The Chilean General Election Today

On this Sunday 11/21/2021, Chile is having its general election. Similar to our election, the Chilean election couldn't be more polarizing (if not so more than ours). Chileans have been very discontent with the government with civil unrest brewing everywhere. In 1974, Augusto Pinochet became president after leading a coup de d'etat with the help of America under the guise of destroying communism. Following him were a string of other presidents who came into power through the oligarchical nature of the Chilean political system. Last year there was a referendum (that won overwhelming support) to rewrite a new constitution, due to the unequal representation in the government. With the referendum passed the convention to rewrite the constitution has already occurred.

Even with this political reformation, Chile is still very politically divided. This is reflected by the general election for the new president that will be taking place today. Currently there are two prime candidates that are on the forefront of the election. First,  Gabriel Boric is a young and recent politician who is currently the candidate of the Apruebo Dignidad (the Approve Dignity). This is a left wing coalition party formed during the constitutional convention. Boric has been focusing his campaigning on the social reforms that had been the main focus of the previous protests and constitutional convention. His opponent is Jose Antonio Kast, a previous presidential candidate in the 2018 election. Kast is part of the Republican Party of Chile which also has the wider support of the Christian Social Front a conservative coalition of right-wing parties.

While Kast’s campaign has been focused on the traditional conservative values: anti- abotion, tax cuts for businesses, and focalization of social policies. Kast has also pushed for more extreme measures such as a withdrawal from the UN, increased funding to the police (even stating the police were in the right to crack down on the protesters), criminalizing same sex marriage, and building of a barrier to prevent ilegal immigrants from entering the country. Kast has also been credited with saying very controversial things, such as his support for the police crackdowns, and even supporting the previous military Junta that used to be in power. Despite all, this he still has a very good shot at winning the election as many polls predict him winning the most votes in the first round of voting.

Many factors can be attributed to this. Boric’s coalition has much of its support from the Chilean communist party, which many Chileans view as too radical, even more so than Kast. Though Boric has tried to appeal to moderate voters, many still feel that his coalition, should he win, would be too unstable and liberal.  Though in reality due to this course of action by Boric some in his own coalition view that he is too moderate and may choose not to vote for him in the first round of elections (Chile being a runoff election system). This is compounded by the fact that many Chileans feel that little change has come from these protests and reform, feeling that Boric’s promises are empty. Many decide that Kast’s promise of stability and economic development is more important than social change. I also think the values Boric has campaigned for such as pushing for a smaller carbon output and indeginous peoples rights are simply things that the average citizen feels are not important during a period of economic decline. 

Since the election is taking place today, I do not know the results of how the election will play out. My prediction is that while Kast may win out in the first round of elections, I think the run off vote Boric will have a greater chance of winning as the further leftwing parts of his coalition may reconsider and be forced to vote for him. 

1. What are your personal opinions on how the election will turn out?

1. Or if you write this when the election is over explain what factors you think contributed to whoever’s victory

2. Who would you have voted for in the election if you were to vote, or are voting in the Chilean election

3. Do you think Boric should have kept with his strategy to try to appeal to more moderates or should he have stuck with more liberal policies to keep his coalition more cohesive?

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/chileans-head-polls-with-two-radically-different-visions-ballot-2021-11-21/

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/former-protest-leader-boric-seeks-bury-chiles-neoliberal-past-2021-11-17/

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/20/americas/chile-election-kast-boric-intl-latam/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/04/americas/chile-constitution-assembly-intl-latam/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/21/world/americas/chile-election-boric-kast.html

Jose Antonio Kast

Gabriel Boric

Dutch Police Open Fire on Covid Restriction Protestors

    New Covid restrictions in Europe have sparked anti-lockdown protests and riots, most notably in the city of Rotterdam, Netherlands. On Friday, hundreds of people were present to protest government plans for a Covid vaccine pass and a ban on fireworks on New Year’s Eve. Crowds set fire to cars, set off fireworks, and threw rocks at police, tearing through the city’s central shopping district. The city was placed under a state of emergency and the main train station was closed in response to the violence. 

    At least seven people were injured and officers made 51 arrests, about half of them minors, according to a statement made by the police on Twitter. The Dutch city’s mayor, Mayor Ahmed Aboutaleb, called the protest “an orgy of violence.” He told reporters that “the police felt it necessary to draw their weapons to defend themselves” and that they “shot at protestors.” Police fired warning shots and direct shots at protestors, as well as used a water cannon, to restore calm just around midnight. 

    “The riots and extreme violence against police officers, riot police, and firefighters last night in Rotterdam are disgusting to see,” said Dutch justice minister, Ferd Grapperhaus. The protests broke out after the Netherlands became the first western European nation to impose a partial lockdown since summer, as Covid cases continue to soar across the country, reaching record numbers in recent days. The lockdown is set to last for three weeks. Restaurants, bars, and essential shops are to close by 8 pm, and non-essential retail and services shuttered by 6 pm. Social gatherings are also limited to groups of only four. The recent protests are among the worst outbreaks of violence the Netherlands has seen since January when Covid restrictions were first imposed. 

    Similar protests against new Covid restrictions and measures set in response to the rise of cases in Europe are now seen in Vienna, Austria, and throughout France. Austria is set to enforce a full national lockdown as well as new mandatory vaccination rules. Protestors in France show their anger over newly introduced vaccine passports. Germany is also increasing Covid measures, restricting access to public spaces to those who have been vaccinated or recovered from Covid. Denmark is considering introducing new restrictions as well, only 2 months after lifting Covid rules in September. 

Questions: 

What are your thoughts about the actions of the police in response to the riots in Rotterdam? 

Do you think that more riots and protests similar to this one and the one in Vienna will pop up across Europe in the coming months? 

How do you think we could respond/assist with the current state of Europe? Should we even be concerned? 

Sources: 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/police-netherlands-open-fire-covid-lockdown-protesters-european-nation-rcna6231 

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/20/1057625905/dutch-police-open-fire-rioters-demonstration-covid-restrictions-rotterdam 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59355950 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/19/the-netherlands-rotterdam-police-open-fire-as-covid-protest-turns-violent

Rittenhouse Found Not Guilty

 by Zara Fearns

As I’m sure most of you know, yesterday, Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all charges brought against him. The verdict has sent ripples throughout the nation and it sets a significant precedent moving forwards. 

On August 3rd, 2020, a white police officer shot Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He was left partially paralyzed. They were responding to a domestic complaint (Blake had a warrant issued on charges of third-degree sexual assault, criminal trespass, and disorderly conduct). This event came shortly after several well-publicized instances of police brutality, such as with the case of George Floyd. It sparked BLM protests in Kenosha, setting the scene for the violence that was to occur. (Link to one Jacob Blake article, as I can’t include all the nuances in this blog post: https://www.nytimes.com/article/jacob-blake-shooting-kenosha.html)

The demonstrations led to violence: police officers armed in riot gear fired rubber bullets and pepper balls at the crowd, a brick was thrown at a police officer, and fires were set. Local businesses faced looting and destruction. Though almost all BLM protests nationwide remained peaceful, this was one example of violence escalating, though blame for the escalation is difficult to assign. A curfew was assigned. 

Videos of the violence spread on social media, and white men armed with assault rifles arrive to “protect local businesses.”  Kyle, a 17 year old resident of Illinois who lived just across the state border, arrives as a part of these groups. He brings a military style semi automatic weapon with him. Protestors violating the curfew are pushed back by the police officers, but the white militia doesn’t receive the same treatment. In fact, they’re supported by a few officers, who praise them and give them water. 

I’m not going to give a play-by-play account of the events as this post is already getting quite long, but I would recommend looking into the articles / videos linked as it is important to understand the context for the case. Long story short, Rittenhouse shoots and kills two men: Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony Huber. He injures a third: Gaige Grosskretuz. 

Though many were shocked by the not-guilty verdict, legal experts were less than surprised. As this New York Times article, “When it comes to self-defense, the prosecution has a heavier burden” points out: “Self-defense laws typically do not require someone to have good judgment and tend to consider only the moments leading up to the violence, not whether the person willingly entered a turbulent situation or contributed to the chaos” (Dewan, Smith). Regardless of my own feelings on the verdict, I think it is less important than the overall response to Rittenhouse’s case. 

Many conservatives have rallied around Rittenhouse, hailing him as a vigilante hero-- and it’s no secret that in America, white vigilantes are seen and treated very differently than black civilians. The armed militia, violating the same curfew as the protestors, were openly supported by the police. However, when black people utilize their same rights to self defense and gun ownership, they are demonized by the media and terrorized by police officers. Take the Black Panther party, for example. As the same article continues to say: “The reasonable fear standard for self-defense has given rise to concerns that it is affected by the same racial bias that permeates the justice system. A mountain of social science research shows that Black people, men in particular, are more likely to be seen as threatening” (Dewan, Smith). For many, Rittenhouse is a reminder of the double standard that exists in our country. It’s concerning that the right to protest is damaged by the threat of violence at these protests, and those that are supposed to protect these rights (the police) are often not on the side of the protestors. Counter-protestors are often to blame for escalating these protests to violence, but the BLM movement is held responsible for their actions. Considering the scope of self-defense laws, and who the criminal justice system seems to protect more than others, it’s hard not to see Rittenhouse’s actions as a continuation of the systems of white supremacy that exist in America, especially when he is upheld by those groups as a hero. It’s scary to think what kinds of white vigilante justice that he may inspire, coupled with more permissive gun laws (some have pointed out the influence of the NRA in these laws, suggesting that powerful interest groups, like the NRA, may be playing a key role in the politics leading to these decisions, but can't get into that right now).

1) Does the verdict or the response to Rittenhouse concern you more?

2) Do you think the current self-defense laws should be changed?

3) Do you think Rittenhouse's actions, coupled with the not-guilty verdict, will inspire violence? Why or why not?

4) What are your thoughts on the actions of the police throughout the events in Kenosha, including their treatment of the groups Rittenhouse was with?

+ any other thoughts related to the case are welcome (sorry this post is so long, there was a lot to include!!)

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/magazine/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-wisconsin.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpTW2AJE9MQ

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-kenosha-3febaa501c57a6b54e168353fe0b2a26

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057288807/kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-all-charges-verdict

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057422329/why-legal-experts-were-not-surprised-by-the-rittenhouse-jurys-decision-to-acquit

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/us/rittenhouse-acquittal-self-defense.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

https://www.nytimes.com/article/jacob-blake-shooting-kenosha.html

https://www.balloon-juice.com/category/guns/ (it's the first one under this category)

Two Men Convicted of Killing Malcolm X Exonerated

 By Zara Fearns

Muhammad A. Aziz and Khalil Islam have both spent more than 20 years in prison. They were two of the three  black muslims arrested for the assasination of Malcolm X in 1965. Mujahid Abdul Halim was also found guilty, but remains convicted. He confessed to the murder but proclaimed that Aziz and Islam were innocent.

Malcolm was 39 when he was murdered in front of his pregnant wife and two daughters while giving a speech at the Audubon Ballroom. He was a member of the Nation of Islam and a Black Nationalist, and personally one of my favorite and most inspiring historical figures. (There are some great documentaries and movies on Netflix about him, as well as videos / transcripts of his speeches online if you are interested).

The documentary released on Netflix “Who Killed Malcom X?” follows a review of the case, which has been controversial for decades. It still leaves question unanswered, such as to why the police or government failed to prevent his murder. FBI documents and Police Department files reveal three important facts that were overlooked. 1) Evidence that pointed towards other suspects that was ignored. 2) Undercover officers present during the shooting were not disclosed during the trial by prosecutors. 3) Police received a call in the morning that informed them Malcolm X would be murdered. The trials of both men were conducted quickly, and with shaky evidence, pointing to racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system (something still very prevalent today), the same injustices that Malcolm X fought so hard against. The assasination of MLK would come three years later. 

Connecting to course material, the terrorism and structural inequalities that affect black Americans is one of the main reasons that an African American third party has never been successfully created. The movements behind them, such as the Black Panther Party, or the broader Civil Rights Movement, certainly stirred up enough momentum to spark the creation of a third party. However, the U.S. government took action to prevent this, such as the FBI’s monitoring and blackmailing of key civil rights leaders, such as MLK and Malcolm X. As a result, a party formed in the name of African American interests has not been successful, and civil rights leaders and those fighting for racial equality today must do so through the two party system.

“I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it is for or against. I'm a human being, first and foremost, and as such I'm for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.”

― Malcolm X

1) Is the exoneration of the two men convicted of killing Malcolm X a sign of the criminal justice system moving in a positive direction and remedying past wrongs, or is it too little, too late?

2) Is it difficult to trust our government and social systems, knowing they have been built to oppress certain groups, such as with the racism in the criminal justice system and the FBI's treatment of civil rights figures? Can reforms be achieved through the same systems that have set them up?

3) Should it be easier for third parties to form? What are the advantages / disadvantages?

4) Overall, any thoughts on the legacy of Malcolm X? He remains a pretty important figure, even in modern politics,

Sources

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/nyregion/malcolm-x-killing-exonerated.html?name=styln-malcolm-x&region=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=Article&variant=show&is_new=false

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1056649430/malcom-x-aziz-islam-exonerated

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/18/956741992/documentary-exposes-how-the-fbi-tried-to-destroy-mlk-with-wiretaps-blackmail

House Votes to Censure GOP Representative Paul Gosar After Tweeting Violent Video

    On Wednesday, the House voted to censure GOP Representative Paul Gosar in response to a violent video he had posted on his Twitter. (For those unaware, while a censure does not remove one from office, it is considered amongst the worst punishment, as it acts as a formal statement of disapproval.) 

    The video posted was an edited video of a clip from the Japanese anime “Attack on Titan,” which depicted Gosar killing a Titan with Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s face edited onto it. Gosar’s character then goes on to attack another Titan with President Joe Biden’s face edited onto it. Although Twitter has added a warning label onto the tweet, they state that it will remain available and accessible on the site for “public interest.” Fellow Representatives have reacted and responded to the video on Twitter, calling Gosar’s tweet “sick behavior.” 

    “When a member uses his or her national platform to encourage violence, tragically, people listen to those words and they may act upon them,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi before the vote. The House voted 223 in favor to 207 against. Amongst those in favor were all 221 House Democrats and only 2 House Republicans, Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. The resolution removed Gosar from the committees he had served on, the Committee of Natural Resources, and the Committee of Oversight and Reform, where he worked alongside Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. Gosar has not issued an apology of any kind, to Ocasio-Cortez herself or a public one, as of yet and refuses to do so. “If I must join Alexander Hamilton, the first person attempted to be censured by this House, so be it. It is done,” said Gosar in response to the vote. He later went on Twitter and tweeted: “This was a historic first to be surrounded by members of in the Well of the House in solidarity against the mob of censors. Everyone knows this censure was theater.” 

Questions: 

Do you agree with the House’s decision? Is the verdict fair? Do you believe that Gosar should have been punished more or less? 

Do you agree with Twitter’s decision to keep the post available to the public? 

Do you agree with Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (and many Democratic representatives) view on the impact posts like this have? Can one social media post really have that devastating of an impact? Why or why not?

Sources:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-votes-censure-gop-rep-paul-gosar-over-video-depicting-n1284008 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/17/opinions/paul-gosar-censure-vote-necessary-alaimo/index.html 

https://www.newsweek.com/minutes-after-being-censured-rep-gosar-retweets-offending-aoc-video-1650542 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/gop-lawmaker-tweets-altered-anime-video-depicting-him-killing-ocasio-n1283527 

Leading Economies Reunite- Xi and Biden Begin Talks

Coming off the tail end of rough relations between China and the US, the world’s top two economies, Biden and Xi look to restart dialogue between the nations and reduce tensions. The Trump Administration marked tariffs against China and a brutal trade war, hoping to suppress their rapid economic growth at the expense of US companies.

However, on Monday night, long discussions began to address the conflicts between the two nations. Although much of the talk is expected to surround trade and the economy, Biden aims to address human rights and the topic of Taiwan to Xi. With China’s strict “one-China policy”, they’ve threatened the Taiwanese military to seize control at any time through force in order to reunite the Taiwanese population with the ideals of the mainland. The topic of Taiwan is extremely complex, as the area currently has their own government system and is pushing to be considered a completely separate country from China. Although Biden has expressed discontent in Beijing’s handling of Taiwan, which he received backlash for, the US is known to support China’s one-nation policy.

In my opinion, I understand where the US is coming from, as maintaining diplomatic relations with China can be important and helpful to avoid military conflict. However, China has no issue in playing dirty and is willing to compromise democratic ideals as well the human rights of their own people in order to get ahead. Pushing economic incentives aside, I believe Biden could take a slightly harsher approach against China’s handling of Taiwan, as it clearly violates the democratic ideals that the US stands for. We are willing to reprimand other third-world nations who fail to adhere to democracy, so it’s only fair that we hold more powerful nations like China accountable as well. With that being said, I agree with the US’ sending of troops group to Taiwan and in August they even approved of their first arms sale to Taiwan. I think a lot more is to come surrounding the issue. Biden’s strategic ambiguity and patience surrounding China’s handling of Taiwan could serve to severely help or hurt us in the long run.

Questions:

Do you think the US should have a harsher approach against China’s policy towards Taiwan and human rights as a whole?

Should Biden prioritize diplomatic relations with Xi or enact tariffs against China, given the number of US businesses that are hurt by the lack of tariffs against them?

What do you expect the future of Taiwan to look like? Will they be able to maintain a semblance of sovereignty? How can they work towards achieving this?

Do you expect China to utilize violence in an attempt to bring Taiwan back under their full control?

Sources:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-xi-teams-set-modest-hopes-for-monday-talks-11636970400?mod=hp_lead_pos1

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/08/17/new-arms-sales-send-the-wrong-signal-on-taiwan/

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/11/15/world/biden-xi-summit

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/15/politics/joe-biden-xi-jinping-virtual-summit/index.html

The Pandemic & Consumerism: A Supply Chain System At Its Breaking Point

 By Zara Fearns

American warehouses simply have no space left, but this doesn’t seem to stop consumers from clicking “add to cart.” In fact, we are consuming more than ever: shoppers are spending at record levels, online spending growing over 40% and continuing to increase throughout 2021. 

Pandemic shutdowns led to a decrease in spending as well as several factory, port, and store closures. However, as we reopen, many are spending money they saved from the lack of travel and service expenses*. And, as we look towards the holidays, this kind of spending is only going to increase, even though the supply chain is already falling behind.

All of the stuff that we consume must pass through a warehouse before it arrives at a store or at your doorstep. The increase in goods is contributing to the lack of space in these warehouses, but it’s also the lack of workers leading to this buildup of goods. Workers such as truck drivers that transport these goods back and forth are crucial to keep the system from getting congested the way it is now. Building warehouses is also more challenging nowadays. Due to increased shipping demands, such as Amazon’s same-day shipping, warehouses need to be built closer to urban and suburban areas where we are consuming the most. 

Before the products even end up at a warehouse, they need to be manufactured and transported. Ports simply cannot handle this surge in imports.  Asian manufacturers shut down for weeks due to the Delta variant, halting the supply chain. There is also a worldwide shortage of chassis, which hold containers and allow the transportation of goods on ships. Several other factors at play mean that ports are blocked up with traffic. The trip from China usually takes around a month, but now it can take up to four. It takes longer for shipments to arrive and the deliveries are less predictable, a nightmare for business, and for the workers at every level of the supply chain who are stretched thin as it is. It’s also contributing to inflation, and goods are costing more overall. The supply chain is under a lot of pressure right now, and it’s only going to increase as we move into the holiday season.

1) “‘And if one piece falls off,’ Morris continues, ‘let's say the maestro increases the tempo and no one's ready for it, it all falls apart. And that's essentially what happened’”  (John Burnett, NPR). Randal Morris is the chief operating officer of Canal Cartage Company. Do the vulnerabilities in the supply chain concern you?  What are potential consequences, for the consumers, workers, and for those at every step of this supply chain? 

2) Do you think our pattern of consumerism is unhealthy? Why or why not /  other comments? How have businesses like Amazon and online shopping as a whole had an effect on consumer culture? 

3) Are the current conditions affecting how you are planning your holiday season, such as getting gifts earlier, in person, etc?

* also wanted to add that this is obviously a privileged position to be in as many people lost their jobs and faced financial hardships as a result of the pandemic, but that this is just an overall economic trend that is being observed

Sources:

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/15/1055796115/warehouses-are-overwhelmed-by-americas-shopping-spree

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/21/1007938067/cargo-is-piling-up-everywhere-and-its-making-inflation-worse

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/05/1048678575/waiting-on-that-holiday-gift-from-your-online-cart-it-might-be-stuck-at-a-seapor

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/01/1041844327/santas-sleigh-is-looking-emptier-fewer-toys-higher-prices-loom-for-holiday-seaso

https://www.ship-technology.com/features/global-shipping-container-shortage-the-story-so-far/

President Biden Signs $1 Trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill

    On Monday afternoon, President Biden signed a $1 trillion infrastructure bill into law, fulfilling the first step of his economic vision and agenda. The bipartisan-supported bill was passed by the Senate with a 69 to 30 vote, including 19 Republican senators, and recently passed by the House in a 228-206 vote, including support from 13 Republican representatives. Some Republicans supporting the measure have faced backlash and even death threats, but President Biden is optimistic that lawmakers could continue to work between parties to solve issues in Washington. 

    The plan will put $550 billion in new funds into America’s infrastructure over five years, including funding for roads, bridges, freight and passenger rail (including potential upgrades to Amtrak), airports, and ports and waterways. $55 billion will be put into improving water systems and replacing hazardous lead drinking pipes. It also includes a $65 billion cut for expanding broadband, a massive priority due to the millions of Americans forced to work at home without fast and consistent internet access because of COVID-19 quarantining. The package is expected to deliver benefits that will stimulate economic growth over time, including leaner supply chains, faster and more equitably distributed internet access, and improved educational outcomes for children who will no longer be exposed to lead-contaminated water that stunts brain development. “This is not designed to be stimulus. It’s designed to be the most strategic, effective investments so that we can continue to compete against China and other countries that are making bigger investments in their infrastructure,” says Cecilia Rouse, the Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. 

    This bill is but the first part of President Biden’s two-part economic agenda, the second of which includes a $1.75 trillion social safety net and climate package, designed to invest in family care, address the climate crisis, and expand access to health care. Democrats had planned to pass both the infrastructure bill as well as the social safety net and climate package, but demands from centrists to see an estimate of the social spending plan’s budgetary effects brought about delays. The social safety net and climate package still faces an uncertain fate in Congress, but President Biden plans to further promote the plan in New Hampshire and Michigan later this week. 

Questions:

Republican supporters of the infrastructure bill have faced major backlash from Americans. How do you think this will affect future conversation and cooperation between party lines in Washington?

How do you think this bill will directly impact Americans in their everyday lives?

Are there any other structural or general infrastructure issues that you think should have been included to be covered under this bill? Why or why not?

Sources: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/15/us/politics/biden-signs-infrastructure-bill.html
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/15/politics/biden-signing-ceremony-infrastructure-bill-white-house/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/15/biden-signing-1-trillion-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-into-law.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/05/house-passes-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-sends-it-to-biden.html

Business Groups Oppose Vaccine Mandate

    Beginning January 4th, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) requires that workers of large organizations be vaccinated or tested weekly for COVID-19. However, this legislation comes with a slew of opposition as companies in Southern states rallied together to file a lawsuit. Among these companies include retailers, truckers, and distributors which were represented by a trade association. Before this mandate went into effect, business groups worked hard to lobby against it, attempting to make it as lenient as possible.

    They argue that it’s not feasible to obtain such goals in a short time span and employees will be lost in a crucial time period, with the supply chain thread already weakening. Even more, businesses claim it will be difficult to fire workers considering the existing labor shortage and the critical holiday season approaching. The Justice Department has fought back, noting the number of lives that could potentially be saved through this mandate.

    However, opponents of the mandate have begun comparing it to the Holocaust, with some Kansas residents wearing a yellow star on their chest at meetings to reference the “oppression” they face by being forced to obtain a vaccine or get tested weekly. Such actions have been deemed inappropriate by various officials but still continued in Kansas this weekend. With such intense opposition, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the OSHA rule over the weekend and will revisit the issue on Monday.

Questions:

Is it fair for businesses to have to suffer economically, even more than they already have over the course of the pandemic in order to place this law into effect?

Should workers that are fired due to incompliance with the mandate receive unemployment benefits?

Is this a threat to our freedoms as an individual? If so, businesses can be sued by their employees and will have to pay legal fees out of their pocket. How can we create legislation that doesn’t compromise the economic state of our businesses while prioritizing the health of our nation?

Should the law include easier methods of obtaining medical or religious exemptions from the vaccine?

Sources:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/04/biden-covid-vaccine-mandate-several-business-groups-criticize-rule.html

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/580888-business-groups-sue-to-block-biden-vaccine-or-test

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-business-idaho-legislature-15d8ec4ab0086cc4ca06b4037cf809a9

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-necessary-win-for-workers-and-devastating-for-companies-what-business-groups-are-saying-about-bidens-vaccine-mandate-11636049862

Phase Down or Phase Out? The Ultimate Climate Debate

    For the past two weeks, diplomats from over 200 nations have come together in Glasgow, Scotland for COP26, the annual UN climate change conference. In an effort to keep our global warming to under 1.5 degrees celsius until 2100, the agreement outlined specific steps that the nations needed to take. Some highlights include reducing carbon dioxide emissions by nearly half by 2030, slowing down the use of methane, as well as keeping countries accountable for the promises they make. 

    However, an area of major controversy was the subject of coal, the most harmful fossil fuel. For the first time ever, the reduction of coal usage was included in the wording of the agreement. Countries like Switzerland, Mexico, and the Marshall Islands strongly urged the inclusion of “phasing out” coal completely. However, India and China made a minute decision to reduce such wording to just “phasing down” coal. They argued that wealthy countries had the opportunity to utilize coal and reap the economic benefits, accelerating climate change, while developing countries must face the consequences of their actions. Removing coal entirely would hinder their economic growth even more, increasing the gap between first and third-world nations. Major debate over the ambiguity of words took place in Glasgow this weekend.

Questions:

Do you think it’s fair that developing countries have to sacrifice economic gains due to the rampant usage of coal by first-world countries?

With the addition of coal in the agreement for the first time, do you think future agreements will take ambitious steps similar to this year’s COP26?

How can the UN better enforce fossil fuel regulations as promises have a history of being broken in the past?

Should wealthier countries be forced to donate large sums of money to vulnerable countries that are suffering from the effects of climate change?

Do you think a semblance of balance will be achieved between prioritizing both economy and the environment? How can nations better work towards such a difficult goal?

Sources:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-59280241

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/13/climate/cop26-glasgow-climate-agreement.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/14/china-india-will-have-to-explain-themselves-on-coal-cop26-president.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-11-11/the-latest-chair-of-climate-summit-wants-talks-in-high-gear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa9qoGdJmHI

G20 Saturday Summit (Vacation in Rome!)

  On Saturday, the G20 (Group of 20, very creative) met, with the end of their meeting scoring a big win for Joe Biden, who got an endorsement from the rest of the world leaders, on a minimum 15% global corporation tax (though he had originally tried getting 21%, that had been too high for them to agree upon). The Ministers of Finance for the G20 had already agreed on a 15% tax in July, and 136 nations agreed on it at the start of October, but the endorsement was the final piece of the puzzle, making sure that the rest of the world powers were also in support of the idea.

However, countries have left it up in the air as to how they will implement the policy, and as such they are taking it into their own hands to implement it, meaning that any political hurdles that they have to overcome have to be done on their own. Joe Biden's own economic plan, part of which will include the 15% tax, his own party has left the fate of the proposition up in the air, meaning that it may take time, and a lot of it, to get the tax in place.

During the G20 meeting, world leaders also discussed the current pandemic, energy price crises (especially in the wake of the previous event), helping out developing (and recovering) countries by sending aid, and other topics that world leaders are so fond of talking about.

Questions:
1. Do you think that this 15% tax will really help with the climate crisis? Why or why not?
2. Are there more important topics that you think should have been discussed during the first G20 meetup?
3. The democratic party is infighting currently. Will this have any long-term effects on the political landscape in America? How do you think the Republicans will react?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/30/politics/joe-biden-g20-summit-saturday/index.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/g20-leaders-endorse-global-corporate-minimum-tax-at-rome-summit/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/10/30/biden-g20-global-minimum-tax/ https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/29/politics/congress-spending-bill-president-joe-biden-italy-g20-democrats/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/28/politics/president-joe-biden-economic-agenda/index.html