Iowa

I have to admit that I'm furious with some of my well-meaning friends who support Bernie for stoking the flames of conspiracy theory in respect to the failed app the Iowa Democratic party attempted to use to help tabulate and report results. This is almost certainly a matter of incompetence and lack of software testing than anything, and speculation about the DNC "rigging" the process against Bernie is recycled Russian propaganda. Stop it, Bernie fans, you didn't lose in 2016 because of the process. It's bad enough that people fell for the line that the hacked DNC emails showed a conspiracy against Bernie, but I actually read them, and they don't. OMG! People in politics have opinions about politics that they share with co workers! The Horror! The Sanders campaign rightfully complained that the DNC didn't schedule enough debates... and they scheduled more. Bernie got tons of national exposure and a large minority of support within the Democratic party -- but the plain fact of it is that considerably more Democrats supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 and she was the party nominee as she should have been.

But I'm more annoyed with the national political media, who once again have proven themselves tied to the past. In the past, when candidates could only accept campaign contributions in limited amounts from donors who could only donate in limited amounts, the fundraising game accelerated after Iowa and NH. Having 2 smaller states help "weed out" those candidates who couldn't get in the top 3 despite spending months in the state served a useful purpose. Now, there are 6-8 candidates with the funding to compete in Super Tuesday, which is now over half the country, so none of them are going to drop out due to lack of funding or reasonable path to the nomination. If no one is being weeded out, and the number of pledged delegates at stake in these 2 states is miniscule, then the only remaining relevance to Iowa is media momentum.

Buttigeg and Bernie will leave Iowa with the same number of national convention delegates. I know the media is used to having a winner declared who gives a victory speech (check out Obama's 08 Iowa speech) and that provides "momentum" that could influence voters in later states, but had one candidate emerged with 27% compared to 25%, that isn't a telling victory, and as far as I'm concerned, it is just as well that all the media people stayed up late on Monday with nothing to talk about. The 'winner' had nearly 3/4 of the caucus goers support someone else in the end, and there wasn't much to talk about other than Biden, with decades of experience, losing moderates to an openly gay mayor.

If we are going to have smaller states act to winnow the field -- and notice how this didn't happen in 2016 in the GOP -- then rotating states, including more diverse ones, makes a lot of sense. As it stands, however, the sequencing of nomination contests mostly seems to serve the purpose of giving the media a lazy horse-race question to ask, no different from a Gallup poll.

Pigs in Blankets???

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/british-people-absolutely-livid-after-21394013

In preparation for Super bowl Sunday, the New York Times published an article suggesting pigs in blankets as the best snack for this occasion. The British immediately backlashed as the cover photo was not of pigs in blankets but rather “hot dog sausages wrapped in pastry.” In return, they began posting memes criticizing American foods.

I feel that although the British do seem a little too sensitive, they have the right to have this response and also are protecting their culture. I think that the responses are actually quite funny, but I do think that it was a mistake that the NYT would have changed if they had known. News reports like NYT should be able to better manage situations like this in the future as many people are viewing their papers, including those who easily get offended or otherwise. 

US bank employee fired for doing good

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/01/opinion/sunday/us-bank-fired-employee.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

https://www.foxnews.com/us/oregon-woman-fired-bank-after-giving-struggling-man-money

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/01/us-bank-fired-her-for-a-christmas-good-deed-now-companies-are-clamoring-to-hire-her.html

https://www.theblaze.com/news/bank-puts-hold-on-mans-paycheck-kind-employee-gives-man-20-out-of-her-own-pocket--and-bank-ends-up-firing-her-for-it

Emily James, a past employee of the Oregon US Bank, was fired for “unprofessionally” assisting a customer in need. On Christmas Eve, Marc Eugenio was stuck at a gas station without any money to pay for fuel or a ride home. Prior to that, he had deposited a paycheck to his US bank account. Marc had been trying to get access to his money so that he could buy Christmas presents for his children. But the bank was unable to get back to him as they had put his money on hold. Although it is not stated by the bank specifically why his money had been put on hold, it is reasonable to assume that the service department had been on a holiday break as it happened on Christmas Eve. 

When Marc realized he could not access his money from other branches either, he called the bank’s customer service line, where he reached Emily James. After an hour of explanation, Emily decided to drive to the gas station and give him $20 of her own money. Marc refused at first but realized it was really the only way he could get home.

Shortly after, Emily was fired for putting herself and the company at risk. The US bank claimed that Emily failed to meet the company policies and procedures and conducted an “unauthorized interaction” with the customer. The company also said that Emily “did not use the available solutions to remedy the customer’s situation,” although at that time she had no other way of helping the customer. 

Even though the procedures are set to protect the employee and the bank itself, I feel that it was unnecessary Emily had to be fired for doing a good deed. Do you think there’s another way the company could have reacted? This case is similar to national security vs. free speech as Emily was forced to follow company rules, but instead did what she believed was morally right. Do you think the US bank should make changes and limitations to their policies? If so, how?