Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un: True Love?

On Saturday, September 29th, President Donald Trump told supporters that he and North Korean Dictator Kim Jong Un had “fallen in love.” Trump made the statement while giving a speech at a Make America Great Again rally in Wheeling, West Virginia.

In a surprising turn of events, Trump, who has called Kim Jong Un “little rocketman” and subsequently been called “dotard” in the past, now claims to have a great relationship with the North Korean Dictator.

Referring to their Singapore summit in June of 2018, Trump said, “I was really being tough, and so was he. And we would go back and forth. And then we fell in love, okay? No, really. He wrote me beautiful letters, and they’re great letters. We fell in love.”

The Notebook. Time-Warner, 2004.

While Trump’s choice of language is admittedly quite odd, the real issue here is his continued support for a brutal dictator and his apparent negligence towards Kim Jong Un’s well-known human rights abuses.

According to a 2017 report by the International Bar Association, a prestigious organization of lawyers, there has been evidence of ”systematic murder (including infanticide), torture, persecution of Christians, rape, forced abortions, starvation and overwork leading to countless deaths,” in addition to other crimes against humanity. The same report said that the Kim regime has “designed and perpetuated a brutal, totalitarian regime, a signature feature of which is a network of political prisons that has no parallel in the world today.”

Trump’s blatant ignorance to Kim Jong Un’s treatment of his own people is concerning to say the least. While it is admittedly important to have a tactful and polite relationship with other countries, Trump seems to be taking it to a new level with his buddy Kim Jong Un.

Do you think Trump should have such an amicable relationship with Kim Jong Un?

Sources:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/30/trump-north-koreas-kim-love-beautiful-letters/1478834002/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/sep/30/he-wrote-me-beautiful-letters-and-we-fell-in-love-donald-trump-on-kim-jong-un-video
https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=8ae0f29d-4283-4151-a573-a66b2c1ab480

Kellyanne Conway reveals herself as a victim of a past sexual assault

On Sunday September 30, 2018, Kellyanne Conway, the White House advisor, was discussing hearings and FBI investigation of the Supreme Court judge nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, on CNN's "State of the Union" with Jake Tapper. During the interview, Conway said she feels "very empathetic, frankly, for victims of sexual assault, sexual harassment and rape," and later, added her revelation: "I'm a victim of sexual assault."

As someone who has gone through a prior sexual assault, Kellyanne Conway believes somebody like professor Ford, or any others that make allegations, should all be heard. But last Monday, Conway suggested on "CBS This Morning" that the allegations against Kavanaugh were "like a vast left-wing conspiracy" when Deborah Ramirez, another accuser of Kavanaugh appeared. In Conway's opinion, women making the allegations should be heard through criminal justice system, not through partisan avenues.

Conway also mentioned that both the accused and accuser need to be treated fairly. From Conway's perspective, she claims that people do treat them differently based on their politics or based on their gender, and that is a huge mistake. "America, it's a huge mistake," she said.

Do you think people are treating the accused and accuser differently based on their political view and/or their gender? How may Keyllyanne Conway's personal revelation affect the public's view of her position?

Sources:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/30/politics/kellyanne-conway-support-kavanaugh-cnntv/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/30/kellyanne-conway-im-victim-sexual-assault/?utm_term=.0c7cc5e3bde8

A Play on Privacy: Big Tech Mobilizes Against California Privacy Law

                                                     

Last Wednesday at a U.S. Senate panel, major technology companies and internet service providers including Google and AT&T, voiced their appeal to preempt The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 with new legislation.

This landmark California law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in June is groundbreaking. Under the current version, the law grants consumers the right to know what personal information companies are collecting and why and with which businesses it's being shared. Consumers will also have the right to direct companies to delete their information and not to sell it. The law also restricts sharing or selling the data of children younger than 16.

The expanded degree of consumers’ control over their personal information raises concerns for many tech companies. They argue that such kind of stringent state law will only burden the company’s operation and threaten innovation. On this matter, Amazon vice president Andrew DeVore fustigated the effectiveness of the law which he criticized as “confusing” and “may actually undermine important privacy-protective practices.” As these concerns suffused beyond the hearing, the tech companies started pushing their effort to lobby Congress for changes to the law.

Evaluate both the testimony from the tech companies and the current state of consumers’ data privacy. Explain your views on the tech companies’ plan on preempting the California law. To what extent do you agree that The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 is an effective solution to protect the privacy of consumers?

Sources:

1. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/09/26/amazon-att-google-apple-push-congress-pass-online-privacy-bill-preempt-stronger-california-law/1432738002/
2. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tech-congress/tech-companies-back-u-s-privacy-law-if-it-preempts-californias-idUSKCN1M62TE
3. https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/26/technology/google-dragonfly-senate-hearing/index.html

Trump's Meeting With the United Nations

On Tuesday, September 25th a United Nation meeting was held. During this meeting, President Donald Trump decided to brag about the progress done for the United States. Upon completing his statements, he was met by a round of laughter.

  In his statements, Trump claims that, " in less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the country.". During his presidential campaign, he promised the building of a wall to stop illegal immigrants from passing in the U.S from Mexico and getting rid of the Affordable Care Act signed in by Obama. Two things to this day he still not as done, despite his claims that he has already started the building of the wall. He has also claimed that people without a job is at the lowest rates in the past 18 years, but it is still very high compared to the past.

  Another claim that Trump has made during the meeting was that," many countries in the Middle East strongly supported my (his) decision to withdraw the United States from the horrible 2015 Iran nuclear deal and reimpose nuclear sanctions." However, only certain countries in the Middle East would support his statement as only Saudi Arabia, U.A.E Bahrain, and Israel would agree. Many other countries would disagree such as Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Qatar, Egypt, Kuwait, and Oman. Jordan  has even threatened to start an arms race without the nuclear agreement. Other countries, such as Britain, Germany, China, Russia, Canada, Japan, and many others were against Trump pulling out of the deal as it controlled the amount of nuclear weapons created by Iran in exchange for money to help rebuild their economy.

  Trump has claimed that after his speech, the people were laughing with him and not at him. A member of the UN said that they were all laughing because Trump is a truthful man and FOX shouldn't have made it appear as the audience was being mean to Trump. What do you think?

Sources: 
-  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/world/fact-check-trump-speech-united-nations.html 
-  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/26/trump-united-nations-speech-they-were-laughing-me/1436376002/ 
- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal.html 
picture:http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/2017/09/the_latest_ivanka_trump_pursues_her_own_agenda_at_un

That tweet MUSK be Investigated, How the SEC made Elon Musk Step Down

As of September 29, 2018, Elon Musk is no longer the chairman of Tesla. With many back and forths between lawyers, investors, the people at the Securities and Exchange Commissions, and with Elon Musk himself, there came a conclusion to the investigation of Tesla going private: Mr. Musk will step down as chairman for 3 years with a 40 million dollar fine split between him and Tesla. 

This whole incident began on August 7, 2018, when a single tweet, covered on our blog before, was posted by Musk saying "funding secured" referencing the 420 dollars for each shareholder for taking Tesla private. On top of this, Tesla made a blog post that publicized the email in which Musk described the reasoning for trying to make Tesla private. The issue is not so much making Tesla private but Musk's own decision to manipulate it's investors so that going private will work. 

This still means the title of CEO will be Musk's but without the control of the board of directors, he won't have full control of his own company.  On top of this, the SEC is forcing reforms among Tesla's board creating heavy surveillance on Musk's communications between investors to lower market disruptions and stop any more harm to Tesla's shareholders. 

With the dispute settled, here's the underlying question: Was it right for Mr. Musk to try and manipulate Tesla's investors? But also, was it right of the government to interfere with Musk over a single tweet without the evidence of a monopoly? Should Twitter now be the greatest communication phenomenon that the government should act upon?

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/25/business/elon-musk-tesla-private.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/business/tesla-musk-sec-settlement.html

FBI Investigation

As days near for the final vote to place Brett Kavanaugh into a higher position in the court possible sexual allegations have been publicly announced. Despite other sexual assaults which were publicly announced earlier September against Kavanaugh, a recent highly reputable member of society and childhood classmate of Kavanaugh’s has stepped out to share her story. Christine Blasey Ford is the latest victim who has came out to make an impact and let the world know of what Kavanaugh has done.

Kavanagh has appeared on court to give his own side of his story on Thursday and Friday the 27th and 28th. Kavanaugh is stating the allegations of him sexualy assulting Christine Ford are entirely false. He has evidence of an old calendar 30+ years back showing what he did during that time and other friends who can say that Kavanaugh would never be that person to sexually assault anyone. He believes this is enough as it proves he was nowhere near Christine during that year. However other democrats as well as Senator Flake strongly advise to an FBI investigation to provide more evidence before continuing with the vote.

This FBI investigation can release more evidence if anything is found, however news sources as well as Kavanaugh have stated that the FBI will just conduct a formal interview and not come up with any new evidence. As this assault had happened 30+ years ago, FBI would only be able to interview close friends of both sides and ones at the alleged party that had happened. As of Friday September 28, President Trump has trusted and called the FBI investigation to start. Trump states this investigation will take less than one week and he trusts that officials on the Senate that want this investigation with good judgement.

Do you think this FBI investigation is necessary and why? What do you think the FBI can reveal for this trial? How do you feel about President Trump and his aid to the current situation?

Sources:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-senate-judiciary.amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/democrats-call-to-delay-scotus-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-committee-vote-christine-blasey-ford-assault-accuser/

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/28/652558787/what-difference-would-it-make-if-the-fbi-were-to-investigate-kavanaugh

Fracking Regulation

Fracking is the use of high pressure drilling and injecting chemicals deep into the
Earth to harvest natural gas releasing methane. The use of natural gas rather than coal is
more environmentally sound because it emits less carbon dioxide.  

To frack, gas and oil companies must follow Environmental Protection Agency, EPA,
regulations along with state and local rules because it has some serious environmental effects.
For example, methane gas can be accidentally released into the atmosphere while harvesting the
natural gas. Methane gas can increase global warming because it has 80 percent more heat
trapping potential of carbon dioxide for the first 20 years it’s released in the atmosphere.

Currently EPA regulates the release of methane to combat climate change. EPA requires
gas and oil companies to inspect for methane leaks every six months and to repair the leaks
within 30 days. President Trump has proposed an over hall to these rules which will weaken
the Obama-era EPA regulations to fight climate change.  President Trump wants the leak
inspections every one to two years and repairs to be made within 60 days. These changes
will save the gas and oil companies an estimated 75 million dollars per year in regulatory costs.

Should new presidents be allowed to roll back the regulations of old presidents?

Is it justified for the EPA to make the proposed fracking regulation changes?

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-21/removing-methane-rules-won-t-stop-frackers-from-plugging-leaks

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2018-09-11/trumps-epa-proposes-weaker-methane-rules-for-oil-and-gas-wells

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/climate/methane-emissions-epa.html?wpisrc=nl_energy202&wpmm=1

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-epa-methane-rollback-1bddeb0b1eeb/

What Hurricane Florence means for Undocumented Immigrants

As Hurricane Florence brings catastrophic damage to Eastern North and South Carolina,

undocumented immigrants struggle with a tough choice of whether to seek help from
government resources.  These services may help them get through the storm but could
ultimately put them at risk for deportation. Even some immigrants with legal status are
weary about going to shelters or seeking other help out of fear that using government
services could endanger their immigration status.  The authorities released conflicting
messages about how they will handle cases of undocumented immigrants seeking aid
in regions which, based on the damage, will be facing months of recovery, after the
initial rain, flooding, and power outages. In a statement, a spokesman for ICE declared
that the agency would not be pursuing immigration enforcement operations in areas
damaged by the storm, however,  Jeff Byard, an associate administrator for FEMA, stated,

“I’m not going to use the terminology ‘guarantee,’” when reporters asked if undocumented
immigrants would be safe in shelters. Despite the Red Cross policy of denying entry of
immigration agents into shelters without a warrant or court order, many immigrants without
documentation still refrain from residing at these shelters because of recent, increased
enforcement policies under the Trump administration, many of which are supported by
government officials in the Carolinas.

What do you think organizations in regions affected by Hurricane Florence should do to help
provide aid to immigrants without legal status?  Do you think that there is something more
that these organizations should be doing, or that the government should be doing?

Sources:
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/650052758/migrant-workers-hit-hard-by-hurricane-florence
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/us/hurricane-florence-immigrants-carolinas.html

Another woman accuses Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct

→ Image of Deborah Ramirez (left) and Brett Kavanaugh (right)

On Sunday, a 53-year old woman named Deborah Ramirez accused Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, of sexual misconduct. Ramirez alleges that one night at a dorm party 35 years ago, Kavanaugh exposed himself to her after a drinking game while they were both students at Yale University. In The New Yorker report, Ramirez states she “remembers Kavanaugh standing to her right and laughing, pulling up his pants. “Brett was laughing,” she said. “I can still see his face, and his hips coming forward, like when you pull up your pants.”’

Although, Kavanaugh wrote in a statement that he denies these actions did not happen, he further mentions that “ the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime building -- against these last-minute allegations." The White House spokesperson, Kerri Kupec speaks up on the issue and addresses that these claims on Kavanaugh are false and that the White House is still in support of Kavanaugh.

Even if Ramirez admits that there are gaps in her memory from college, the 53 year-old is confident that the Supreme Court nominee was indeed there and he had pulled his pants up. Furthermore in The New Yorker report, they interviewed a few of Ramirez and Kavanaugh’s classmates at the time. Some have mentioned that this incident never occured, while one source says that they are 100% sure it has happened because it stuck with him even after graduating.

With all of this in mind, do you believe Deborah Ramirez’s allegations against nominee Brett Kavanaugh, despite that this situation happened supposedly 35 years ago? Why or why not?

Sources:   https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brett-kavanaugh-another-woman-accuser-deborah-ramirez-ronan-farrow-new-yorker-today-2018-09-23/

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

Immigrants Receiving Public Benefits Will Be Restricted From Attaining Green Cards

   

On Saturday, Trump’s administration announced its proposal that immigrants in the U.S. or are looking to enter, may be ineligible for green cards if they receive any public benefits or seem likely to. These benefits include food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers, etc.. If this new rule comes into effect, about 382,000 people will be affected annually. Under the new rule, immigrants could be asked to pay cash bonds of at least $10,000 to avoid being rejected or will have to choose between becoming a permanent resident or sacrifice public benefits.

Percentages of native-born Americans that receive the same assistance as immigrants, however, are almost identical. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, of all 41.5 million immigrants living in the U.S., only 3.7% received cash benefits in 2013, and only 22.7% accepted non-cash benefits which include Medicaid, housing subsidies or home heating assistance. And in 2015, USCIS research found that of 270 million non-immigrant Americans, 3.4% received cash welfare payments and 22.1% received non-cash subsidies.

The Department of Homeland Security defends their position by stating that this new proposal is aimed to protect limited resources and promote immigrant self-sufficiency, to ensure that they are non-reliant on public assistance and unlikely to burden taxpayers. Additionally, since drawing attention to immigrants use of public benefits often galvanize conservative supporters, there are implications that this rule will benefit Trump during the midterm elections.

    

Pro-immigration activists, however, claims that this new regulation would actually hurt the country in the long run. It is predicted that poor immigrants will start to withdraw from public assistance programs in fear of being denied green cards and deported, which poses a risk of them losing needed assistance for food, shelter, and medicine, making the U.S. a more difficult country to live in.

Jackie Vimo from the National Immigration Law Center, a group defending low-income immigrants, says that this rule attacks immigrant families and attempts to make the immigration system only applicable for the wealthy.  Furthermore, critics argue that it violates states’ rights to provide children and immigrants experiencing short-term crises benefits.

With Trump's additional attempt to control immigration, do you think immigrants should give up the benefits they should have in order to become a permanent U.S. resident? How can this issue be approached in a way that immigrants receiving public benefits will not put a strain on the U.s.'s limited resources?

Brett Kavanaugh Accused of Sexual Assault

In late July, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a 51 year old professor at Palo Alto University, sent a

confidential letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. In this letter, Ford described how she was sexually assaulted by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in high school.

Pictured above is Dr. Christine Ford

No further mention of this letter was made until September 16, when the Washington Post

published an article about an interview with Ford about the sexual assault accusation in

addition to the letter to Feinstein. Kavanaugh has so far denied all claims made against him,

saying he has no recollection of the event happening, and the White House is backing up

Kavanaugh’s denial. Kerri Kupec, a White House spokesperson, has said that Kavanaugh is

ready and willing to testify to defend his integrity and clear his name. Currently,

Kavanaugh is scheduled to give his testimony of the events on Monday, September 24.

Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz has said that Ford is willing to speak publicly to the Senate

Judiciary Committee for those who voiced an opinion to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Ford is scheduled to give a testimony to the Committee on Thursday, September 27.

Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing was scheduled for September 21, but in light of these

accusations, it has been postponed indefinitely.

How do you think a situation like this should be handled, when a crime is alleged to have been

committed, but due to the nature of the crime, the victim did not report it until decades later and the

alleged offender claims the event did not happen? Alternatively, should something you did in high school have the ability to affect your life thirty years later?

A surge of female candidates for the 2018 elections

In the wake of the 2016 election and the #MeToo movement, the number of women
candidates for the House of Representatives and the Senate has soared dramatically,
making 2018 a record year. The House seems to currently represent the biggest
chance for change in the demographics of politics, with an increase of 18% in non
incumbent female nominees and a total of 257 women running for election.

It is important to note that the increase is particularly strong on the Democratic side,
where nearly 50% of candidates are female, and 33% women of color. A report from
Pew Research Centre released this September discovered that 33% of Republicans
and 79% of Democrats agree that there are “too few women in high political offices”.

“Any Democratic wave is going to disproportionately help women because women
disproportionately run as Democrats,” Dr. Lawless said, referring to 2018’s blue wave.
“If we see 60 seats flip, we are going to see women get elected at unprecedented rates.
If the wave ends up more like a puddle on the sand, it’s not going to look that different than
previous cycles.”

If all women were to win their race against male candidates for a seat as a Representative,
208 would make it to the House. This would would make the assembly almost 50% women.
However, 91 of the 208 are unlikely to win as their opponent’s party is favored, and 32 more
are running competitive races (toss-ups, party leanings) This leaves 85 women who are
very likely to hold seats, an increase in only one seat from the past election.

Still, even if an insignificant amount of winners come out of the November elections, the
involvement of women in politics has undeniably progressed. Ms Peeler-Allen declares in
an interview for the New York Times, “Rome wasn’t built in a day, and just because this person
wasn’t successful doesn’t mean that I won’t be. I’m going to learn from her race and learn
from her mistakes and look at the landscape and see what I can do differently.”

How do you feel about this increase in female candidates? Do you believe this could  lead
to real change, with or without regard of the elections’ outcome? How is female
representation in politics beneficial in your opinion?

Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/14/us/women-primaries-house-senate-governor.html

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail

Government Benefits or Permanent Residence?

In an additional attempt to keep out immigrants from the US, the government is now targeting legal immigrants by possibly denying them green cards if they had previously received government benefits.This means that immigrants who have previously been supported financially by the government with food stamps, welfare or Medicaid may be denied a green card with the Trump administration, specifically Stephen Miller's new proposal. Though immigrants who already own green cards may not be effected, lawful permanent residents who have previously received government benefits may be subject to this new policy if they leave the country and try to come back.

The Trump administration's justification for this proposal is to ensure that legal immigrants are financially capable of taking care of themselves. They also believe that getting legal immigrants to go against their supporters will improve their GOP prospects in the 2018 midterm elections. Additionally, the administration claim that this will lift some burden off of the tax payers and protect the limited funds that the government has.

However, the opposition, such as the executive director of the Center for Law and Social Policy, Olivia Garden, have claimed that this will only make immigrants, especially children, hungrier, poorer, and sicker. The proposed policy is targeting hard working immigrants who have followed the rules in the past.

Do you think it's fair to make legal immigrants choose between government benefits and a chance to become a permanent resident of the US? Is it fair to not only target the illegal immigrants in this country but also the legal immigrants who have gone through all the procedures in hopes of a better life?

Sources:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/22/poor-immigrants-green-cards-trump-836456
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/22/trump-immigrants-ineligible-visas-food-stamps/1400917002/

In early September, a hurricane storm system was detected within the Atlantic Ocean. With it’s westward trajectory, it was forecasted to make landfall upon the east coast of the US. On September 14th, the dreaded hurricane, which had a maximum projection of Category 4, made landfall on North Carolina. According to CBS, due to the width of the storm system, the hurricane has been continually able to source moisture from the ocean, sustaining its havoc. Within the three days of this hurricane, rainfall has been measured to reach up to 4.5 feet in some areas. Without even considering the power outages or death tolls, the associated flooding itself will incur a plethora of threats to the local environment and public health. All of this damage, as stated by the Guardian and CBS, is currently being assessed by local officials and FEMA. Looking back to the lackluster governmental response for Hurricane Maria, we can only wait and see what will be done in the wake of Florence’s destruction.

Recent federal budget documents report that the Trump administration has moved $10 million dollars away from FEMA in order to increase the budget of ICE. With Trump’s continual efforts to control immigration, do you think this budget plan is justified?

Evan M Chan, Block 3

Voting Restoration Amendment

About 6.1 million Americans have been prohibited from voting. This is because in a few states in the U.S., people who have been convicted of a crime, aren’t allowed to vote for the rest of their lives. Florida is the most constricting state. When someone is convicted they immediately lose their ability to vote and must wait five years after finishing with parole and/or probation to even apply to regain their voting rights. About 1.5 million people in Florida are affected by this law. And, because the process to regain voting rights is so complicated, most felons in the state never get to cast another ballot. This is especially relevant because of the systematic incarceration of African Americans and other people of color in the United States, and has the potential to strongly affect the outcomes in the voting polls. This is particularly important in Florida, being a swing state. Now, the “voting restoration amendment” will be on the ballots in the upcoming election, meaning it could allow felons (except convicted murderers and sex offenders) to vote again. Do you believe previous convicts should maintain their right to vote after serving time? Or that they lost that privilege once they committed a crime?