SPORTS AND CORONA USED TO GO WELL WITH EACH OTHER, BUT NOT ANYMORE!

Inter Milan vs Ludogorets in Milan for the Europa League showdown

SPORTS AND CORONA USED TO GO WELL WITH EACH OTHER, BUT NOT ANYMORE!

Amid the Covid-19 outbreak, there are many questions being asked and answers being searched for.
We all have been watching, asking ourselves, “Should we be worried?” Now I see this is a popular
question of the topic, so I’m going to ask some different questions revolving around the situation which,
arguably, are more valuable at this point.

In this article, it says many cruise ships and such have been quarantined at sea at this time.
With ships being stopped in sea and the virus spreading quickly, should we start taking more serious
measures to stop the spread? Now it seems too early to stop all exports and imports but there seems
to be certain businesses that obviously put employees more at risk to catching the virus. I think we should
definitely be thinking about when it would be a good time to stop imports and exports, as well. Considering
that person to person contact and cough residue are the main factors of spreading the Coronavirus, many
have proposed non contact with any items or people and such from the areas where the virus is spreading.
What do you think about this option?

Some other question topics have included if we should keep sporting events going with the virus at large.
In some places, such as Italy, soccer games are being postponed or being played inside empty stadiums
due to fear of the virus spreading in large masses. The United States has played with the idea, although it
was met with some backlash, such as Lebron James saying that he would “not play basketball if there was
no one there to watch.” I think that as of this point, where there is a known amount of over 250 cases in the
US we should be okay to keep sporting events going for now. Although, if this situation progresses, it might
seem like a logical solution. Do you think we should take measures on sporting events now or put it into
consideration for the future?

Sources:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4953471002

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/sports/coronavirus-outbreak-italy-sporting-empty-stadiums.amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5798799/lebron-james-fans-games-coronavirus-nba/%3famp=true

Twitter Uses New Manipulated Media Alert on Edited Video

On Saturday, Dan Scavono Jr., the White House Director of Social Media and Assistant to the President, tweeted an altered video of Joe Biden during a campaign event. The edited video consists of Biden saying, “Excuse me. We can only re-elect Donald Trump,” cutting off the remainder of the sentence (full sentence: “Excuse me. We can only re-elect Donald Trump if in fact we get engaged in this circular firing squad here. It’s gotta be a positive campaign”). Trump later retweeted the tweet.

Twitter responded to the release of this video by marking it as “manipulated media,” an attempt to notify viewers when they are seeing altered media. This is part of Twitter’s new Synthetic and Manipulated Media Policy (policy details). Unfortunately, the tweet wasn’t labeled as manipulated until 18 hours after its posting and the label can only be seen when the tweet is viewed on a person’s timeline. However, Twitter only recently implemented this policy and therefore they are still working out some of the details. 

I personally am in support of this new Twitter policy. Following the incidents of altered media during the 2016 presidential election, it is reassuring to learn that steps are being taken to prevent voters from receiving false information from social media sites. However, when I looked at the tweet, the manipulated media alert was quite small, and many of the comments and related retweets did not seem to understand that the video was edited. This may be because they did not see the label or it could be due to the fact that the label doesn’t always show up. Either way, there is still progress to be made in ensuring that viewers are informed of the accuracy of the media they view. I thought it was interesting how this video also went up on Facebook, but they did not recognize the video as falsified until after Biden’s campaign manager released a comment basically saying that Facebook’s inability to notify viewers of false information is unacceptable and unethical. I understand why the Biden team reacted this way, as voters may be influenced by the clip and overall it just doesn’t create the best image for the Biden campaign. 

1. Do you think all social media platforms should have a shared policy or strategy to alert users when they are viewing false or edited videos/images?

2. What is your opinion regarding the Trump administration creating an edited video of Biden and releasing it to the public?

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

How COVID 19 is Impacting More Than Just Global Health

While the threat of COVID 19 hangs over us every day, dominating the news cycle, we mainly hear about health concerns. Multiple PSAs about hand washing, crowded spaces, making sure you have enough emergency supplies, the list goes on to include death tolls, and how likely you are to die from it(extremely unlikely, by the way). The halts in the global chain of exporting and importing are not widely reported, likely because they aren't something we would notice at first, especially here in the U.S. Obviously the stock market is also in trouble, but that feels like a much lengthier issue that is not well-suited for a blog post, so I'll be focusing more on consumer goods.

One product that could be in trouble is Diet Coke. Coca-Cola relies on China for aspartame, the fake sugar found in a lot of sugar-free products. While this isn't a huge issue right now, further delays in shipping could severely impact the brand and its products. Something a little more topical is the masks people have been using to protect themselves from the virus have been sold-out for weeks in many stores across the country. China is the leading producer of those masks, so it's likely a combination of trading halts and self-serving interests. Those masks are also much more helpful at preventing illness from spreading rather than preventing people from getting it. A product not impacted by the import and export process, but is still seeing record-low sales is Corona beer. Sadly, an unfortunate name and idiocy are causing a perfectly safe and non-infectious product to suffer, especially as the stock market is taking hits anyways.

1. Do you think COVID 19 is being blown out of proportion?
2. Have you or your family been getting emergency supplies? Why or why not?
3. What do you think will happen if trading continues to slump?

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3?
An Informative Map

Super Tuesday Results?

Though there are still delegates to be declared, it seems as though Joe Biden may win the Democratic nomination. This is how I feel. Now, this blog post may be premature, as Sanders may come back to win, in which case I will heavily edit/add on to this post. I do also want to note that my last post was about Super Tuesday as well, but I think this event is something we should be discussing and concerned with, as many of us will be voting in the general election. I think it's necessary to talk about Joe Biden, especially if we have to choose between him, a Cheeto, and an abstention.

Now, I don't want this to turn into a biography of Biden's life, because that's not what's important. What's important is how a man who previously resisted segregation, said "poor kids are just as smart as white kids," and called a young girl a "lying dog-faced pony soldier," an insult that means nothing to nobody, has been able to come to close to clinching the Democratic nomination for president. 

Firstly, Biden has incredibly wide-reaching name recognition. From his lengthy career in politics to his numerous attempts at running for president before this year, the name "Biden" is something Americans are used to hearing about. It should also be noted that his time spent as Vice President definitely helped cement his name into minds everywhere, even if he didn't always have a significant role to play. 

Another thing Biden has going for him is his voter base, he polls exceptionally well with a lot of different groups. Sure, Sanders has the Latinx community and young voters, but Biden has the old, the black, the white, and people who want someone who can "beat Trump." It seems this election strongly favors people who just beat the Republicans instead of someone who firmly upholds Democratic values and is in favor of progression. This has not always described Biden in years past, but hey, maybe people change.

In conclusion, I really don't want to vote for Joe Biden, but I hope some of you have learned some new information about the man who may become our president. I'll leave you with some questions: 

1. Do you think Biden can beat Trump, why or why not?
2. Do former Vice Presidents have a significant upper hand in a presidential election?
3. What are some key differences between how Sanders ran his campaign and how Biden ran his campaign?

Washington Examiner

New York Times

Vox

Candidates Drop Out of Presidential Race Days Before Super Tuesday

So far, multiple states have already had caucuses and primaries, all of which have been highly publicized and extremely competitive. Iowa's caucus saw Pete Buttigieg performing exceptionally well, polling in front of all the other candidates and neck-in-neck with Bernie Sanders, one of the biggest names in the race. Buttigieg also did well in New Hampshire, coming in at a close second behind Sanders, potentially proving to many that he was a strong candidate. His performance was astounding, and something that surely caught the casual voter's eye. However, this effect wore off, as Buttigieg placed third in Nevada and fourth in South Carolina. Following South Carolina's primary, Buttigieg announced he would be ending his presidential campaign and is set to endorse Joe Biden. Another candidate who left the race was Amy Klobuchar, who had a consistently and comparably slow campaign, placing fifth or below in 75% of the caucuses and primaries conducted thus far. Klobuchar is also likely to endorse Biden, as she and Buttigieg both have spoken out against Sanders.

So what went wrong? Buttigieg is young, he has experience in politics, and he had the support as well as the funding to secure an excellent position for himself in Iowa. To an outside eye, it would seem crazy for him to drop out right before Super Tuesday. However, some of the cracks had begun to show in his campaign. For starters, he polled abysmally among voters of color, especially when compared against Sanders and Biden who poll extremely well among Latinx and black voters, respectively. This issue has more significance than mere electability, as "his poor performance with black Democrats signaled an inability to build a broad coalition of voters." Another problem is the intense competition between the Democratic candidates for the nomination, especially the candidates in opposition to Sanders. Buttigieg and Biden both have expressed concern with Sanders and his ideas, but having the two of the split the votes makes it easier for Sanders to sweep the states.  A New York Times article states, "the party's moderate candidates [are] cannibalizing the center-left vote and making it impossible to coalesce and challenge Mr. Sanders."

With Super Tuesday fast approaching(tomorrow!), it will be interesting to see how candidates like Elizabeth Warren do, now that they are faced with less opposition. Sanders and Biden will likely remain the top candidates, but as Buttigieg himself proved, not every prediction is always accurate. So, some final questions:

1. How do things like race and ethnicity impact both candidates and voters? Should it have an impact at all? 
2. Do you think the drop-outs benefit Sanders, Biden, or the smaller candidates more? How do you think the other candidates will try to secure voters that are now without a candidate?
3. What's more important, unifying voters or having better policy?
   
   

NYT Article

USA Today

CNN

Super Tuesday Predictions

Super Tuesday is tomorrow. 

Election Day Voting sites:

William E. Walker Recreation Center

650 Shell Blvd

Foster City, CA 94404

Hours: 7am-8pm

SMC Health Department Administration

225 W 37th Ave

San Mateo, CA 94403

Hours: 7am-8pm 

Most sources predict a big win for Bernie Sanders. According to Five Thirty Eight’s model, Sanders has a solid chance of carrying Vermont, Colorado, Utah, and California, where as Biden is expected to carry Alabama. The model predicts a somewhat rough night for Bloomberg, Klobuchar, and Warren. With Buttigieg dropping out of the race however, these predictions by the model are very likely to change. 

In the long run, Sanders is predicted to win as well. In a separate article by The Independent, Allan Lichtman, a professor from American University who has predicted elections from 1984, predicts that either Sanders will win or “ nobody wins, and for the first time in over 50 years we actually have a convention nominating the candidate.” While Lichtman points out that his model doesn’t predict primaries, he nonetheless said that there are “plenty of signs for a brokered convention.” What is a brokered convention? It would occur if no candidate got more than half the delegates after the first round of voting. The convention would then begin negotiations, and brokers (aka governors, senators, mayors) would try to sway and persuade other delegates. The last brokered convention occurred almost 70 years ago. 

Assess the importance of Super Tuesday for Sanders.

Assess the importance of Super Tuesday for non-Sanders candidates.

Assess the likelihood of a brokered convention versus a contested convention.

Link to Five Thirty Eight's model

Link to Allan Lichtman article

Source 3

Hernandez v. Mesa

Basic backstory: Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, age 15, was near the US-Mexican border with his friends. After US Border Patrol agent Jesus Mesa detained one of Hernandez’s friends, Hernandez ran back to Mexican territory. Mesa then fired two shots at Hernandez from US territory, one of which hit Hernandez’s face and killed him. Hernandez’s family claimed that Hernandez and his friends were playing a simple game by the US-Mexican border, where they would run to the border fence, touch it, and run back. However, Mesa alleged that Hernandez and his friends threw rocks at him. 

Hernandez’s parents filed a lawsuit claiming that Mesa had violated Hernandez’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. 

Issue: Should federal courts recognize a damages claim under Bivens if plaintiffs plausibly allege that a rogue federal law enforcement officer violated clearly established Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights for which there is no alternative legal remedy?

Majority Opinion Reasoning: No, Bivens does not extend to this case (Mesa won). Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion for a 5-4 majority. Bivens recognized an implied cause of action (aka private parties can file lawsuits) against federal government officials who have violated the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. To extend Bivens, a court must ask: (1) whether the claim arises in a “new context” or involves a “new category of defendants,” and if so, then (2) whether there are “special factors” that weigh against extending Bivens to that type of claim.The court answered: (1) yes, the “new context” is the cross-border shooting, and (2) yes, there are three “special factors” that weigh against extending Bivens: (1) because the case involved a cross-border shooting, the case implicates foreign relations and is thus out of reach for the Court, (2) extending Biven in this case could run the risk of undermining border security and the military discipline, and (3) Congress has a history of declining to recognize a damages award against federal officials who cause injury outside U.S. borders. 

Questions: 

1. What are the political implications of Hernandez v. Mesa? 
2. Name some legal influences in the court decision. 
3. Describe an action that by the public that could limit the impact of Hernandez v. Mesa.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Some Foreign Film Recommendations

In light of Bong Joon-ho's newest film, Parasite, receiving near universal acclaim and being awarded Best Picture at the Academy Awards, I thought I'd capitalize a little bit with my 4th blog post and give some recommendations for my own personal favorite foreign films of recent years which I think should get more recognition than they do among general audiences. I believe that engaging in foreign cinema is a wonderful avenue to achieving higher cultural awareness, as well as a deeper appreciation for the art form, and so here's a little list of a few films that have inspired me over the years and really opened my eyes to the possibilities of storytelling. I do want to say first though, that my goal isn't to sound pretentious with any of this, that's the last thing I'd wish to do, all I want is just to share some of my personal favorite films and maybe provide you guys with some of your own new unique experiences if you choose to seek any of them out for yourselves. So yeah, have fun!

"Once you overcome the one-inch tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films." - Bong Joon-ho

Du Levande, "You, the Living" (2007) (Swedish)
-Written and directed by Roy Andersson

Cidade de Deus, "City of God"  (2002) (Brazilian)
-Directed by Fernando Meirelles and Katia Lund, written by Braulio Mantovani

"Mommy" (2014) (French-Canadian)
-Written and directed by Xavier Dolan

"Amour" (2012) (French)
-Written and directed by Michael Haneke

Vals Im Bashir, "Waltz with Bashir" (2008) (Israeli)
-Written and directed by Ari Folman

Der Untergang, "Downfall" (2004) (German)
-Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel, written by Bernd Eichinger

Akmareul boatda, "I Saw the Devil" (2010) (South Korean)
-Directed by Kim Jee-woon, written by Park Hoon-jung

Jagten, "The Hunt" (2012) (Danish)
-Directed by Thomas Vinterberg, written by Thomas Vinterberg and Tobias Lindholm

Forushande, "The Salesman" (2016) (Persian)
-Written and directed by Asghar Farhadi

Y Tu Mama Tambien, "And Your Mom Too" (2001) (Mexican)
-Directed by Alfonso Cuaron, written by Alfonso and Carlos Cuaron

Trump Puts Pence in Charge of Creating a Coronavirus Response

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Due to the ongoing problem of the spread of coronavirus around the world, Trump has put Pence in charge of solving the problem. Although Pence does not have much experience in health policy, Trump believes that he is capable of creating a response that will stop the spread of coronavirus because of his experience as the governor of Indiana. As a former governor, Pence had to deal with healthcare in different ways, including creating his own version of medicaid expansion and handling an HIV outbreak. As the leader of the coronavirus response, he appointed Birx, a State Department official who deals with the response to HIV/AIDS, to provide research on disease and vaccines. Pence has in addition promised that under his plan, “[him and others] will continue to bring the full resources of the federal government… to see to the health and well-being and to the effective response to the coronavirus in the United States of America."

Action must be taken to stop the coronavirus outbreak, as it has already spread to a lot of countries and continues to spread even more. The number of deaths associated with coronavirus continues to rise, so it is necessary to solve the problem before it worsens and kills more people. Furthermore, this outbreak has caused the public to fear their health, so the quicker a solution is reached, the calmer the public can be. I believe that people who know a lot about healthcare should be involved in the coronavirus response, as they could help find a solution for the outbreak quicker.

1. Do you think the coronavirus outbreak will be stopped soon?

2. Was it a good idea to put Pence in charge of the coronavirus response?

3. What else can be done to prevent coronavirus from spreading?

Efforts to Establish Safe Injection Facilities in US are Halted Once Again

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

Earlier this week, a two year court battle came to a head, with a federal judge ruling in favor of the legality for a safe injection facility (SIF) to be constructed in South Philadelphia in a neighborhood which has been notoriously known as being an epicenter for drug addiction. SIF's are sites where citizens can receive medical assistance in administering injected drugs by licensed health personal. Such facilities are not a new concept, dating back as early as 1960's London, however, they have yet to officially be established in the United States. The central idea behind them is that once established, they will prevent the rate of overdoses and the transference of bloodborne diseases carried by needles due to being overseen by personal. A great explanation of such can be found here, although much of the data is admittedly ongoing and remains inconclusive.

Facilitating drug use and ensuring safe disposal may seem like a reasonable solution, however, residents of South Philadelphia did not necessarily all see it that way. Immediately following the approval for its construction, intense backlash was seen against the the facility. An outpour of anger over both social media and through active protests were seen, eventually leading the production being cancelled. Those in opposition claimed that the center would only fuel drug use in the area, normalizing it and making it easier for drug dealers to lure in potential addicts. Additionally, it may also deter addicts from rehabilitation, as they now have a legal backing to fuel their addiction. So, despite the efforts, the future for SIF's isn't looking too bright.

For me, I personally, I don't approve of such an establishment. I've had both family and friends who have dealt with drug addiction, and I just can't find any sort of attempt to recreationalize it agreeable in any way. I understand the point that it may prevent some deaths by allowing for the drug use to be administered by medical professions, but I'd argue that it also legitimizes substances in the minds of those who are not yet addicted or may potentially become addicted.

1) How do you guys feel about SIF's? Based on the data, do you think think they potentially serve a useful purpose in preventing drug related deaths?

2) Do you think SIF's will ever be officially established in the US?

3) What do you think could potentially be a better and more agreeable alternative to dealing with drug-laden areas in the United States?

Lynching To Be Made a Federal Crime

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

No, that title wasn't ripped from the mid-20th century, it's actually from this week. Last year, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Tim Scott introduced a new anti-lynching legislation to the Senate. The bill would pass unanimously, and Representative Bobby Rush would later present it to the House of Representatives, where it too would pass. It is now being finalized to be sent to the President to be officially signed into law, standing on the back of 120 years worth of past attempts. The bill has been titled the Emmett Till Antilynching Act, and is named after the infamous brutal lynching of 14 year old Emmett Till in 1955.

The effort to pass similar legislations stretches all the way back to the very beginning of the 20th century, and possesses a unique history. The first attempt was by Representative George Henry White, the only Black member of Congress at the time, who proposed for lynching to be prosecuted on a federal level. This bill would die in committee. Years later, another anti-lynching bill would pass through the House, only to be filibustered in the Senate by Southern Democrats, who claimed that it stood in opposition to state rights. Similar instances would occur over 200 times. Thus, this is largely being viewed as a symbolic victory, serving as a stand against bigotry, both historical and present.

However, the bill did not pass unanimously in Congress, with 4 representatives rejecting it, and 16 choosing not to vote at all. Among the 3 Republicans and single independent who voted against it, they have stated that they believe the bill to be the government overreaching and federalizing criminal law. An example can be seen in Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who stated "...this bill expands current federal 'hate crime' laws. A crime is a crime, and all victims deserve equal justice. Adding enhanced penalties for 'hate' tends to endanger other liberties, such as freedom of speech." The four have received heavy criticism as a result, yet continue to stand by their vote. Nonetheless, the bill has officially passed through congress, marking a historic ending to an ongoing battle which has lasted more than a century.

1) Do you believe that the bill is an example of government overreach?
2) What precedents do you think are set by the passing of this legislation?
3) What implications do you think the bill's history has on the United State's past pertaining to Civil Rights?

Coronavirus Outbreak Takes Heavy Toll on US Economy

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Well, here we go. Considering China is the United State's biggest global trading partner, it's pretty unsurprising that the effects of the Coronavirus would bleed into the economy as well. On top of that, consumer activity has also dropped drastically due to the increasing mania. Such a decline in the economy hasn't been accounted for since the 2008 financial crisis, with numerous juggernauts like Microsoft and Apple bearing the biggest brunt of it. Essentially, the market profitability is currently in the gutter and people’s wallets are being absolutely murdered as a result. Considering the vast macro-economic instability of the country at the moment, it’s unsurprising that the government is being called upon to intervene. 

However, President Trump has recently pinned much of the economic despair upon other issues, such as Boeing’s recent production woes and the Federal Reserve’s refusal to cut interest rates. Generally, the White House seems to not yet have formed a proper fiscal response to the outbreak’s effects. As of this morning, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have called upon the President and Congress to create a spending bill which addresses the economic effects of the coronavirus outbreak. Additionally, there has yet to be an open dialogue in Congress covering any potential spending increases or tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and overall, a solid plan does not appear to be in order or on immediate horizon. Many are also speculating the massive implications of the virus beyond just China and the United States, as if the pandemic continues to grow at an unforeseen rate, it could potentially lead to a global recession. Overall, the complete impact of the outbreak on both the US and global economy have yet to be fully realized, although many are continuing to call for action sooner rather than later.

1. How do you think the government should respond to the effects of the outbreak on the United States economy?
2. How large of a priority do you think the economy should be the outbreak? Do you think the White House is treating the issue with the appropriate amount of urgency?
3. To what degree should the government intervene with the economy to maintain stability?

Studies Show that the Colorado River is to Start Drying Up

`

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

Study

Climate change is threatening the water supply of over 40 million people that rely on the Colorado River. Scientists have observed that, as the average temperature increases - due to climate change - so does the evaporation rate of the snow caps there. To quote the science news journal, " on average, a regional temperature increase of 1.4 degrees Celsius over the last century reduced the annual amount of water flowing through the river by more than 11 percent,". Scientists even predict that as the average temperature increases by 1 degree Celsius over the next few years, the amount of water that will disappear from the river would be 5 times the amount that Las Vegas uses each year.

This news is very concerning to me, and I think that this will have many negative effects on our society in the near future. For example it would stunt crop growth and yield, create water shortages in many communities, inflate prices of water,  etc. To think that within the next few years we could lose up to 500 billion gallons of water is extremely scary to me and I honestly don't know what can be done to fix this crisis. 

1. What do you think can be done to help limit our daily water consumption?
2. How else might this lack of water affect us here in California?
3. How will this shortage of water impact communities that live in drier areas like Palm Springs or Las Vegas?

As India's economy decreases, Trump's brand is struggling

Article 1

Article 2

Annual Financial Disclosure

Video

Most of the $2 million apartments are vacant in the Trump towers, sales have slowed down, and buyers are barely visiting. Pankaj Kapoor, the managing director of Liases Foras, an Indian real estate research company, says that India’s economy is at an all-time low and that “In the past, the Trump name may have helped attract investors, but gone are those days.” However, the Trump brand is not the only thing being affected, many apartment buildings are vacant or trapped in construction delays.

According to India’s most recent annual financial disclosure for 2018, the company earned as little as $200,000 last year on all four of its projects in India. The maximum revenue reported at Trump Organization from the projects dropped from $6 million in 2017 to $2 million in 2018. 

The goal for India’s economy to prosper once again is to have Trump visit again, assure that he will help overcome the challenges of India’s property market, and a promise of investment.

1. Do you think other countries who have an economic slump will have the same effect on Trump’s business?
2. If Trump does not win this upcoming election, will his efforts worsen the economy of countries like India?
3. What do you think is the next step to help 3rd world countries?