Monday, March 15, 2021

Jackson, Mississippi Residents Enter Fourth Week Of Water Crisis

For a month now, the residents of Jackson, Mississippi have found themselves in the midst of a water crisis where many of the families have had to struggle to get by without water. With what water is available, much of it has been found to be unsafe to drink after testing by the city. Thus, these families have resorted to rationing water bottles or, even using snow, which meant that maintaining hygiene, cooking and staying hydrated have been difficult tasks. The lack of water is a result of large winter storms that had primarily ruptured the city’s pipes, which have still not been fixed. Many residents of Jacksonville’s 80% African American population have expressed suspicions of inherit discrimination behind the city's crisis that is causing thousands to suffer. To many, this issue can be traced back to the deeply rooted racism within the city’s underfunded infrastructure that is sustaining this water crisis. 



Mississippi has a long history of discrimination within the state government. In a CNN article it mentions that the impoverished and unsupported conditions found in Mississippi are caused by the same phenomena seen in other American cities, like Flint, Michigan, where crises similar to this one have occurred. The article states that “American poverty springs not from lack of funds, but instead from White supremacy” (CNN). In fact, Mississippi’s lack of funding especially in historically minority communities can be attributed to governmental processes like redlining, gerrymandering and mass incarcerations which helped perpetuate racial inequality and poverty while maintaining white supremacy by state officials. As the article puts it, “America's White elite have always used the specter of racism to prevent the formation of a broad coalition of people with similar class interests, regardless of race” (CNN). This is why cities like Jackson, where a strong majority of African Americans live there are the hardest hit by this crisis. 


Unfortunately, this situation does not seem to be resolved anytime soon as, currently, white Republicans essentially control most of Mississippi’s state legislature. The Mississippi Free Press has accused the state's government of essentially refusing to fund any of the necessary repairs within Jackson. They have pointed out that how, in the time that thousands of African American families struggled for survival, Mississippi legislation focused their time on passing “the nation’s first anti-transgender law of 2021” (Mississippi’s Free Press). Furthermore, the Press demonstrated how the few repairs that have been done were only on affluent white communities while most black communities like Jacksonville were ignored. Essentially, the white Mississippi legislature is keeping African Americans trapped in a cycle of perpetuating poverty.


With 12% of Mississippi’s white population living in poverty while 30-31% of Mississippi’s African American population and 32% of it's Native American population live in poverty, it is no surprise that thousands of activists continue to denounce the deeply rooted institutionalized racism that dominates Mississippi's political governing system. This current water crisis only further demonstrates how Mississippi needs to pursue reparative justice by acknowledging and ameliorating the inherent discrimination against Mississippi’s minority communities. 


Sources:

NYT

CNN

NPR

Mississippi Free Press


Why is Cuomo being asked to resign before further investigations?


Cuomo, New York governor, has been involved in quite a few scandals lately. The scandal of lying about the number of deaths in nursery homes, which an earlier post already talked about, and now he is being accused of sexual harassment allegations from seven women from his workplace. 

These allegations need to be taken seriously and there needs to be a full investigation of these charges. Democrats have the majority of women voting for them, they are very strong in defending women's rights and this scandal is something that goes very against the party's supposed ideology. Is this the only reason why both of New York's senators have called on Cuomo to resign last Friday, without any due process?

Cuomo has brought the democratic party a lot of praise in handling Covid and he was a very prominent anti-Trump speaker. At the time of the elections he was an essential piece to the Democrats. Now that the democrats have control of Washington, Cuomo has become expandable to the party. Making him resign swiftly, as fast as possible, would save the party from further embarrassment and not harm the results of the 2022 elections. President Biden is doing the best that he can to remain neutral in this situation and not pronounce himself, which is already being seen as a "pass" and being compared to his own past sexual harassment allegation by the left. 

Cuomo's behavior is despicable. All charges against him need to be investigated, there needs to be an impeachment and a conviction. This behavior towards women in the workplace should not be pushed aside. It isn't something to just simply sweep under the rug as quickly as possible just to not affect the results of the next elections. People who do this need to be held accountable for their actions and the whole country needs to watch full justice being done. Being neutral in this situation is taking the side of the agressor. 




Saturday, March 13, 2021

Issues of racism from within the royal family surface

In their two-hour prime time interview with Oprah Winfrey, Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle opened up about the various factors that led to their departure from the royal family last year.


In the interview, Markle opened up about a concern from a member of the royal family that her son’s skin would be too dark, racist coverage from the tabloid press, and a general lack of support for Markle that nearly drove her to suicide. Markle’s entrance into the royal family was initially seen as a symbol of a more inclusive royal family, which was almost immediately undercut by scathing racist criticism from British tabloids, which attempted to paint Markle as a bully to royal house staff members. Under stress from these tabloids, Markle also was denied mental health care from the palace’s resources department, and was advised not to seek therapy because it would reflect poorly on the royal family. Some chalked up these allegations as simply being family drama, but from the perspective that Markle is the first person of color to enter a centuries-old British Institution, which is paid in part by public funds and represents a major part of the British state, the severity of these allegations is made apparent. 


Many applauded Markle’s courage in breaking her silence about these issues, which resonated with many Black people in Britain who experience deep-rooted racism. Others criticized her and Harry for openly attacking the monarchy, and argued that by not revealing the identity of the person who was concerned about the color of their son’s skin, they had made it difficult for the royal family to respond. However, Prince Harry clarified on Monday that neither Queen Elizabeth II nor Prince Phillip was the one who made the racist comment. 


In a statement from Buckingham Palace responding to the controversy, they said "The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning.  While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately." However, the nature of these allegations have already been made overwhelmingly public, and the tug-of-war between keeping private matters private while also constantly being in the public eye is what makes this situation difficult for Markle. 


The allegations also raise questions about the monarch’s position in modern-day Britain. While trying to become inclusive, the hereditary model of succession in the royal family somewhat prevents this. Today, the monarch has become more of a figurehead rather than a governing force, a separation perhaps best embodied by Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s refusal to comment on royal family matters, and its reliance on media coverage is what keeps it alive. 


BBC

Fox News

NBC

New York Times

CBS


George Floyd’s Family Settles Suit Against Minneapolis for $27 Million

      

     On Friday, the City of Minneapolis agreed to pay 27 million dollars to the family of George Floyd as compensation for his wrongful death. On May 25th 2020, the nation watched in shock as a viral video depicted officers aggressively and violently detaining George Floyd, including kneeling on his neck for an extended period of time and handcuffing him to pin him down on the ground. These brutal actions ultimately ended up causing Floyd to die at the hands of the officers. However, the reason why police arrested George Floyd in the first place only made the situation worse. Many were stunned to discover that this violent and deadly arrest was only over a 20 dollar counterfeit bill that Floyd tried to use to buy cigarettes. 



Image source


        This senseless killing was seen as a another instance of police brutality, racial discrimination and violence. Issues that have plagued America for decades and, with this recent killing have, only demonstrated to the public that these issues are still very apparent today. Thus, Floyd’s killing sparked activism from around the country like re-igniting the Black Lives Matter movement aiming at ending racial inequality within the country.


The compensation received by Floyd’s family was a first for the city as it was one of the largest ever handed out. However, it was also innovative in its nature as it included 500,000 dollars for the community located around the intersection where Floyd was killed, which has now been named Floyd Square. This support for the community and large monetary amount sent to Floyd's family has led to much praise especially from Benjamin Crump, a civil rights lawyer representing Floyd’s family. An NBC news article mentions how “[The settlement] was the largest pretrial settlement in a civil rights wrongful death lawsuit” and Crump states that it ‘"sends a powerful message that Black lives do matter and police brutality against people of color must end."’ (NBC News). 


However, there are some critics to the compensation. As many know, the trial of Derek Chauvin, the officer accused of second-degree murder and second degree-manslaughter in the death of George Floyd, is ongoing. According to the New York Times, legal experts are claiming that this compensation will make the task of finding an impartial jury even more difficult. For days now, finding an impartial jury was already grueling as most of those interviewed for the position had already seen the video of Floyd’s death, due to the large national publicity of the killing, which could make their testimony biased. These legal experts argue that the timing of the compensation to Floyd’s family’ to Chauvin’s murder trial could not be worse. With this historical compensation agreement, Chauvin's attorneys argue that when jury candidates see the large sum of money awarded to Floyd's family, they could begin to see Chauvin's actions, in the death of Floyd, with much more magnitude which would cause them to more likely interpret these actions as unlawful and inappropriate thus, inciting bias. The New York Times mentions that “Mr. Chauvin’s lawyers might even ask for a mistrial” which could serve as another setback for those in the pursuit of legal justice. 


Should this compensation agreement have been only given after Chauvin’s trial was over? Can we place a satisfactory monetary value on the lost life of a human being as compensation? Was this compensation enough or, in other words, does it accurately represent the magnitude of the response to Floyd’s death?


Friday, March 12, 2021

Leftover Covid-19 Vaccines

 Ever since the first vaccine, thousands of them have been thrown out do to things as simple as human error. But, vaccines have also been thrown out to do patients missing their appointments, which only leaves throwing the fully functional vaccines in the garbage. In Texas alone, 6800 vaccines were discarded due to missed appointments and usability. In December, Dr. Hasan Gokal tried to give away 10 doses of the Moderna Vaccine that were about to expire. After being found out about, he was immediately fired and charged with theft. This seemed completely unreasonable because he had no bad intentions so the charges were dropped. "In the absence of having any other options, I contacted people who I thought would be eligible or would know somebody who would be eligible." Unfortunately, this occurred before the CDC could urge people to save the leftover vaccines through level means. In response, a man named Doug Ward created a website. The website tracks the amount of leftover working vaccines in most states and notifies users of the location. Like many others, Doug was struggling to find his mother a place to get vaccinated so already being a entrepreneur, he made VaccineHunter.org. At the moment, there isn't much pushback to using leftover vaccines. If it comes to it, it's better using it on a completely healthy young man than throwing it away. One worry could be the possibility that when the vaccine becomes a leftover, it becomes more open to younger, less threatened people. Older people at high-risk may have a more difficult time reaching the leftover vaccine than younger people more familiar with the internet and nearby information. If this becomes the case, there'll be thousands of high-risk patients waiting in line that could've gotten the vaccine quicker, but couldn't. 

Currently for California, the eligibility to get a vaccine through appointment or access the leftovers (unless no one touches the leftover vaccine) is separated by two different groups. These groups are named Phase 1A and 1B. In phase 1A, mainly healthcare and public health sector workers are getting priority. Phase 1B includes childcare and education workers. With many people anxious to get their hands on a vaccine so they can feel safer when going outside to carry out their usual daily tasks, it's imperative that hopefully no one misses their appointment so that the confusion for leftover vaccines is unnecessary. Who knows how many more lives that are being lost because of simply missed appointments.

Do you think that the website will make a big impact? If so is there anything else you would add to it? 




https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/VaccineAllocationGuidelines.aspx

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-55841017

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/09/health/covid-vaccine-leftover-doses-dr-b.html


Thursday, March 11, 2021

President Biden's COVID-19 Relief Bill Signed Into Law: A Significant Presidential Accomplishment Which Reveals Disheartening News For The Future Of His Political Agenda.

        Recently, Joe Biden signed his 1.9 Trillion Dollar Covid Relief Bill that lawmakers have passed through the senate and house earlier this week. This relief plan comprised of “$1,400 stimulus checks, $300-per-week jobless benefits through the summer, a child allowance of up to $3,600 for one year, $350 billion for state aid, $34 billion to expand Affordable Care Act subsidies and $14 billion for vaccine distribution” (NBC) is planned to go towards directly supporting Americans who have been the hardest hit by the pandemic. Although this feat, which will boost Biden’s presidential credibility, is a major accomplishment for Biden and Democrats, it is demonstrative of a much different issue plaguing Capitol Hill that could pose significant stress on Biden’s future presidential agenda. 

Image Source

    

    Although the passing of the bill in both the House and the Senate is seen as a significant political victory, when we look at the distribution of the votes in the Senate, for the passage of the bill, the results are quite discouraging. The voting within the Senate was entirely on party lines signifying that all Republicans voted against the bill while every Democrat voted for the bill. This resulted in a final tally of 50-49 for the bill in the senate. Since Senate Democrats lacked a 60 vote supermajority, without their use of a process known as reconciliation, a rule that allows the majority party in congress to quickly pass expensive legislation (without a 60 majority vote) in order to tend to the current needs of the public, the bill could have been subject to intense filibuster attempts by Republicans to delay it. This lack of any bipartisan support on the bill is a big blow to Biden’s administration who hoped to gain the support from Republicans within the senate on this bill in order to aid him in passing future ones. In a CNN article, it mentions how Biden “still [hoped] to jointly pass key legislation with Republicans.” Biden’s White House Communications Director has also stated that Biden went as far as taking a stand against removing the filibuster as he did want to reach out and negotiate with Republicans instead of simply using tactics such as the filibuster to only stagnant legislative progress. However, the reality of the situation, which the passing of the relief plan has accentuated, is that political polarization has become a defining trait of the legislative houses which in turn has drastically reduced representation. As a Pew Research survey demonstrated, 70% of Americans surveyed supported Biden’s COVID-19 relief  bill, a clear 60% majority, with 41% of Republicans also supporting it. Yet, within the legislative houses the voting results in support of the bill are a little over 50%. Clearly, congressmen and women simply voting along their party lines have created a situation where the decisions made in congress are no longer representative of the wants of the general public. Furthermore, what is important to note, is that division does exist within political parties as well. Similarly to Obama’s passing of his universal health care act during his presidency, for his Covid relief bill, Biden and Democratic leaders had to meet and negotiate with many moderate Democrats like Joe Manchin, a senator from West Virginia, who sought a compromise of “tightening the timeline of extended federal unemployment benefits and a cap on their non-taxable treatment” (CNN), a definite setback on the relief plan but necessary in order to keep him voting along Democrat party lines during the hearing of the relief bill. 


Thus, both the senate and the house passing Biden’s COVID relief plan demonstrates how, early on in his presidential career, Biden is able to take history defining action. However, the passing of the bill has revealed the ever growing partisan divide existing within the legislative bodies, potentially, making the advancement of future items on Biden’s political agenda difficult and uncertain. Thus, the passing of this relief bill should serve as an eye opener to the political difficulties that lie ahead. To make the most of his presidency, Biden and his administration will most likely have to continue to explore methods of gaining bipartisan support despite deep political polarization which has only made this feat even more difficult over the years. 


What are your views on Biden’s COVID relief bill and it’s the passing in both the house and the senate? Do you see this voting along party lines as a problem, not only for the future of Biden's political agenda, but for that of future presidents?


Sources:

cnn

cnbc

nbc

nbc (with Pew Research survey) 




Burger King grilled for sexist tweet on International Women’s Day


On Monday, Burger King announced a campaign to get more women into the culinary field, which almost immediately backfired. While others used International Women’s Day as a way of promoting feminism on social media, the UK Burger King twitter account tweeted out “women belong in the kitchen,” echoing the decades-old sexist remark about women’s place at home. This was followed by another tweet stating “if they want to, of course. Yet only 20% of chefs are women. We're on a mission to change the gender ratio in the restaurant industry by empowering female employees with the opportunity to pursue a culinary career.” In addition to these tweets, Burger King also ran a full-page ad in the New York Times with “women belong in the kitchen” printed in big bold letters.


The goal of the ad campaign was to bait people with the obviously problematic statement, and then reveal to them the second half. Twitter users complained that using misogynistic baiting is wrong, and criticized Burger King’s intent to use a controversial statement to attract readers. In a statement responding to the controversy, Burger King said they are “committed to helping women break through a male-dominated culinary culture in the world’s fine dining restaurants – and sometimes that requires drawing attention to the problem we’re trying to help fix.” However, in this day and age, attracting negative attention to one’s business or cause is not an effective way to promote a message. Data shows that the idea “there is no such thing as bad publicity” isn’t true, and that bad publicity can damage one’s brand forever. Burger King claimed that they believed people would read the thread, which PR experts thought was unreasonable. 


According to Linda Zayer, a marketing professor at the Quinlan School of Business at Loyola University Chicago, “Burger King doesn’t have authority on gender equality, and coupled with a bad trope, it’s a recipe for disaster.” Clearly, Burger King doesn’t have the cultural capital required to make an edgy joke that promotes equality this way, especially given how the pandemic disproportionately cost women jobs. The brand also has a history of sexist ad campaigns, like their 2018 World Cup Whopper Baby campaign, and by showing a pattern in this behavior, it might be difficult to recover Burger King’s already tainted image. 


How has social media changed the way brands and the public interact? Is having “cultural capital” as important as other factors of production for businesses in the modern age?


Washington Post

NBC

FOX News


Third Degree Murder Charge on Derek Chauvin

 Following the days of the tragic George Floyd murder, the Minneapolis policer officer was charged with second-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. Initially, third-degree murder was an option for a charge, but Peter Hill, the district judge, thought it didn't apply to this case. However, this door was once again opened when appeals court case ruled that third-degree murder can in fact be charged when aimed at a single person. Third-degree murder is typically charged when the people surrounding the criminal is in danger, but the Noor's case proved different setting a new precedent for the George Floyd case. It being made clear that anything will be done in other to get the ex-cop in jail with the growing number of charges. Second-degree murder has a max charge of 40 years in jail, whereas third-degree murder has a max charge of 25 years. In unison with the lesser years in charger, it's a lot easier to convict as not much evidence is required to prove third-degree murder. Furthermore, Derek Chauvin has no history of committing crimes and it's estimated that he'll be serving 12 to 13 years in prison. Even so, there's many instances where American citizens filed complaints about Chauvin, resulting in no disciplinary action which are considered crimes in the eyes of others. There are also problems with finding impartial judges on the high-profile case. Even one of the jurors that the prosecutors chose stated having a "very negative" view of the client (Chauvin). So far, 5 jurors have been chosen including 3 white men, 1 black man, and a woman of mixed race. It's unknown whether or not the white jurors will empathize more for Chauvin, or if the colored people will have a more negatively biased opinion, so it makes one wonder if the final decision will even be neutral. With thousands of people still heavily affected and watching the court updates, every single decision is important, prolonging the process of conviction. Though the charge of third-degree murder has minimal probable-cause, the prosecutors may feel obligated to make sure the general population gets what they want, which is at least some prolonged charge. 


What your opinion on the additional charge? Is it unnecessary? Is it some safety net acting as a precaution to failing the second-degree murder charge? Will the identity of the jurors significantly affect the outcome of the case? 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/11/us/derek-chauvin-george-floyd-charges/index.html 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/11/judge-oks-murder-charge-police-george-floyd-475302

https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-trial-murder-charge-explained-5e7c935f560219caee61fcc0bef0a23d

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/05/9846650/minneapolis-police-derek-chauvin-history-force

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/11/976008607/chauvin-trial-judge-reinstates-3rd-degree-murder-charge-over-george-floyds-killi 



Tuesday, March 9, 2021

UK, Brazil, and South Africa COVID-19 variants spread to U.S.


The new variants found in the UK, South Africa, and Brazil are mutations of COVID-19 that have changed their spike proteins, which allows them to latch onto cells and spread more easily. Currently, there is no evidence that it is more dangerous or deadly to those who become infected with it. The Brazillian variant also has the ability to re-infect those who have already recovered from COVD-19. Early lab results show that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines already being administered can protect against the new variants, although to a lesser extent. 


The UK variant came to the U.S. from a passenger traveling from London to Dallas, who tested negative for COVID-19 in a rapid antigen test three days prior, but started to experience symptoms one day before the flight without reporting it. The B.1.1.7 variant first identified in the UK is more contagious, doubling its total number of cases every 10 days, and currently accounts for one-fifth of all new daily cases in the U.S. Since late February, new daily cases in the U.S. have plateaued to around 60-70,000, which is worrisome because over the past year, a plateau in cases has resulted in surges of cases later, according to Dr. Fauci. We probably haven’t seen this surge from the B1.1.7 variant yet due to more widespread vaccination as well as stricter COVID-19 restrictions.


Researchers have become frustrated with the way the U.S. is handling the variants, because as of now, there is no organized system to keep track of where the variants are spreading, and there is no mandate to do so in a timely manner. With more funding, researchers at the Genome Technology Center at N.Y.U. Langone Health, who first sequenced the genome of a European variant, could develop a good system for identifying variants. And as we reach the end of the pandemic, identifying variants before they can spread any further is crucial to prevent hospitals from filling up again. 


Pfizer and Moderna say that developing boosters to combat these variants could take six weeks, and in the meantime, maintaining COVID-19 restrictions like masks, social distancing, and avoiding public gatherings will be helpful in preventing the spread any further. 


New York Times

Washington Post

New Yorker

BBC


Abbott, Texas Republicans want to prohibit ‘political censorship’ by social media platforms

      Recently, republican Texas governor, Greg Abbott announced his support for Senate Bill 12 which many of his fellow conservative leaders have already previously expressed support for.  As the article puts it, this bill will “help prohibit social media companies from censoring Texans based on the viewpoints they express.” Essentially, this bill, if passed, will allow individual states to counteract censoring by big tech companies like Twitter or Facebook on their platforms. To Abbott and other bill supporters, the bill will essentially help stop, what they believe to be, unnecessary silencing of conservative viewpoints by the accumulation of power from large tech companies which Abbott has expressed as both “un-American” and “un-Texan.”



Image source


    In fact, many other states have started to express similar interest in the bill and have actually begun the process of filing similar legislation. The main defense these conservative supporters of the bill have expressed is the 1st Amendment as they claim that the censorship from social media corporations infringed on their freedom of speech. Abbott and his allies do seem to recognize the limitations placed on the first amendment placed by precedent cases such as Schenck v. US and Brandenburg v. Ohio however, they argue that the silencing of such conservative figures on these platforms is unlawful as they were simply expressing political speech, religious speech or other harmless opinions but nothing remotely related to seditious speech and speech that would incite imminent unlawful action and a clear and present danger. However, the support for the bill has quickly garnered much controversy with many pointing out Donald Trump’s recent suspension from Twitter. In the suspension of his account, Twitter reasoned that Donald Trump’s censorship was completely reasonable as his statement on the platform right after the Jan 6. capitol attack “[inspired] others to replicate the violent acts.” Many have come to Twitter’s side by quoting Trump’s words where he called the rioters “Great American Patriots” as well as encouraging that “[they] will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future.” Critics explain how this type of speech, which encourages such dangerous and unlawful actions as the deadly attack on the capitol, is the type Abbot is trying to protect. Furthermore, opponents of Abbott also point out how his strong support and work on the bill is purely in an attempt to distract the country from the current situation in Texas. Thousands of Texans have died from freezing temperatures which the Texas Democratic Party Chair, Gilberto Hinojosa, has stated that it was due to the “catastrophic failure in leadership” from Abbott and his allies. Many have rushed by his side claiming that instead of paying homage or helping the Texans who have risked their lives, not only with COVID-19 but with the current freezing temperatures, Abbott and his staff have been wasting time with this new bill.


What do you think about this situation? Do you believe that this bill should be passed to help protect the expression of these views on social media or is it necessary that certain views, despite them being political or opinionated be censored? In addition, what do you believe about the criticism of Abbott’s leadership? Should he be criticized for his focus on this censorship bill rather than on his aid of Texans.


Sources: 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-greg-abbott-social-media-conservative-bias-censorship-law/

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/03/05/abbott-texas-republicans-want-to-prohibit-political-censorship-by-social-media-platforms/





Tens of thousands of Mexican migrants arrested near US border

 In a span of four weeks, ending March 3rd, 100,000 migrants were caught near the US-Mexico border. The number of migrant children alone has tripled. 

With Biden's plans to make sure migrants experience a humane and legal process to becoming a US citizen, authorities are struggling to provide the appropriate resources for the people arrested and placed in detention. Due to the lasting pandemic, these migrants have no choice but to stay in these temporary jails. It is legal only to keep them in for 72 hours, but at the moment that doesn't feel reasonable to these border protection agencies as Covid-19 continues to restrict the number of spaces they can give. A CBP spokesperson previously said, "The unique challenges of the pandemic require additional authorities, such as the CDC order known as Title 42, to allow  DHS to effectively protect both the health and safety of the migrants and our communities form the spread of COVID=19. The border is not open, and the vast majority of people are being returned under Title 42." The Biden administration is making a few exceptions though where in specific cases, certain adults are being allowed to stay. Unlike the previous Trump administration, Biden changed a part of their policy so that children could stay without being turned back instantly. 



Mexico also hasn't been dealing with the pandemic well with their worsening economic conditions. Ironically, the Mexican President has openly stated that they are doing better than the US in terms of controlling the virus in late February of this year. Though Mexico only vaccinated less than 1% of their population, their reason for it lies on rich countries apparently "hoarding" these vaccines. 

Nevertheless, administration officials are quickly making an effort to improve the communication between the Border Patrol and health department while also accelerating the building of more facilities to hold the thousands of children that need to find relatives or foster parents. 

Even so, the number of undocumented immigrants is increasing rapidly, and so is the pressure on President Biden and his administration.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/09/politics/100000-migrants-encountered-us-mexico-border/index.html 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/05/politics/immigration-border-crowding-covid/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/08/us/politics/immigration-mexico-border-biden.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-03-05/us-detained-nearly-100-000-migrants-at-us-mexico-border-in-february-sources

https://apnews.com/article/death-rates-coronavirus-pandemic-latin-america-mexico-0a6c3bb7a32deb5d5d3328ca2fe90f45


Sunday, March 7, 2021

Trump Acquitted: For the Second Time

 


    After a rather short trial, Donald Trump was acquitted for the second time during his presidency. In his first trial over a year ago (for his relations with Ukraine), he was surrounded by conservative support with hardly any republicans jumping in to vote against him. This time around was a slightly different story. Less than a month out of office, and already some of his once-supporters took an opposing side in the vote, resulting in a 57-43 count (although still 10 less than the necessary 2/3 majority). Despite being acquitted, the slightly dwindling support from his followers, coupled with his mass social media silencing and a second impeachment, may hint at a change coming to the republican party. Alexander Burns from The New York Times questions how the republicans will react, saying it's not clear what they'll do; "they might go about transforming their party into something other than a vessel for a semiretired demagogue who was repudiated by a majority of voters." That being said, it's still unclear what the future holds for republicans and Trump. 

    They began the hearing with a motion to debate the constitutionality of trying a president after he was out of office. The motion passed and the trial continued, despite Trump no longer being president. The lawyers were then allowed 16 hours to lay out their case about why they believed Trump was guilty. Their main argument was how he "conditioned" his followers over months to believe that they were being cheated and that the election was corrupt, finally leading up to the attack of the January 6th attack on the Capitol. The lawyers backed up their argument with footage of his backers in grueling fights in the Capitol. Since Trump never did anything to discourage their efforts, the lawyers claimed he was guilty of inciting the riot at the capitol, doing nothing to absolve it.

    The opposing side then had 16 hours to argue their side, in which they claimed Trump wasn't given due process, that it was illegal to try a president that was no longer in office, that his language was protected by his first amendment right of free speech. Many politicians tell people to "fight for what they believe in" so Trump's lawyers claimed the terminology he used was allowed. They only used 3 out of their 16 allowed hours to layout their defense. After a back and forth about whether or not to call witnesses, they eventually decided against it. Eventually, there was a vote and Trump was acquitted.

    Why was this impeachment so important? Despite being out of office, Trump still has the ability to run again in four years. If he had been convicted, this wouldn't be a possibility. Additionally, Trump needs to be held responsible for his actions. Personally, I think that to him, impeachment doesn't mean a lot since there aren't any real consequences that come from impeachment without conviction. It makes me nervous that even without social media, he still has a huge platform and many die-hard followers that are angry about the results of this past election. I worry that this rage and their unwavering support could give him a chance to come back in the future. His actions throughout his presidency were dangerous, eventually blowing up with an insurrection at the Capitol and for him to be given the power that comes from the presidency again, I would be extremely scared about the results.



Pandemic Pt. 2? Guinea's New Ebola Epidemic

    On Sunday, February 15th, Guinea reported an Ebola outbreak after there were seven confirmed cases. According to health officials in the N'Zerekore district, the seven cases were all people who attended a nurse's funeral on February 1st. Since then, three of them have already died. It hasn't been confirmed whether or not the nurse, whose funeral it was, also died from the Ebola virus.

    On February 18th, the WHO (World Health Organization) regional director for Africa, Dr. Matshidiso Moeti, notified the public that 11,000 vaccines were being sent to them from Geneva with another 8,000 from the US. There were also 30 vaccination experts being sent out to administer the vaccines and 700 trained Red Cross volunteers. Dr. Matshidiso talks about the new Ebola outbreak in relation to COVID-19 stating "Our collective, quick action is crucial to avert an uncontrolled spread of Ebola amid the Covid-19 pandemic, which has already pushed health workers and health facilities to the edge." Health officials are trying hard to stop the spread, hoping to not have a repeat of the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak that also started in Guinea and infected 28,000 people and killed 11,000 people. The UN is also jumping in to help, releasing $15 million from their emergency fund in order to help combat the new outbreaks.

Dr. Matshidiso discusses his concerns about the implications of the virus noting that "it's a huge concern to see the resurgence of Ebola in Guinea, a country which has already suffered so much from the disease." He also mentions how he's hopeful that the knowledge scientists and health officials gained from the last outbreak will come in handy here and prevent the outbreak from getting as bad as it did in 2014-2016. For reference, about 50% of people who contract Ebola die (this is an average as it has ranged from 25% to 90%) while the death rate for Covid-19 is around 2.7%. 

Luckily, Guinea mobilized quickly, immediately sending out health officials, alerting the public, and obtaining 10,000+ vaccines in an attempt to stop the spread before it can really begin. The next step is distributing and continuing to implement further strategies to get a hold of the outbreak before it can spread further.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/thousands-ebola-vaccines-be-sent-guinea-combat-recent-epidemic-who-n1258271

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/15/africa/ebola-guinea-west-africa-intl/index.html

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1086532


Sunday, February 28, 2021

House Passes the Equality Act


On Thursday, February 25th, with a vote of 224 to 206, the House of Representatives again passed the Equality Act, a piece of legislation aiming to ensure the end of discriminatory laws against Americans based upon gender identity and sexual orientation. Propelled by the Biden-Harris administration and Congressional Democrats, it would “ensure protections for LGBTQ Americans in employment, education, housing, credit, jury service and other areas.” However, though perhaps unsurprisingly, this bill “was passed almost entirely on party lines,” totaling in “the support of all Democrats and just three Republicans.” While Democrats argue for this “explicit inclusion of basic, broadly accepted tenets of the Civil Rights Act,” many Republicans cite “infringe[ment] on the religious beliefs of individuals,” as well as a “violat[ion] of women’s right to privacy and safety in [women’s sports].” In the words of Republican Representative Randy Weber of Texas, many Republicans view the bill as “anti-life, anti family, [and] anti-faith.” 


But this is nothing new. In 2019, under the Trump administration, the bill had also passed in the House, but a then Republican-led Senate “refused to hold a vote.” Now, with a Democrat-led House, Senate and White House, the opportunity to pass this legislation appears more open and significant than ever. As the bill has moved on to the Senate, a member of the Human Rights Campaign organization commented on the division between parties in this initial House vote, highlighting a need for “[a] substantial amount of education and outreach to members of the Senate that are operating under, in some instances, fear and misinformation.” 


This video displays a press conference held by Democratic leaders in an effort to articulate their perspectives on the bill. It's a bit long, so I recommend pausing around 3:54, or listening for about another minute or two to hear a summarized explanation of the history of the bill.


Image Source

Dating back to the Stonewall Riots of 1969, an incident that helped fuel the creation of LGBTQ activist groups, the history behind the Equality Act is one that increasingly demonstrates a strong "shift in public opinion" towards support of LGBTQ rights. In a 2020 Public Religion Research Institute survey,“more than eight in ten Americans (83%) favor[ed] laws that would protect gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing, compared to only 16% of Americans who oppos[ed] such laws.” The Equality Act both expands and incorporates upon the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, adding “federally funded programs and public accommodations” to the areas of discrimination deemed unconstitutional. Across the nation, businesses would be prohibited from denying services to consumers solely due to their gender identity and sexual orientation, in addition to past explicitly stated factors, such as religion and race. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) similarly pursues the extension of sexual orientation and gender identity to laws of discrimination in the workplace, also under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


President Biden continues to reiterate the passage of this bill as a “policy priority,” emphasizing that "every person should be treated with dignity and respect, and [that] this bill represents a critical step toward ensuring that America lives up to our foundational values of equality and freedom for all.” However, with 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster in the evenly split Senate, it seems the early turmoil in the House could signal further division and conflict.


CBS on "House passes Equality Act..." 

NYT on "House Passes Sweeping.."

NPR on "Here's What It Would Do..."

Washington Post on "House votes to pass..." 

Washington Post on "Equality Act introduced in..."

Political Ad Bans Unintentionally Block Pro-Vaccine Messages

Since the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill, Google banned political ads on its platform, aiming to halt the spread of political misinformation and conspiracy theories. Facebook joined Google in this ban, reimposing it after the Georgia Senate runoffs. While the ad bans worked to combat the spread of harmful false information in ads, it has had several drawbacks. For example, it has caused blockages in communication between political campaigns and voters during times before state and local elections. 

Perhaps one of the most relevant impacts of political ad bans during this period of time is Facebook’s blockage of pro-vaccine messages. While healthcare providers work to promote the vaccines to the public, these messages of awareness are getting flagged and categorized as a “political message,” needing to be sent into review. While the sponsors of the ad have the option to appeal, they state that this process is tedious, and that there are more pressing issues to focus on, like the new strains of the virus and the rapid distribution of vaccines. One of the sponsors of these blocked ads state that Facebook has “made it very difficult for the township in our efforts to inform our residents about important information regarding Covid-19 registration and updates.” The California Medical Association, posts from European Union institutions, and the CDC have also been subject to the mis-labeling of pro-vaccine posts. 


Facebook responded, saying that “While we have temporarily paused ads about social issues, elections or politics, we continue to allow ads about Covid-19 that promote vaccine efficacy, and have made our guidance to advertisers on how to run them publicly available.” However, public officials continue to show that their routine messages regarding the effectiveness and phases of availability of the vaccine are blocked. Researchers at Northwestern University cite that targeting individuals who are more vaccine hesitant with personalized pro-vaccine ads is extremely important, and Facebook’s system needs to work to achieve this goal. 




Misinformation or even the lack of scientific, pro-vaccine messages have significant effects on people’s decisions of getting vaccinated or not. For example, many Army units are seeing that only ⅓ of their service members are agreeing to get the vaccine, prompting concern because they live and work closely in high-risk environments. Much of this hesitancy is rooted in harmful conspiracy theories and a lack of access to accurate scientific information. In the midst of scrambling to put out pro-vaccine messages and convincing their members to trust the vaccine through information sessions, town halls, scientific data, videos of service leaders getting vaccinated, etc., generals share theories many hesitant individuals used as excuses: “I heard that this thing is actually a tracking device.” General David Doyle says “They tell me they don’t have high confidence in the vaccine because they believe it was done too quickly.” Sentiments like these demonstrate how influential, yet dangerous the media can be. In relation to our Gov lessons about the vast influence that the government and large corporations have on the media, we are able to see the adverse effects of the spread of false information in serious times, and there are some implications towards free speech and its possible harm to society. The conspiracy theory that the vaccine is a tracking device is a form of fear mongering that can be combatted by the spread of information debunking this ridiculous statement. Additionally, a common sentiment amongst not only service members but also the general public is that the vaccine isn’t trustworthy due to the speed at which it was developed. However, one must note that because COVID-19 is so similar to other coronaviruses like SARS and MERS, scientists were able to build off of past research of these viruses, especially the SARS vaccine. Additionally, the coronavirus vaccine was developed quickly due to its rapid, tremendous financial support, a factor that typically causes other vaccines to take almost a decade to develop. Other reasons for its quick development include differences in testing/experimentation processes, mRNA technology, and global participation. Reassuring information like this is imperative to debunk uninformed statements like the ones above; thus, it is crucial for large platforms whose ad bans are unintentionally blocking pro-vaccine information to help control this pandemic and guide us toward herd immunity by tracking and targeting hesitant groups in order to convince them of the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. In the meantime, service leaders and generals are working to make vaccination mandatory, and are setting up incentives, like shorter quarantine time if a certain percentage of a unit is vaccinated. What other strategies do you think leaders can use to encourage service members and the general public to take the vaccine?


Google recently lifted their political ad ban, on February 24th, 2021, in hopes of minimizing interference with 2022 midterm election messages and fundraising campaigns. They will be regaining a large percentage of their revenue from their advertisements. How might this affect the spread of pro-vaccine messages, assuming that large platforms like Facebook will follow suit?


Politico- Facebook 

Politico- Google

Forbes

ABC News

Houston Methodist