Biden’s 2024 State of the Union Address

Instead of the “yearly policy recap” that most of history's State of the Union Addresses tend to fulfill, Biden’s address last Thursday was an unpredictable political battle, with multiple conflicts between Biden and Republicans in the room. 

According to CNN, Biden referenced Trump 13 times, not directly by name, but instead by calling him his “predecessor” or “a former American President.” Contrasting many of his policies with Trump’s, Biden used the massive platform of the State of the Union address as something of a campaign speech. This relates to the “bully pulpit,” a term from our Government unit on the presidency which refers to the idea of the President using their prominent position as a method of influencing public opinion for their political gain.

Biden made many comparisons between his and Trump’s policies on the economy, covid, reproductive rights, infrastructure, and other key issues. However, when reading CNN’s annotated and fact-checked version of his speech (which I highly recommend), it is clear that some of his figures and bold statements are out of context, or extremely optimistic. For example, Biden noted how his administration added 15 million jobs in 3 years, stating that it was a record. Although his increase in jobs was a record, CNN emphasizes that the context of the pandemic does minimize the significance of the record, as Biden took office right around the time when the economy began to recover.

Not only did Biden reference Trump’s policies, but he also discussed how Trump “bowed down” to Russia during his Presidency. Early in his speech, he also highlighted January 6th, calling Trump’s plots to steal the election “the gravest threat to our democracy since the Civil War.” With the conservative anti-democracy “project 2025” becoming more mainstream in the Republican party, Biden’s bold statement might be more true than most would expect.

 

Biden’s address contained multiple instances of verbal combat with Republicans on the floor. Margerie Taylor Greene interrupted his speech, yelling “say her name!”, in reference to the death of Laken Riley, a nursing student from Georgia who was killed by an undocumented immigrant. Few Republicans expected Biden to respond to the comment, but Biden did exactly as Margerie Taylor Greene requested - he said Riley’s name, and proceeded to discuss the border protection bill which he seeks to pass in the future.

In my opinion, Biden gave a surprisingly energetic and forceful speech which may have increased his popularity among voters. His speechwriters did a fantastic job of writing an optimistic and fact-based speech which put his last 3 years in a positive light. His speech also felt powerful and action-oriented, while also appearing politically moderate. He denounced Trump without saying his name, and his improvised comebacks to Republicans’ boos and screams were quite impressive. It’s difficult to know whether this will have a substantial impact on the 2024 election, but I believe it was a solid speech as a whole.

Questions for the comments:

Did you see the speech? How did you feel after first viewing it?

Do you think this increased Biden’s popularity?

How do you feel about Biden’s increased use of the bully pulpit? Is it fair to use the State of the Union Address as a political speech?

Sources:

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/08/1236782758/state-of-the-union-address-biden-trump

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/07/politics/takeaways-joe-biden-state-of-the-union-address/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/03/annotated-fact-checked-president-biden-sotu/

https://www.project2025.org/

https://apnews.com/article/laken-riley-biden-speech-immigration-d756dbe1c499c6fd0fc53be04290b371

From Courtroom Drama to Political Theater: Trump's Journey to 2024

In a turn of events filled with drama the Supreme Court recently made a decision regarding former President Donald Trumps potential comeback, to the presidential race. This ruling, which swiftly resolved a case with implications for the 2024 election has sparked discussions and stirred emotions nationwide.

Imagine this; a courtroom setting where the future of a political figure is at stake. In a twist the Supreme Court in a decision without any disagreements overturned a previous ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court. The earlier ruling had stated that Trump could not run for president again under Section 3 of the Amendment.

However the Supreme Court had thoughts on the matter. It stated that it is Congresss responsibility to enforce Section 3 against those seeking office, not states. This decision caused shockwaves in the realm affirming the governments authority in matters related to presidential eligibility.

What adds another layer of intrigue to this ruling is its timing— days before the Colorado elections. It almost feels like all eyes were, on this decision that could potentially shape American politics moving forward. When the verdict was revealed Trump quickly seized the spotlight praising the decision, as a " victory for America!!!" on his social media platform.

Essentially this judgment signifies more than a standard; it showcases the delicate balance, between federal power and state independence.

In the great arena of American politics, where the stakes are high and the narrative twists endlessly, Trump’s journey to 2024 is an interesting story—one that continues to captivate and divide the nation, and give us all on the edge of our seats, eagerly awaiting the next scene in this political epic.

Source:

-[NBC]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/haley-wins-republican-primary-washington-dc-rcna140421

-[New York Times]https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot.html

-[AP News]https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot-2390f3204e3ecaad3c617f9db0ff9d2e

Exploring the Aftermath of Election 2024: A Closer Look at Political Dynamics

 

In the aftermath of Election 2024, the political landscape is buzzing with activity as the nation grapples with the implications of its recent decisions and the path forward. As we take stock of the fallout, it's clear that divisions within the Republican Party are deepening, reshaping alliances and sparking heated debates across the political spectrum.

As the race was called for Haley, Trump campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt didn't hold back, launching a fiery critique of Haley and the Republican establishment in Washington. With a nod to Trump's signature style, Leavitt dubbed Haley the "Queen of the Swamp," painting her as a symbol of the entrenched interests that Trump supporters have long sought to upend. Despite Haley's credentials and support from congressional Republicans, her ties to Washington insiders seem to have alienated her from segments of the GOP base.

Haley took an unconventional approach by campaigning in Washington ahead of the primary, signaling a strategic shift in her bid for support. Although the Washington primary was relatively small compared to others, it served as a battleground for competing visions within the Republican Party. Managed by the D.C. GOP, the election underscored the tension between party rules and national directives, highlighting the complexities of intra-party dynamics.

Trump's dominance leading up to the Washington primary, with significant wins in Missouri, Michigan, and Idaho, solidified his position as a formidable force within the Republican ranks. With a substantial delegate count in his favor, Trump holds a significant advantage over Haley as they gear up for Super Tuesday. Despite lagging in polls, Haley remains steadfast in her commitment to stay in the race, setting the stage for further political intrigue.

As Haley continues to campaign vigorously, securing key endorsements such as that of Maine Sen. Susan Collins, the future of the Republican Party hangs in the balance. The clash between traditional Republicans and the Trump faction encapsulates the broader struggle for the party's identity, with far-reaching implications for American politics.

Amidst the drama and uncertainty, one thing is clear: the landscape of American politics is evolving rapidly. As we navigate the road ahead, it's essential to approach these challenges with empathy and foresight, recognizing the enduring impact of today's decisions on tomorrow's course.

Sources:

-[Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/03/gop-primary-dc/)

-[CBS News](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/haley-wins-republican-primary-washington-dc-rcna140421)

Michigan Primaries and Uncommitted Voters

Michigan has always been an important state, or state to watch during primaries for a variety of reasons. It's a swing state, an early primary date in the election calendar, and recently, because of its high Middle Eastern North African (MENA) population. While other equally important things happened in the recent Michigan primaries (Nikki Haley’s Campaign) I want to focus on Michigan’s MENA population. 

In the context of the ongoing conflict in Palestine/Israel, the MENA population in Michigan has grown more important. 

Mr. Biden won Michigan in 2020 by 150,000 votes. There were 100,000 uncommitted voters in Michigan, mainly because of Biden’s policy in Gaza. 

We have no right to tell MENA (Middle Eastern North African) people how to feel about an ongoing genocide. Witnessing members of one’s community being killed every day is enough to make someone not want to support a president, and we have to understand that Biden cannot win without the support of MENA in Michigan. 

While in office, it is crucial to consider critiques raised by some minorities, who constitute a significant portion of his voter base, regarding various aspects of President Biden's policies and actions. Biden could not codify Roe v. Wade, he was largely responsible for cop city in Atlanta, and the removal of affirmative action happened under his presidency. Yes, some good things did indeed come during his presidency, such as student debt forgiveness, but that is largely due to the democratic party having a leader, it wouldn't matter which Democrat would be in office for that bill to pass. The president is not a monarch.

This should be a wake-up call to all voters to be more civically active at the local level, as much as they are on the national/presidential level. The organization of 13% of Michigan’s voters to vote uncommitted is enough for Biden to change his policy towards Gaza, however little. The organization of the uncommitted voters in Michigan is proof that change can only effectively start from the grassroots. 

Sources:

Photo: Pete Marovich for The New York Times

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/27/politics/takeaways-michigan-democratic-republican-primaries/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/us/politics/michigan-primary-biden-trump.html?searchResultPosition=3

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/02/28/uncommitted-votes-meaning-michigan/

Apple’s Vision Pro: Revolutionary Technology or Luxury Cash Grab?

     On February 2nd, Apple released a new product: the Apple Vision Pro. A futuristic virtual reality device with eye and hand-tracking capabilities, Apple’s headset has taken the internet by storm. Although many critics claimed sales would be slow due to the price tag of $3,500, the first batch of 200,000 has completely sold out. The Vision Pro has infiltrated even the most important moments in life, as on February 10th, a Groom wore the Vision Pro to his own wedding day.

    As Apple’s first new release since the 2015 Apple Watch, the Vision Pro has a plethora of features that appear to be extremely innovative. One reviewer posted a video of him watching 5 NBA games, texting his friends, and scrolling through web pages at the same time. Apple has also stated that users can form 3-dimensional recreations of their recordings, allowing anyone to relive their own memories. With 6 microphones, 12 cameras, 5 sensors, 2 OLED displays, the M2 Chip, and Siri packed into the device, some reviewers say the Vision Pro is worth every penny.

    However, many attribute Apple’s sales success to the hype of the product. Apple has an abundance of fans who will buy any product they release, no matter its true utility or value. This has led many to question whether the Apple Vision Pro provides actually helpful features. The headset takes away a substantial amount of one’s peripheral vision, and many reviews have said that it is an inherently isolating experience. Through augmented reality, a user sees the real world while maintaining access to digital features. Yet, there are reported issues such as motion blur that make it difficult to interact with the real world, unless a user is inside their home. Other than streaming from multiple sources and interacting with existing videos in new ways, the Vision Pro functionality for the consumer is questionable. 

    As of March 2024, Apple has a market cap of $2.774 Trillion. In the last few years, the company has spent over $20 billion in research and development and filed over 5,000 patents for the new Vision Pro. Due to its massive size as a company and its investments, Apple cannot afford to create a product just for the “tech bro” who has the excitement and funds to buy a $3,500 augmented reality device. Apple must create a product for the regular consumer. Experts say that Apple will bring down the Vision Pro’s price to make it more affordable, and forecasts for Apple’s shipment of Vision Pros (found below) are extremely ambitious. However, will it ever have the functionality to garner the interest of the average consumer?

https://wire19.com/prediction-on-apple-vision-pro-shipment-in-first-year-of-launch/ (data originally from Statista)

    In my opinion, the Vision Pro does not have enough utility to be a product for 90% of American consumers. Even if the price is lower, I do not believe that Vision Pro will obtain the level of success that other Apple products have achieved, such as the iPhone, iMac, or Airpod. Past devices have allowed people to engage with the digital world without diminishing the real-world experience. Anyone can open their smartphone and in seconds, gain access to whatever content or information they desire. With most current popular Apple products, there is a low opportunity cost of losing social interaction in the real world, with massive benefits for interaction in the digital world. The Apple Vision Pro has the huge opportunity cost of losing one’s peripheral vision and casual social connection with others. Yet, some of these flaws can be ameliorated through long-term innovation. If Apple drastically simplifies the design, makes the user experience less intrusive to daily life, and lowers the price, I can see a future where augmented reality becomes the new norm.

Some questions for discussion in the comments:

What do you think about the Apple Vision Pro? Is it a step towards a utopian or dystopian society?

If you had $3,500 lying around, would you buy one?

Do you think the Apple Vision Pro could be a viable product for the consumer?

Sources:

https://time.com/6590633/apple-vision-pro-developers/#:~:text=So%20far%2C%20signals%20about%20the,plunge%20on%20a%20new%20product.

https://www.tomsguide.com/computing/smart-glasses/apple-vision-pro-review

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4073143-apples-vision-pro-us-sales-slow-global-release-date-remains-mystery

https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-apples-vision-pro-price-features-hands-on-insights-and-everything-you-need-to-know/

https://companiesmarketcap.com/apple/marketcap/#google_vignette

https://humanprogress.org/apple-vision-pro-is-half-the-price-of-the-apple-ii/

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/apple-vision-pro-2-displays-lower-price/

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/groom-wears-apple-vision-pro-085002536.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9uZXdzLmdvb2dsZS5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAF7s5QLyrO4RsdjU0TPIn6EaH3w8J2sTtJ9fGZmlxahDzYInzX-_bvu6F0Bes8aew_j9WnV9MZfXd2aiP0Kq-LFB96jTLVEds_Ni09im7ECj-i60O8kNETx0gaE4F862piRimrsM87mbX-w_pvxIKksuWDNecbKgjDyaLG4ufGHy

CDC Releases New Updated Guidelines for COVID-19

    This past week the Center for Disease Control (CDC) said goodbye to its mantra of a 5 day quarantine period. This change comes as a result of improvements in the trends of hospitalization and deaths in the past year. CDC Directory Mandy Cohen explained, “We wanted to see if the trends would hold through another respiratory season. We wanted to see continued decreases in hospitalizations, decreases in deaths, even with [mutations]” (CBS).

COVID hospitalizations have decreased significantly since their pandemic peak (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-12-24/covid-icu)

    The coronavirus dropped to being the 10th leading cause of death in the United States last year, down from the 3rd at its peak (AP). The agency made it clear that while it is no longer an emergency, COVID still remains a public health threat, and that it should not be ignored (CBS). In the report released on Friday, the agency explained they would switch to a “unified, practical approach to addressing risk,” an attempt to make guidelines easier to follow by creating a single set of guidelines for numerous respiratory illnesses, including COVID, the flu, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) (CBS).

    So what exactly are the new guidelines? The CDC is now recommending to only return once symptoms are mild and improving and it has been over a day since having a fever. However, they do recommend using a mask during 5 additional days of precaution once you are no longer staying at home. It is important to note that there were no changes in the guidelines for individuals working in healthcare or in nursing homes (CDC). 

An example from CDC guidelines demonstrating how the updated COVID recommendations would be implemented (https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/prevention/precautions-when-sick.html)

    Despite the CDC moving forward, not everybody is ready to yet. Director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University’s School of Public Health Jennifer Nuzzo said that her “biggest worry in all of this is that employers will take this change in guidance to require employees to come back to work ... before they are ready to, before they feel well enough, and before they are not likely to pose harm to their co-workers” (AP). Each week, there are still over 20,000 hospitalizations and 2000 deaths due to the virus, particularly in individuals of age 65 years or older.

    It seems like COVID has reached a point now where it is starting to be treated similarly to other viruses like the flu and RSV. In 10 to 20 years from now, it may be treated like a common cold, an incredibly large change from its connotation just a couple of years ago, at the height of the pandemic. The coronavirus has undoubtedly had a massive impact on the way that we view our health, with many individuals still continuing to wear masks for a multitude of reasons. While its widespread reign of terror may be over, its impact on the globe economically, socially, and scientifically, will be felt for centuries.

Sources:

https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/prevention/precautions-when-sick.html

https://apnews.com/article/covid19-isolation-guidelines-cdc-5354fe4ef002458c4c0174292e982af9\

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-covid-recommendations-isolation-masks-tests/

Why We Are Approaching a Government Shutdown, and How It Will Affect Us

    For the past few months, the threat of a government shutdown has been a persistent one. Caused by Congress’ failure to enact annual appropriations bills (discretionary spending split among 12 subcommittees), government shutdowns halt the movement of all non-essential government functions. This is due to the 1884 (but later amended) Antideficiency Act, which prohibits any spending of federal agencies without an appropriation or other form of approval from Congress. Since last fiscal year (which ended September 30th), funding decisions have been repeatedly postponed, with a deadline of this Friday, March 1st. However today (February 29th), both the House and Senate have passed a temporary stop-gap bill, delaying 6 of the appropriation bills to March 8th and the remaining 6 to March 22. This has effectively narrowly avoided the partial government shutdown that would have otherwise started this Saturday.

President Biden met with Congressional leaders Mike Johnson (House Speaker) and Chuck Schumer (Senate Majority Leader) to discuss government shutdown concerns

    Although there are many factors that can lead to difficulties for Congress to apportion money, this particular delay was influenced by policy disagreements in the House. Some of the central areas include national security, immigration and the border crisis, abortion, spending levels, as well as funding for allies. Because of these disputes, some House Republicans (Freedom Caucus) have viewed the looming possibility of a government shutdown as a negotiation strategy.

    Although the subcommittees halted by government shutdowns are deemed “non-essential”, the pause in their funding has detrimental effects on the economy as well as the American people. Although generally reduction in GDP growth is recovered in the weeks following, in the 2018-2019 five-week partial government shutdown, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that about $11 billion were lost, with $3 billion unable to be recovered. These estimates did not include indirect losses, such as effects on businesses’ abilities to apply for federal loans. However, it is difficult to use past shutdowns to assess future ones. Especially since the 2018-2019 shutdown was the longest in history and took place at the end of the fiscal year, whereas we are now at the beginning of the fiscal year, its economic impact is not indicative of the economy’s outcome if there is to be a government shutdown in the near future.

    During government shutdowns, hundreds of thousands of “non-essential” workers are furloughed, while hundreds of thousands others, such as TSA officers, work without pay. The delay of paychecks to bureaucrats can be detrimental to their livelihood and families, for oftentimes they rely on their regularly scheduled paycheck. The low morale of government workers is also tied to reduction of work an affected agency can do. Certain components, such as national parks without state or local funding, would be forced to close. Other services–such as the processing of employee visas, securing grants or loans, and obtaining marriage licenses–would slow and potentially halt. Federal food assistance programs under the Department of Agriculture such as the Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), would likely be unable to meet demands. These are just a few of the issues that could arise from a prolonged government shutdown.

    Government shutdowns also decrease American trust in the government (68%), as well as support for both political parties. As House Speaker Mike Johnson has said, “‘This is not a time for petty politics’”. Hopefully, members of Congress can come to an agreement and pass funding legislation before the time created by this new stop-gap bill runs out. 

https://time.com/6836517/house-short-term-spending-measure-shutdown/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-faces-looming-government-shutdown-deadline/story?id=107550520 
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/schumer-mcconnell-johnson-jeffries-murray-collins-granger-delauro-joint-statement-on-fy24-appropriations-agreement 
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-congress-makes-last-minute-bid-avert-government-shutdown-2024-02-29/ 
https://www.gibsondunn.com/what-a-government-shutdown-means-for-you/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-a-government-shutdown-and-why-are-we-likely-to-have-another-one/ 
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/affected-partial-government-shutdown/story?id=107590352 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/25/government-shutdown-congress-gop/
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/politics/house-stopgap-bill-vote-shutdown/index.html
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-reasons-why-careening-from-near-shutdown-to-near-shutdown-is-bad-for-america/

UN Budget Cuts Lead to Unfortunate Changes in Afghanistan By: Arianna Koop

When the United Nations World Food Programme or WFP for short was founded, the main goal the founders had in mind was to help feed those who did not have stable access to food. With the help of this new program, millions of people were given aid. However in recent months, the WFP has undergone several changes leading to a lack of funding and causing those in charge to make difficult decisions. 

According to Cindy McCain, the director of WFP, “To put it succinctly so that it's easy for everyone to understand, for every 1% cut at WFP, this means 400,000 people are pushed further into hunger.” Unfortunately, with this change in funding amounts, the WFP struggles to provide emergency food as well as enough food that would sustain families for a longer term. Along with that, the rations being provided to people have also been downsized and some families have been cut off altogether.

 What was once a program able to provide much needed resources to those seeking aid in Afghanistan has now unfortunately also been forced to cut off another two million families on top of the eight million that have already been unable to get further help. Many of these families who are in need are mostly made up of women who have been left widowed and need to provide for their families. Due to the fact that the Taliban is currently running the government in Afghanistan, a lot of women have been unable to find jobs, with families even sending their young sons out to go find work and help provide for the household. One such mother in Afghanistan has resorted to feeding her young child a type of allergy medicine to help curb the effects of going hungry via sedation–a common side effect of the drug. But that is not all, doctors have also stated that many families like this one have also had to resort to using other drugs such as antidepressants as a way of helping their children make it through this unimaginably tough time. Without the much needed help that would usually come from the WFP, unfortunately, malnutrition rates nowadays have been the worst that the UN has ever seen in Afghanistan and change must be brought about soon.

Sources:

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/12/1198925108/un-food-programme-hunger-starvation-security

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67707715

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1140662

US Supreme Court to Hear Landmark Social Media Cases

We’ve devoted numerous class periods to the discussion of the US Supreme Court’s role around social media and online free speech, and now, the Supreme Court is set to make a pivotal decision which may transform the internet as we know it. As expected, the controversy primarly circulates around the theme of whether social media companies engage with First Amendment-protected speech by moderating content, here more specifically around misinformation and hate speech. The Supreme Court’s concerns have risen around two laws passed by Florida and Texas after the 2021 Capitol riot, and now they are ultimately being addressed as court justices hear two landmark cases on Feb 26, 2024.

The Republican-backed laws, passed by Florida and Texas, prohibited tech companies from removing certain political content which they deemed objectionable on their social media platforms. At the time, the states claimed that such laws were necessary to prevent platforms from discriminating against conservatives. State officials add on, claiming these restrictions on content moderation are constitutional as “they seek to regulate social media platforms’ business behavior, not their speech.” Yet this directly leads to, as a group of political scientists claim, “dangerous and violent election-related speech” which is then treated equal to innocuous posts. 

(Conservative Supreme Court heard arguments Monday: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-02-26/supreme-court-hears-a-1st-amendment-clash-on-whether-texas-and-florida-can-regulate-social-media)

Now, the Supreme Court considers arguements on if Texas and Florida should be given such control over tech companies. The two cases being held on Feb 26, 2024, NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, will ultimately result in a pivotal ruling: whether states can forbid social media companies from blocking or removing user content that goes against platform rules.

With the the First Amendment protecting the freedom of speech and expression of citizens from being censored by the government, supporters of the state laws claim against tech companies, who they believe are left-leaning, stating that the laws “protect the First Amendment rights of conservative users from censorship.” After being removed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube due to his inflammatory comments during the Capitol Riot, Donald Trump displayed support for the state laws, arguing that the right for tech companies to “discriminate” against a user is not protected by the Constitution. Similarly, conservatives within the US have long attacked major companies on moderation policies under their belief that they are unfairly biased towards left-wing views, and Gov Greg Abbot, who signed the Texas bill, claimed the law made it so “conservative viewpoints in Texas cannot be banned on social media.” Florida's solicitor general also added on, claiming companies act with too much power when they attempt to moderate posts, treating the First Amendment as if designed to enable the suppression speech rather than prevent it.

(Social Media: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/tech/supreme-court-social-media/index.html)

While at the current stage of the case it remains unclear how justices will ultimately rule, the divide against some of the court’s conservatives is evident and many strong points against the state laws have been voiced. As discussed within our lessons of numerous court cases, precedent has carried an enourmous weight in being used as a strong justification for the support or disapproval of a new case. Paul Clement, a lawyer presenting cases on behalf of NetChoice, brought up previous Supreme Court rulings which held that “private organisers could not be forced to carry messages they did not agree with.” Similarly, Federal opposition to the state laws have brought up prior rulings which have ephasized editorial control as being “fundamentally protected by the First Amendment.” Furthermore, a major justification for such opposition is that the platforms which the state laws attempt to attack, are private parties which thus does not make them bound to the First Amenment. Clement offerred a humorous example to support this arguement which prompted laughter in the courtroom, stating that a Catholic website could exclude a Protestant from participating in a discussion as it is a private forum and the government can not tell the website, as a private party, that they have to let the Protestant into the Catholic party. 

If ruled in the favor of the states, decades of precent against “compelled speech” could potentially be reversed, and such could incite consequences which reach far beyond social media. Firstly, if companies were prevented from moderation content, they would practically be forced to carry all content, nevertheless the amount of antisemitism or pro-suicide content the posts carry as suggested by Clement. Moreover, the Florida law and arguement is so broad, that it brings out the question that if the law continuous to be upheld, not only would social media most definitely change in a variety of ways, but platforms such as Gmail, Amazon’s web services, and even Google lose all power of moderation. Despite such claims, the ruling remains uncertain as of now, and some justices are even signaling a desire to send the case to lower courts, suggesting a ruling will not be made until further review on the states’ laws’ provisions are made.

Sources:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68407977
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/25/tech/us-supreme-court-landmark-social-media-cases/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/tech/supreme-court-social-media/index.html
https://abc7chicago.com/supreme-court-social-media-texas-florida/14469953/
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/26/us/supreme-court-arguments-social-media

Israel and Hamas Deny Biden’s Claim of Breakthrough for Ceasefire

     This past Monday, President Joe Biden told reporters that he had hope Israel and Hamas would reach a ceasefire agreement by the following Monday (March 4th). Biden’s remark was likely a well-timed attempt to influence the Michigan primary, which took place the following day. Michigan, which is a November swing state, has a large Arab-American population, many of whom have protested Biden’s current policy by urging voters to pick “uncommitted” in the primary polls (CNN - Biden). Israel and Hamas officials, however, played down such a possibility of a ceasefire, finding the President’s remarks to be premature. The head of Hamas’ political division in Gaza, Basem Naim, said that Biden’s claim “did not match the reality on the ground.” Anonymous Israeli officials felt the same, stating that Hamas was continuing to push “excessive demands,” limiting the likelihood of a ceasefire (Guardian).

President Joe Biden talks on Late Night with Seth Meyers (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/27/politics/joe-biden-israel-international-support/index.html)

    The current draft of the proposal contains a 40-day pause of all military activity and a 10:1 exchange of Palestinian prisoners for Israeli hostages, resulting in 40 Israeli hostages being freed and 400 Palestinian prisoners. The deal would also allow 500 aid trucks to enter the besieged territory each day, up from below 100 currently, and bakeries and hospitals in Gaza would be repaired (Guardian).
    The unofficial deadline for this deal is the start of Ramadan, which is expected to be March 10th (AP). When asked, Biden stated, “Ramadan is coming up, and there’s been an agreement by the Israelis that they would not engage in activities during Ramadan as well, in order to give us time to get all the hostages out.” Tensions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict almost always inflame during Ramadan, which is only expected to be more extreme given the current state of the conflict.

Displaced Palestinians wait to receive food at a tent camp in Rafah. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/27/hamas-and-israel-pour-cold-water-on-bidens-hopes-of-imminent-ceasefire#img-1)

    The day after Biden’s interview, the top US humanitarian aid official announced an additional $53 million in humanitarian aid, primarily to support food assistance (CNN - USAID). On top of this, they have called for even more aid, as “more than two million people in Gaza are at “imminent risk” of famine” (CNN - USAID).

    Of course, additional aid does not come from anywhere. In every economic decision, there are trade-offs, and aid to foreign conflicts, such as in Gaza, is no exception. Instead of spending the $53 million on aid, Congress could direct this money towards a domestic issue, such as an affordable housing plan, or could reduce taxes. It is therefore the job of policymakers to judge each trade-off, and make a decision based on which one would be most beneficial. This is where the importance of ethics comes into play with normative statements: the decision of whether or not to fund aid to Gaza does not come just from an economic standpoint, but also an ethical one, as this aid is entirely humanitarian and is meant to reduce the suffering in the region. 

    In the case that a ceasefire was near, I would not support the direction of funds towards Gaza until the ceasefire had been enacted, as only then would the aid be able to have the most impact without interference. However, given the current circumstances described by Israel and Hamas officials and the oncoming violence to be expected during Ramadan, I believe that policy makers made the right decision to send aid at this time, as there is no foreseeable end to the suffering of those in the Gaza region.

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/27/politics/joe-biden-israel-international-support/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/27/hamas-and-israel-pour-cold-water-on-bidens-hopes-of-imminent-ceasefire

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-02-27-2024-e17abedeaf5a005fcd5e7095fecacb7a

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/27/politics/usaid-gaza-aid-samantha-power/index.html

US Imposes Over 500 New Sanctions Against Russia

    As the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine passes on Feb 24, the war enters its third year with the US imposing sanctions on more than 500 targets connected to Russia’s war machine. Amidst heightened tensions between the two nations, the Biden administration's decision to impose this fresh slate appears to be in response to the death of Alexey Navalny. Navalny, who was imprisoned in 2021, has been a source of opposition against Putin, devoting his time to orchestrating a few of the largest anti-government protests in recent years and exposing corruption within the Kremlin. President Biden, who decided to meet with his widow and daughter, blames Putin for his death, claiming that “If Putin does not pay the price for his death and destruction, he will keep going.” While Congress struggles to reach agreements in providing aid to Ukraine, Biden continuously reiterates the dire need to support Ukraine, claiming that without it, “the costs to the United States — along with our NATO allies and partners in Europe and around the world — will rise.”

    The new slate of sanctions displays the US reliance on financial tools to hinder Russia’s war effort and apply pressure on its economy. While previously imposed sanctions ranged from being cyber-related to ceilings on exports, the recently imposed sanctions target Russia’s core financial infrastructure, along with those entities that are helping supply Russia with critical technology and equipment. While Russia has appeared to adapt to the series of sanctions levied by the US and other Western governments in the previous years, this recent announcement has been marked as “the largest single-day tranche of sanctions” and the Biden administration hopes to severely deteriorate the Russian economy. Yet with the West’s sanctions having thus far appeared as mostly failures in efforts to deter Putin’s motives, the effectiveness is uncertain.

(President Joe Biden meets with Yulia and Dasha Navalnaya on Feb. 22, 2022: https://abcnews.go.com/International/us-impose-500-sanctions-russia-parties/story?id=107464889#:~:text=The%20Biden%20administration%20on%20Friday,s%20invasion%2C%20administration%20officials%20said.)

    The new sanctions begin digging further into Russia’s military supply chain, pursuing enablers in countries such as China and the United Arab Emirates. In fact, more than 24 entities providing Russia with assistance have been added to the sanction list. They include the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics, which has enabled the production of attack drones used against infrastructure and civilian targets in Ukraine. Additionally, Russia’s two largest companies, SUEK, whose transportation and logistics operations assist the military, and Mechel, a specialty steel producer, have been targeted. This time, the Biden administration went further than simply major defense companies, also imposing sanctions against manufacturers of “lubricants, robotics, ball bearings and batteries used by the Russian military.”

    Furthermore, a major sanction has been placed against Russia's state-owned National Payment Card System Joint Stock Co. The NSPK is the “central bank-owned operator of the country’s Mir bank card — set up in 2014 as an alternative to Visa and Mastercard.” This widely used payment system has been targeted by the US Treasury as Russia has used it to bypass payment blockades by Visa and Mastercard since the invasion.

(President Joe Biden delivers remarks to US governors attending the National Governors Association on February 23: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/23/politics/sanctions-russia-navalny-ukraine-biden-administration/index.html)

    While the Biden administration has attempted to propose much greater foreign aid packages, all efforts are currently being blocked by Republicans in Congress alongside Trump’s opposition. Displaying the impacts of partisan majorities within Congress as we discussed in class, Kyiv and allies have made dire attempts, calling House Republicans to back the proposal in hopes of US military and economic support falling through.

    The Russian economy has grown by more than 3% since last year, which is faster than the US, yet US officials claim that such was only due to military spending that only makes Russia more vulnerable to targeted sanctions. Even with Russian energy dropping around 40%, they earned roughly $99 billion in oil and gas revenue last year. As the Biden administration attempts to explore further possibilities by taking much more drastic and aggressive measures, broader considerations hinder them. For example, even the cutting off of Russian oil sales may lead to a spike in prices, thus resulting in increased revenue for them while low-income nations are hurt. Over the past 2 years, around 2,000 sanctions have been imposed by Western nations in an effort to deteriorate the Russian war machine, yet expectations for many have fallen short. And while the new slate of imposed sanctions appears much more aggressive and addresses sectors previously left unaddressed, the expected effectiveness is truly uncertain.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/business/us-sanctions-russia.html
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/23/1233410578/biden-russia-sanctions-ukraine-war-anniversary-navalny
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/23/politics/sanctions-russia-navalny-ukraine-biden-administration/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/europe/navalny-prisoner-swap-putin-russia-intl/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/23/us-sanctions-russia-navalny/
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/16/europe/alexey-navalny-russian-activist-obituary-intl/index.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/24/russia-economy-west-sanctions-00142713