Alleged Plot to Kidnap Michigan’s Governor

      On Wednesday October 7th, an extensive plot revolving around the kidnapping and quite possibly even the murder of the Governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, was busted by the FBI. They charged 13 men who claimed to be a part of, or working with, an anti-government group. The group planned to abduct Whitmer and place her on trial for “treason” and violating the constitution before the election. Meetings throughout the summer were held with people participating in firearms training, combat drills, and even discussion of the crime in a shop’s basement only accessible through a trap door under a rug. Clearly, they had everything they needed. The plan was, however, doomed to fail from the start as among the summer participants, was an informant for the FBI. The premise of treason I assume has at least partial relation to the state’s lockdown orders as two brothers who were going to participate in the kidnapping, William and Michael  Null, also protested Gov. Whitmer’s coronavirus protection orders in April. 

“From left to right, Brandon Caserta, Adam Fox, Kaleb Franks, Ty Garbin and Daniel Harris, the five men from Michigan who were charged by federal authorities with plotting to kidnap Ms. Whitmer. The sixth man charged by the federal authorities, Barry Croft, lives in Delaware”. Kent County Sheriff, via Associated Press

 

    In response to the news of a threat on her life, Whitmer said, “I knew this job would be hard, but I’ll be honest, I never could have imagined anything like this.” According to NYT, Whitmer and the Michigan attorney general, Dana Nessel, “tied the extremist plot to comments from President Trump and his refusal at times to condemn white supremacists and violent right-wing groups.” Examples can be recalled from during the presidential debate just a week ago or the response to the Charlottesville riots. A video of her response is found below. 

I find the entire scenario disturbing and also confusing. Disturbing in regards to the lengths people may go due to the pandemic and appropriate responses to the pandemic itself. Confusing in regards to myself in regards to how can people self justify such extreme measures for a disproportionately intense situation. Sure, the Declaration of Independence states “that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends[unalienable rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government” but how can people equate not being allowed outside, or at least being required to wear a mask temporarily to an oppression on their liberty worth ruining your life over.

 

Source 1 : NYT
Source 2 : AP

Source 3 : Guardian

 

A Fly Takes Center Stage During Tonight's Debate

     After last week's debate between Donald Tump and Joe Biden, the bar for tonights performance was pretty low. What looked more like a session of couples therapy, was in-fact two of our leaders competing for the highest position in the land. 

    Tonight's debate featured US state senator Kamala Harris and Vice President Mike Pence. With less whining and interrupting, the debate today was much more civil. There was still some interrupting and going overtime on their responses, but overall, the candidates were much better behaved. They addressed various issues including climate change, abortion, tax cuts, relations with China, the Corona Virus and some others.

While the Vice President was responding to a question about police brutality and the death of Breonna Taylor, a common house fly nestled itself into Mike Pence's snow white hair and rested. Pence was completely oblivious to the little buddy resting on his head, and continued to discuss the pressing issue, but with no way of taking him seriously. The fly sparked a lot of buzz on the internet and, I am sure, to all the viewers at home who noticed it. In total, the fly experienced 2 minutes and 3 seconds in the lime light. 

Immediately following the debate, Joe Biden strikes against Pence on twitter, posting a picture of him holding a fly swatter and saying "Pitch in $5 to help this campaign fly joe.link/3nvsFwL.

The debate ended with a question by a local 5th grader, who asked about political division and the leaders who don't get along well with each other. I thought this was a very insightful question, but unfortunately, the responses were similar to the rest in the debate. Mike Pence took the opportunity to avoid responding the the question once again, and go tangent to the curve to talk about something pretty random. Overall, it was an interesting debate to watch, with a fun, 6 legged guest. Speculation is that the fly will soon appear in an SNL skit and be invited onto the Ellen Show.

Source 1: CNN

Source 2: New York Post

Source 3: Washington Post

Source 5: Twitter

Federal Reserve Chair Calling for More Stimulus as Trump Cuts it Off

    Federal Reserve chair Jerome H. Powell has recently continued to promote maintaining a stimulus plan for those currently employed and in need of extra assistance. He notes that, at the moment, there is little to on risk of overdoing stimulus plans in order to keep the economy afloat amid an ever evolving pandemic. The various economic stimuli provided by the government over the course of the pandemic have been extremely helpful to those without jobs and as such without proper economic security; however, President Trump's been combating a strong stimulus program fiercely, especially as of late. Citing the United States' currently "strong" economy. 

                                                            

Whether we like it or not, the pandemic's significantly increased the disparity between those of whom have lots of economic stability and security as opposed to those without a single opportunity as it stands. And stimulus is an important method by which, despite its expenses, can provide more opportunities and keep the economy afloat. No matter how much the DOW Jones increases over a given week, it's not exactly a reliable indicator of the strength of our economy and all of whom compose it. The economy's doing great, or so we think, but people are not. And if the DOW Jones were a good indicator of the state of our economy, then as a result of President Trump's most recent statement firmly condemning any sort of stimulus, the DOW Jones went down 300 points immediately. Impacting the entire market additionally:

                                    

     I find the implications of this rather disturbing as we enter election season and as the pandemic has only been worsening. The stock market's speaking, the people are speaking, and it's only been getting more challenging. I think as these talks unfold over the week (although they've been shut down) something dramatic is going to have to take place before too long.

Source 1: NPR

Source 2: NYT 

Source 3: CNBC 

Graph: CNBC

 

Coronavirus cases continue to skyrocket, with only 3 states reporting a decline in cases

After the recent news of president Donald Trump testing positive for COVID, more statistics revealed a staggering increase in each states’ COVID cases with only three states, that being Texas, Missouri, and South Carolina. According to John Hopkins University, on Friday October 1st, there were 54,506 reported cases from the US, which is the highest single day case number since August 14th. Furthermore, the days from September 23rd to October 3rd had an average of 46,500 cases each day, which is against the most cases in a five-day period since August 14-18.

As the virus increases to spread, many state officials ask to “get back to the basics” of fighting the virus. On claims that masks aren’t working to stop the spread, Gov. Tony Evers states “the surges we’re seeing across our state are not an indication that masks don’t work. This underscores what we’ve said all along which is that masks only work if everyone wears them.” With many schools and businesses reopening, there is no doubt that the number of cases will increase due to a lack of enforcement for wearing masks and a lack of precautions to prevent the spread of the disease.

In anticipation of this, the federal government did begin to send tests to many states which is a step in the right direction, but sending test kits will not prevent diseases from spreading, it will mainly spread awareness that COVID is indeed still spreading. Former director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that “testing does not replace safety measures including consistent mask use, physical distancing, and hand washing.” Sending the test kits does indeed help spread awareness of the virus, but now it is up to the states to continue to enforce social distancing and mask wearing in order to ensure a slowing of the disease.

The other solution for slowing the spread is the vaccines that are currently being tested. Some companies are currently conducting Phase 3 trials for the coronavirus vaccine in the US, but there is little certainty that an effective and efficient vaccine will be available soon. Regardless, maintaining social distancing as well as minimal social contact are the best options to prevent more cases each day.

Source 1: CNN

Source 2: Wall Street Journal

Source 3: NY Times

Image Source 1: CNBC

Image Source 2: Seattle Times

Jobless Claims Continue to Fall After 5 weeks of Having Below 1 Million Claims

Because of the pandemic, millions of Americans have found themselves jobless and seeking financial support from the government. Since mid July to early August, however, the unemployment rate in America has slowly begun to bounce back to what it used to be. According to CNBC, at it's peak during the coronavirus, almost 7 million Americans claimed unemployment insurance from the government.  However, currently only 837,000 people are. Thus, it is apparent that many people are beginning to get their jobs back. Where are these jobs coming from, though? Many business closed down, which one would assume reduces the number of job openings. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in their October 2 report of September's employment records, 661,000 people became employed in September, reducing the unemployment rate to 7.9%. At the peak of the pandemic, the unemployment rate was at roughly 11%. According to the BLS, the number of people who have been unemployed long-term because of the virus has drastically risen. However, most recently unemployed citizens have found jobs again in September, which they attribute to the reopening of many public dining and recreational spaces. They found that the most jobs were regained in the recreational industry, with 661,000 Americans finding their jobs within that sector. Despite this seemingly great news, the New York Times has a different take on the decreasing unemployment rates.

 The New York Times cites the decreased rate of lowering of the unemployment rate as proving that the United States isn't popping back up out of the unemployment crisis as quickly as hoped. According to the New York Times, "Six months after the coronavirus pandemic tore a hole in the U.S. economy, the once-promising recovery is stalling, leaving millions out of work, and threatening to push millions more — particularly women — out of the labor force entirely...The latest evidence came Friday, when the Labor Department reported that employers added 661,000 jobs in September, far fewer than forecasters expected" (New York Times). The lower real number of re-employed people compared to the predicted number of jobs is a cause for concern. However, there are several reasons on why this isn't as terrible as the New York Times makes it sounds. Firstly, the NYT did not provide any hard numbers on what the expected number of people who would go back into the labor force during September would be. We also did better in August than expected according to the Bloomberg Median Forecast (provided by the Whitehouse - see below), so one possibility is that it is a setback from the lowered job availability after more had been taken in August. Another thing to consider is that projections regarding a full state of normalcy are constantly being pushed back. Until we are entirely back to full international participation, our economy is going to suffer and the unemployment rate will be uncharacteristically high. The fact that we were able to regain so many jobs in the first place in such a short time period is an achievement itself. Overall, although some argue that the reduction unemployment rate is too slow, it is clear that our consistent decrease in unemployment shows promise for a more stable economy within the United States.

Guiding question in case anyone wants one: do you agree that the economy is coming back well, or do you side with the argument that our decrease in unemployment is too slow?

Source 1: CNBC

Source 2: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source 3: New York Times

Extra Source for Image (1): National Observer

Extra Source for Image (2): The Whitehouse

Does trump positive test impact the campaign?

 Early in the morning of Friday, October 2nd, Donald Trump tweeted out that he and his wife tested positive for COVID-19. The announcement came after he tweeted that his advisor Hope Hicks tested positive for the virus as well. President Trump and the First Lady Melania have started self-quarantining in order to reduce the spread of the virus. Mark Meadows, the White House Chief of Staff stated that President was “feeling mild symptoms” and “energetic” when asked by reporters 

The announcement brought harm to Trump's campaign as the president will no longer be able to travel for at least fourteen days. The Trump campaign has taken action by canceling events or moving them online in order for the candidate to still speak with his supporters. Trump’s campaign manager, Bill Stepien said, “all previously announced campaign events involving the President’s participation are in the process of being moved to virtual events or are being temporarily postponed.” Events involving the president’s family are also being temporarily postponed. The future events of Trump’s presidential campaign will be decided on a case by case basis, after he has finished quarantining. 

On the bright side of the Trump campaign, Vice President Pence and his wife have tested negative for the virus. Democratic nominees for both president and vice president have tested negative, along with their families. All three can continue their campaign events. This opens the door for two weeks of uncontested campaigning by Biden.   

(image form deadline)

The Commission on Presidential Debates still plans to move ahead with scheduled debates whether it is between the candidates for president or the candidates for vice president. The vice presidential debate at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City is still scheduled to happen in person next Tuesday. Jason Perry, the chairman of the debate screening committee at the University of Utah, said this about the vice presidential debate, “We are working closely with the Commission on Presidential Debates and with our health professionals to ensure the VP debate is safe for all participants. We are still moving forward.”

The future of Trump's campaign and the presidential debate may be different if Trump develops more dangerous symptoms. Will Trump's inability to travel and hold in person rallies give Biden any advantage or is the race to remain the same? 

Washington Post - Live updates: Trump postponing campaign events after positive test; Biden tests negative for coronavirus 

CNBC - Trump campaign events to be virtual or postponed after president tests positive for Covid-19

USA today - Trump's COVID-19 diagnosis postpones campaign events; Biden tests negative: live updates

Texas governor limits drop-off sites for mail-in ballots criticized as voter suppression

On Thursday October 1st, 2020, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a proclamation that will limit the number of locations where eligible voters can send mail-in ballots to one per county regardless of the county size. Starting on Friday, this proclamation is aimed to enhance the “ballot security protocol” that the Texas Governor is pushing for. Gov. Abbott follows this up with stating that “the State of Texas has a duty to voters to maintain the integrity of our elections. As we work to preserve Texan’s ability to vote during the COVID-19 pandemic, we must take extra care to strengthen ballot security protocols throughout the state. These enhanced security protocols will ensure greater transparency and will help stop attempts at illegal voting.” The latter half of the Governor’s statements refers directly to President Trump’s claims of illegal/manipulated votes due to mail-in ballots. Therefore, Abbott claims that this bill will not only help in ensuring safety in voting during the pandemic but also preserve the integrity of the votes.

But many county officials seem to disagree with the Governor’s claims. Many critics claim that this proclamation will hurt “populous cities” where Democrats are more prominent, with most calling this as “a blatant voter suppression tactic.” Critics claimed that due to Texan Republicans on the verge of losing, Governor Abbott, a Republican, is “trying to adjust rules last minute” in order to give Republicans more of an advantage. Due to this bill enforcing only one ballot drop-off site for each country regardless of county size, people in larger counties will have much more trouble delivering their ballots compared to smaller counties. With the majority of Democrats being in larger, more populated counties, this could be seen as a tactic to reduce the Democratic votes at the advantage of the Republicans. Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins claims that this rule “is [prejudiced] and dangerous” towards the “hundreds of thousands of seniors and voters with disabilities to use a single drop-off location in a county that stretches nearly 2000 miles.”

With the voting process and electoral college as an important method of representation in the federal government, suppressing certain votes could create an inaccurate representation of said state. With many claims that limiting voting ballot drop-off sites in Texas will suppress Democratic votes, it could result in a majority that may not accurately reflect Texas’ true representation, causing more issues regarding the overall representation in the federal government and its policies.

Source 1: NPR

Source 2: ABC News

Source 3: Washington Post

Donald Trump has SARS-CoV-2

That is all. Comment as you wish or wait for a student blogger to opine.

Hope Hicks has COVID-19

Donald Trump has been exposed to SARS-CoV-2, potentially over the course of several days, including the day of the debate with Joe Biden.

Hope Hicks isn't just a random adviser. She's in the top 10 inner circle around the President. The West Wing has not maintained protocols like most every major employer and public institution. Mask wearing has been inconsistent. Quarters are tight in the West Wing, not to mention Air Force One and on Marine One. This is a recipe for a superspreader situation. 

Hicks is now actively sick and symptomatic. Apparently she tested negative before going to Minnesota Wednesday morning, but that was likely the Abbott test that has a ~30% false negative rate (and that Trump has personally promoted in ways that raised suspicion about a conflict of interest.) Trump's comments to Sean Hannity suggest that she picked it up from a member of the military. I don't know when that might have been. She became symptomatic by Wednesday night, and tested positive on Thursday morning.

The President has access to the Abbott test and the genetic test involving nasal swabs that can take days (if you are a random civilian) or hours (if you are POTUS).

As of this moment, approaching midnight EDT, the President has announced that he is quarantining "while awaiting test results", while his staff put out a normal press schedule for tomorrow. He went to fundraiser in NJ today, which may have been a reckless act, given that Hicks was already sidelined. 

Let's be clear: if the President does not announce a pair or more of sequential negative DNA tests in the next 48-96 hours, he probably has the virus. I hope he sets a good example with a proper quarantine - along with everyone he has traveled with recently, although with his testing capacity, I don't think 14 days will be necessary or realistic. 

But he's likely confined to the White House for a week -- at best -- which will prove his incompetence in handling the pandemic in a way nothing else could. POTUS is the world's most protected human being, but he insisted that his staff act casually about the pandemic because of the political optics.

I suppose Trump could keep campaigning even if his situation is ambiguous. That seems very, very risky from a health standpoint and a political standpoint. He could try to ride out a mild sickness by citing quarantine -- but secrets that big are basically impossible to keep in Washington. 

There's a non-trivial chance that Donald Trump is infected and will become sick in the coming days. There's also a non-trivial chance that his recklessness with the virus will cost government workers and Presidential advisers their health or their lives. Maybe the sickness is isolated to Hicks and this will blow over. Maybe Trump will survive Covid-19, like several other national leaders including Boris Johnson of the UK, who was in intensive care and is back on the job now.

But it's hard to imagine a world where this doesn't hurt his campaign. 

And at his age, an infection is a mortal threat.

2020 can't get more surreal. Stay tuned.

 

Will Proposition 22 Classify app-based drivers?

California is proposing a law which would require companies like Uber, Lyft and other app based companies to keep their drivers as independent contractors. The proposition is a new development in the struggle between business and state government. The most recent bill is AB 5, which provides benefits such as sick leave and minimum wage for the drivers. It classifies the workers and employees not, as independent contractors. The companies have challenged the law in court. The argument used by the companies in court is that they are technology based companies instead of transportation companies.  The most current case in May was delayed because companies threatened to shut down. So while AB 5 is bogged down in legal cases, a new proposition has arisen.

 The goal of the newest legislative law, Proposition 22, is to allow workers to remain independent contractors and stop the workers from receiving benefits. It does provide a few benefits for drivers, but generally keeps them as independent contractors. By keeping drivers as independent it allows them to remain flexible with hours spent driving. Some of the drivers only do it part time and receiving minimum wage could be harmful. 

The CEO of Uber, Dara Khosrowshahi, said in a New York Times opinion piece, “Unlike traditional jobs, drivers have total freedom to choose when and how they drive, so they can fit their work around their life, not the other way around. Anyone who’s been fired after having to miss a shift, or who’s been forced to choose between school and work, will tell you that this type of freedom has real value and simply does not exist with most traditional jobs.”

The companies have been launching an add campaign in order to raise public support for the proposition. The campaign is working. A recent study by the University of California Berkeley conveyed that 39% of the 5,900 voters supported the proposition and 36% did not. The number of the supporters is not at the level the companies want it to be at but there is still time before the election. The San Francisco Chronicle called the proposition “an imperfect balance between companies and workers.”

The groups opposing Proposition 22 preliminarily contain labor unions, which claim the workers are being exploited by the large companies.The workers receive less pay than they should be promised. Many drivers are immigrants and the ability to have legal protections like those currently offered in AB 5 would be beneficial, instead of remaining as independent contractors.. The labor unions fear that a victory for the proposition would set terrible consequences in motion.  

Steven Smith, a spokesperson for California Labor federation and no on prop 22 campaign, said “All of the jobs that exist right now that are good middle-class jobs that are the backbone of the California economy could potentially be at risk and turn into these low wage, dead-end type gig jobs where people are earning sometimes less than minimum wage”

    

(Image from US News)

US news - Uber, Lyft Look to Kill California Law on App-Based Drivers

Los angeles Times - Californians not sold on treating Uber, Lyft drivers as independent contractors, new poll shows

The Californian - Employees or independent contractors? Prop 22 hopes to answer that question

Trump Announces Plan to Ship 150 Million Rapid Coronavirus Tests

With many schools and businesses all across the country planning to reopen soon, the Trump administration announced a plan on Monday to distribute over 150 million rapid coronavirus test kits. These “game changing” test kits were made by Abbott Laboratories and can quickly and efficiently determine whether or not a patient has contracted coronavirus. 100 million of the total 150 million tests “will be given to states and territories as support efforts to reopen their economies and schools immediately and [as] fast as they can,” and 50 million of the test kits will go “to protect the most vulnerable communities” such as nursing homes, hospice care, historically black colleges, etc.

Trump is taking a new approach to fighting the coronavirus issue and is beginning to encourage testing among states and cities, which many see as a step in the right direction. Many experts, including Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist from John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public health, are pleased that the federal government is “trying to invest in technologies that would expand the number of tests that could be done in the US.” Furthermore, although these tests are aimed to help reopen schools and businesses, the federal administration is giving these kits to the state governments and allowing them to choose how they will be distributed, although they do encourage states to follow what the Trump Administration is aiming for.

This freedom given to states may seem positive in theory, but there are many issues with the overall plan. According to many states, there is a big lack of communication and planning between states and the federal government. Many health officials from states claim that they are given no say to the distribution of the kits and many facilities are given little to no notice as to when the kits are being delivered. This lack of planning has irritated many states, with one state official claiming that “[The Trump Administration’s] approach is to just throw things over the fence to the states and to say, ‘take this, and deal with the problem.’” On top of all of that, providing 150 million test kits may seem to be a good improvement, but “150 million tests is really a very small drop in the bucket, considering how these tests are envisioned to be used,” according to Nuzzo. So although sending these kits is a positive action for the federal administration in their efforts to end the coronavirus pandemic, much more action and planning must be done to effectively stop the disease from spreading.

Source 1: NY Times

Source 2: Washington Post

Source 3: CNN

Astronaut Mark Kelly's Arizona Senator Race Could Prevent Trump from Choosing the Replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsberg

 

Mark Kelly, a former astronaut, is running as candidate for Senator of Arizona. He is at a potential power position at the moment, especially with such a close race between him and republican Martha McSally. If Kelly wins, the Senate would have enough democratic votes to prevent President Trump from nominating a new Supreme Court Justice: “'If Mark Kelly comes out on top, HE could block President Trump’s supreme court Nominee from being confirmed,'" quoted McSally (The Guardian). 

However, the implications if Kelly wins aren't limited to the new replacement for Ginsberg. Firstly, Arizona has been voting republican for the past decade, and the switch in the vote towards Kelly, a democrat, could mark the shift in Arizona's political stance. Overall, in the United States, this means a larger representation for democrats. More states have Republican Senators than democratic, but less of the population votes republican. This is because there are a lot of relatively (compared to more populous states, such as California and New York) small republican states that have a lot of seats in the Senate, one of these being Arizona. Arizona's shift from voting for a republican senator to voting for a democratic one may mark the shift in other states that have close races between their own senators. 

The second implication if Kelly is selected as senator is that abortion rights would not be as threatened, as there would be more time for the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice if Biden is nominated, rather than having Trump's republican nominee, Amy Coney Barrett. This directly connects to what we talked about previously in class in regards to the Constitution. Representation isn't entirely democratic, as Congress is split both into the House and Senate. Thus, we have conflicts like this one, where parties are fighting over control of the Senate. Although this is always happening, this is an especially crucial moment, as it determines which party gets to choose a Supreme Court Justice. If the Republican Party wins, that could spell the end to many abortion rights that the democrats, who take up the largest portion of the population, desire. Although this isn't entirely democratic, it does prevent majority factions from taking over. However, if Kelly becomes Senator, he will be able to help push against electing an anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice until the coming presidential election, allowing the larger democrat majority to have more control over abortion rights.

Source 1:Associated Press News 

Source 2:CNBC

Source 3:The Guardian

Mulan live action challenges representation vs ethics

 "Fun" Blog Post 

Maybe not all Disney cartoons should be made into live action movies. The live action remix of Mulan was a miss, and not just because of missing Mushu, Cricket, Shang, the entire soundtrack, and having a generally lukewarm plot. 

The plethora of issues starts with lead actress Liu Yifei publical expressing her support for the Hong Kong police, infamously known for utilizing brute force, over the pro-democracy protesters. Moreover, Disney was under fire for shooting parts of the movie in the Xinjiang province where millions of Uighurs are being held in internment camps. Disney stated that the majority of the film was shot in New Zealand with only 20 locations being filmed in China but nevertheless, #BoycottMulan trended on Twitter with many people criticizing the film's execution. Hollywood has always had a difficult time navigating the Chinese movie industry considering the web of censorship laws and I assume that several of the modifications made to the movie were meant to appeal to the Chinese government for the sake of marketing. 

An issue I had with the film was its misrepresentation of feminism and the Chinese culture in general. Chinese citizens described the film as having a "superficial understanding of China" and turns out, while  people on screen were asian, everyone one behind the camera from the writers, costume designers, and directors, were all caucasian. Growing up, I never saw asian people portrayed in mainstream media beyond the token nerdy and awkward side character. However, as Hollywood became more racially aware, films such as "Crazy Rich Asians" became a monumental step of progress. I am disappointed that what could've been a fantastic step for asian representation in media has become quite an embarrassment to associate with. Do filmmakers in Hollywood have a responsibility to progress social change? To what extent can they pursue a dramatized and not entirely accurate narrative? 

New York Times Why Calls to Boycott ‘Mulan’ Over Concerns About China Are Growing

Insider 'Mulan' is Disney's best live-action remake to date and well worth the wait

Los Angeles Times How Disney’s ‘Mulan’ became one of 2020’s most controversial movies

Epic Games Versus Apple Court Disputes

On August 13, 2020, Apple decided to remove Fortnite, one of the most popular games created by game producer Epic Games, because Epic Games had found a way to evade the 30% in-app purchase cut that Apple typically takes from all apps on the App Store. This led to Epic Games suing Apple, and then Apple suing Epic Games. On top of removing Fortnite, Apple also issued a statement saying that they would remove all games with Epic Games' physics engines, known as Unreal Engine. Unreal Engine is used by thousands of small IOS game developers, and could mean that they not only lose the original 30% cut of all original in-app purchases, but lose almost all, if not all, of their business. This is because they would no longer be supported on IOS devices until they no longer used Unreal Engine. Moreover, this isn't just a push for one app produced by a large company; these changes could spell either great or horrible news for many smaller developers. If Unreal Engine is revoked permanently, many people could be put out of work. However, if the 30% cut of Apple's take is reduced to a more agreeable amount, which several companies have proposed as being 20%, it could help both smaller and larger business that operate under the App Store. According to NPR's correspondent Kenny Malone, this is unlikely to happen: "Apple decides that no one else gets to have an app store on the iPhone." Because Apple owns the only App Store, the App Store has no commission competition, and can charge any price they want on apps if they want to stick with the IOS. Furthermore, the IOS is such a dominant phone operating system that it is hard for app developers to have any choice. This has started companies such Epic Games and Facebook to publicly push for higher commissions. 

At the moment, Apple won't budge, but the court can rule to require a higher minimum commission for app developers. This brings in the topic of how our government is involved in this process. Should the government be allowed to stop Apple from charging such hefty fees? Is it acceptable that Epic Games tried to evade App Store payment. Most importantly, the issue that is being addressed for not only Apple, but other large technology corporations, such as Google, is whether or not it is acceptable to ban a specific way of developing applications to limit a competitor, with the primary example being Apple's pending ban of Unreal Engine. Overall, this debate really puts into question how much control over the online market the U.S. government should have.

Going back to the questions of what a government should or shouldn't have control over, there remain several questions:

1.Should the government be allowed to stop Apple from charging hefty in-app purchase commissions?

2.Is it acceptable that Epic Games tried to evade App Store in-app purchase payment?

3.Should companies be allowed to limit their competitors within their own markets?

Source 1: New York Times 

Source 2: NPR

Source 3: Washington Post

California Order Bans Sales Of Gasoline-Powered Vehicles By 2035

Last Wednesday, Governor Newsom issued an executive order banning the sale new gas-powered cars and trucks by 2035, and medium/heavy-duty vehicles such as larger trucks and buses by 2045. Under this law, owning gas-powered cars and selling them used would still be allowed, though the aim is to have only zero-emission vehicles on the road as soon as possible.  The order comes as a response to the devastating wildfires that continue to burn in huge areas of the state, with the goal of fighting the climate change that has caused the fires to be more destructive than ever before. 

The legality of the ban is being challenged in court by the Trump administration, as part of the ongoing battle over California's authority to regulate tailpipe emissions.Their current authority was established by the 1970 Clean Air Act, which the administration is trying to strip from them in order to enforce more lenient rules to cover the entire nation. The fate of the gas-powered vehicles ban likely hangs in the balance of what the court decides regarding that authority, and its revocation could mean that the ban would be gone as well. 

The ban has been criticized on the grounds of being a distraction from real issues, with a spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research arguing that "Driving cars is not what causes forest fires or makes them worse," and that "Electric cars might not have emissions at a tailpipe, but they do have emissions at the power plant." Regardless, only time will tell whether the ban lives to see its enforcement in 2035, and if it does, whether it will have its intended effect on California emissions. 

Source 1: NPR

Source 2: WSJ

Source 3: Executive Order

Oregon seeks to review police protest responses

When Black Lives Matter protests began in June, the saturated social media posts, television lives and speeches made the issue nearly impossible to ignore. Yet, despite the decreased presence on Instagram feeds today, the protests are still in the streets, months later. Most infamously, the violent Oregon protests are continuing, despite the state's inability to control and maintain peace and order on the streets.

Sparked by the public condemnation from Oregan residents, Gov. Kate Brown signed Executive Order 20-54, declaring a state of emergency on May 13, 2020. Following the order, Gov. Brown has requested aid from police departments in order to review “any alleged incidents” of police brutality. In hopes of building strong community trust, Brown is working with local police sheriffs and chiefs in order to properly assess and appropriately reprimand any cases deemed inexcusable.

“Journalists and law enforcement officers have difficult jobs to do during these demonstrations, but I do still believe that we can protect free speech and keep the peace,” said Gov. Brown.

With numerous videos displaying the harsh treatment of innocent protesters, fotographers and journalists, many are still hoping to hold everyone accountable and aren’t compromising for justice. Many are also asking Gov. Brown to hire an independent prosecutor on the case, in order to ensure fair treatment and eliminate any bias or lesser punishment.

“Police abuse of protesters, journalists, legal observers, medics, and bystanders must be stopped," said Kelly Simon, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

In order to end such civil unrest, Gov. Brown has requested all the police enforcement possible, but many neighboring countries are refusing to send in more forces to Oregon.

“Due to the lack of support for public safety operations, the associated liability to agencies who would be assisting in Portland and the lack of accountability for those arrested committing criminal acts,” said the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police.

Moreover, noticeable rifts have grown between left-wing protest opposers and Proud Boys, a far-right and neo-fascist organization, engaging in political violence. With Proud Boys instigating arguments and riling up peaceful bystanders, necessary legal action is required to put an end to this ongoing violence.

“When free expression is fueled by hate and coupled with an intent to incite violence, then I need to do everything I can to ensure the safety of Oregonians,” Gov. Brown said.

Citizens are still calling for justice, fueled by the mistreatment by police officers and hate filled attacks on peaceful protestors. While any reevaluation of police actions will not undo the years of racism and discrimination against minorities in America, such a change will hopefully spark a greater acceptance for much needed police reform and funding reallocation towards addressing the roots of these protests.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

New York Times Investigation Discovers Trump Only Paid $750 For Income Taxes In 2016, 2017

Throughout the past few years, the subject of the president's tax returns, namely his refusal to release them for the public to scrutinize, has been brought up time and time again. For those who don't have to pay federal income tax, tax returns are forms filed with the IRS that include information used to calculate how much that person or company gets taxed. These forms usually consist of the income and tax deductions, along with other information of the entity being taxed. 

Since the 1970s, every president of the United States has released their tax returns in some form to the public. This tradition was eventually broken by Donald Trump, although he had initially promised to uphold it when he ran for president. Since then, the battle over his tax returns has been going on, with Trump claiming that he isn't able to release them while under audit, though this has been refuted by the IRS. 

A recent investigation undertaken by the New York Times revealed that Trump has paid zero income tax in 10 of the last 15 years, and paid only $750 each in 2016 and 2017. This revelation comes from the Times investigation gaining access to his tax return data, the same data that he has avoided releasing for years. The Times also reported that Trump has written off many business expenses that should have been taxed, and that he will need to pay back hundreds of millions of dollars in loans in the next few years. Trump has denied the validity of the investigation's results, with a lawyer for the Trump Organization saying: "Most, if not all, of the facts seem to be inaccurate."

Regardless of whether the Times investigation is completely accurate or not, Trump could soon be in deep trouble due to the loans he has yet to pay off, his ongoing battle against the IRS regarding a $72.9 million tax refund, and the fact that many of his ventures are bleeding money, such as his golf courses and hotels. Additionally, the exposure of his tax-avoiding ways could further damage his public image and trustworthiness, especially among those who are on the fence about supporting him during the coming election. With this in mind, the investigation could be seen as one of the factors that led to Trump potentially losing the presidency, depending on the election's results. 

Source 1: The New York Times

Source 2: NPR

Source 3: Reuters

Maryland leads by banning styrofoam food service products, in hopes that others soon follow

After many determined efforts, Maryland has officially declared a ban on styrofoam packaging for restaurants and schools, which is set to go into effect on Oct. 1. 

The plastics are petroleum-based non-biodegradable, as it takes over 500 years to decompose. Styrofoam has proven to negatively harm any surrounding wildlife, human health and bodies of water; and the economy is no exception.

While several other Maryland counties have already enforced the ban on foam containers, this recent legislation, once in effect, will be much stricter, in hopes of implementing long term environmental policy reform. 

The bill was proposed twice by Democratic Delegate Brooke Lierman before finally passing in the General Assembly in 2019. 

“There’s really a steadily growing awareness of the real and present harm to the single-use plastics cause,” Lierman said. “Businesses and Marylanders are even more alarmed by this, and really looking to the government to come up with solutions for this waste.”

Despite the positive support for the cause, many are still torn on the law. According to the Baltimore Sun, many environmentalists are very optimistic that the law will allow the natural environment to heal, at a time where the effects of climate change will soon become irreversible.

While styrofoam's environmentally alternative plastic will end up in the same landfills and float among the same oceanic wildlife, experts still believe it is better than the toxic foam.

However, according to CNN, the American Chemistry Council is in opposition of the law, claiming that the packaging is not only essential to many food service industries, but it is also the environmentally friendlier option when looking to reduce food waste.

Regardless of the split opinions, Maryland is optimistic that the legislation will encourage more states to adopt similar bans in order to reduce their carbon footprint. Our home has been treated poorly for too long, and we must continue to implement creative and timely solutions, before we are unable to save our planet.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Division within the senate over Trump's nomination

    The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg created an opening in the Supreme Court, which both sides want to use for their advantage. President Donald Trump vowed to nominate another woman to the Supreme Court to fill the spot left by Ginsburg’s death. Trump is attempting to fill the court before the election takes place later this year. Yesterday, Trump gave his nomination for Amy Coney Barrett. It now falls to the Republican controlled Senate to accept the nomination and place Judge Barrett within the Supreme Court. 

The Republicans within the Senate are willing to back Trump and push Barrett through and onto the Supreme Court. In fact many Republicans believe it will be filled before the election, which would mark the fast appointment to the Supreme Court within U.S. history. Some Republicans believe it is possible for confirmation to come after the election. The Senate plans to begin the hearings for the nominee on October 12, just a couple of weeks away. 

The Senate judiciary chairman, Lindsey Graham said this to Fox news, "So, we'll start on October 12, and more than half of the Supreme Court justices who have had hearings were done within16 days or less.”

After the Senate Judiciary Committee is done, it falls to Mitch McConnell and other Republicans to push the nomination through to the Supreme Court. This push by Republicans to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court is the opposite of the reaction in 2016.  The Republican senators are expecting to face retaliation from the Democrats in the Senate for their actions in 2016 stalling Obama’s nomination. 

(Photo of Mitch McConnell from Vogue)

The Democrats fear that the appointment of the highly conservative Barrett to the court can harm the Affordable Care Act and the Roe v Wade case. Democrats within the Senate plan to do all that is possible to delay appointment of Barrett to the Supreme Court. Democrats seem to believe that they will be able  to extend the process in order to delay the appointment until after the election.

The struggle for the Supreme Court nomination and drive to completion is a perfect example of politics within the US. Both sides are attempting to impact the process for either own gain. The Democrats want to delay blocking Republican control of the court. On the other hand, the Republicans need a fast process in order to cement control of the court.  That way, even if Trump loses the election, the Republicans will control at least one branch of government. 

The Hill - GOP senators confident Trump pick to be confirmed by November

Politico - Senate Dems ready tactics to muck up Supreme Court confirmation

CNN - Graham: Senate Judiciary Committee will approve Barrett on October 22