Month: October 2016

A recent NYTimes Op-Ed entitled “Anne Frank is Today’s Syrian Refugee” draws a comparison between American treatment of Jews seeking asylum during the Holocaust, and today’s Syrian refugees seeking resettlement in the U.S. At first glance, the average person would argue with this claim, but during the 1930’s and 40’s “although 94% disapproved of Nazi treatment of Jews, 72% objected to admitting large number of Jews.” Today, we see this play out with the U.S. embarrassingly low goal to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees which accounts for one-fifth of 1% of the total number of refugees. We reached this goal earlier in September, and the 10,000th refugee was publicly celebrated! What is there really to celebrate? In comparison to the U.S., “Canada, with a population barely a tenth the size of the United States’, has resettled three times more Syrian refugees since last fall” The United States needs a more proactive refugee policy and efforts of current democrats deserve little praise.

It’s an all too similar scenario of Americans fearing this repeated story of the immigrants who are dangerous and different and will take our jobs – The U.S. cannot afford these extra people and we should look after ourselves…etc. Decades have passed and this xenophobic narrative still holds powerful weight, and unfortunately consequences for refugees.

How can we treat America’s long history of Xenophobia? How is it that a country composed of generations of immigrants refuses to offer the same sanctuary to today’s immigrants?

It has been a rough year in the newspaper headlines for the U.S. and President Obama in terms foreign policy. Cooperation between the U.S. and Russian to reach peace in Syria has fallen apart to the point that Russia has now installed anti-aircraft missile defense systems in order to threaten U.S. aircraft. There are also allegations by the U.S. government that Russia is meddling in the U.S. Presidential election. In the Middle East, Turkey has increased its criticism of the U.S. as a result of a coup attempt and has proceeded to bomb U.S. Kurdish allies engaged in fighting with ISIS. Iran has increased its support of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria in clear defiance of American and Western wishes. In East Asia, China has escalated the level of militarization of the disputed artificial islands in the South China Sea. North Korea has resumed nuclear weapons testing and repeatedly threatened the use of force in response to U.S. and South Korean actions. President Duarte of the Philippines has openly criticized and insulted both the U.S., and President Obama and his officials publicly while simultaneously announcing his intent to break the long standing friendship between the two nations.

All of that is happening as China, Russia, North Korea, Turkey and the Philippines have begun to talk about stronger military ties. Whomever ends up as president of the U.S. will face a much more hostile world than his predecessor. Despite its military and technological advantage, America should consider wielding its economic muscle in a much more aggressive manor. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown the limits of military power and have probably emboldened foreign nations to challenge a battle weary America openly. This is why economic ties to entire regions are important. Having the ability to affect a nations ability wage war and finance proxy wars is an essential tool in avoiding first hand conflict. Free trade agreements are of concern to aspiring world powers. When news that the TPP agreement had been concluded, many in China grew concerned. Many Chinese saw it as a move aimed to push China to play nicer with the international community. It felt the pressure. Russia is currently hurting economically due to oil prices and economic sanctions from the West. The Philippines receive both military and economic aid from the U.S.; America could use that along with it’s economic influence in the region to help cool the rhetoric coming from their president.

Many have grown heavily critical of President Obama’s “passive” nature and foreign policy. They believe that he should have used military intervention in Libya sooner and other areas. Perhaps Obama saw no endgame to such actions, but instead saw ways to influence foreign powers through a stronger economic presence throughout the world. That by leveraging economic ties and influence with large regional powers, it can wield foreign policy by proxy. Putting economic pressure on regional powers to wield their own influence create stability in the world. It’s time the U.S. take a more aggressive economic stand against Russia.

….but to fill the position of U.S. President, no experience required?!

Voters should not need reaffirmation of just how unqualified Trump is to occupy the seat of President without having previously occupied any other sort of political office in his life, as compared to Hillary’s decades worth of government work. But judging by the fact that Trump still has supporters, the American people seem to need maybe just one more reminder. The Clinton Campaign came up with a genius tool that takes us back to a random point in recent history and compares what Hillary was doing in that year as compared to Trump. The results are all at once amusing and upsetting. This interactive webpage is smart in its simple and blunt juxtaposition of the two candidates lives leading up to their campaign for U.S. Presidency, and hopefully will be effective in swaying some undecided voters.

It’s tough not to just fall down a rabbit hole and keep clicking, but the nausea induced by some of Trump’s past helped me to stop. Here’s just one example:

2006: Hillary is re-elected to the U.S. Senate with 67 percent of the vote, and doing bipartisan work to improve health care for military servicemembers.

2006: Trump says he “sort of hope[s]” for the housing market to collapse—saying he could “make a lot of money” from it.

Pennsylvania has been talked about largely in the Presidential election because a split is seen. In Philadelphia millennials are supporting Hillary Clinton in a big way and  another large city, Pittsburgh is seeing similar sentiment. However less than an hour away, in southwestern Pennsylvania, is Greene County aka coal country -where Donald Trump rules. The Senate race is not seeing much of a split in Pennsylvania. In the swing state Sen. Pat Toomey (R) is in a virtual tie with opponent Katie McGinty (D). The topic that these two have decided to be their divider is Climate change. While Katie McGinty has served as the head of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and is in line to support reducing climate change efforts her opponent is against it all. The interesting factor here is that According to a poll by the Natural Resources Defense Council, 82 percent of Pennsylvania voters want the state to develop a plan to curb carbon pollution. With such an overwhelming majority of the state in support of decreasing climate change producing emissions, one would think that the candidates could align on this issue. However the trick here is to follow the money… Toomey’s campaign is leaning heavily on fossil fuel donations. Overall, Toomey’s campaign has received $1 million dollars from energy and natural resources companies, both directly and through his PAC, according to Open Secrets.  Typical.

…in some regions. The effects and those expected of increasing climate change have largely been seen as bad. With much discussion surrounding the loss of natural animal habitats, decreasing water supply, agricultural depression, and an increase in unpleasant weather there has seemed to be no good side of increasing temperatures, until now. A study out of Virginia Tech that was recently published in the Journal for Climatic Change makes claims that rising temperatures would lead to positive changes in Ethiopia. The research states that  water availability in the Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia may increase in coming decades due to global climate change. A correlation that I have never seen made before, typically rising temperatures decrease water availability. As a result of the increase of water availability crop production would increase, hydroelectric power projects would develop and irrigation systems could be established in the region. Not too shabby. Read More Here.

The New York Times recently published an explosive report regarding two women, Jessica Leeds and Rachel Crooks, who accuse Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump of making inappropriate advances on them within minutes of meeting them.  The allegations, spanning from the late 1970’s to 2005, paint a portrait of a highly entitled serial sexual abuser.  It’s a damaging picture, indeed.  And, from his response, the Donald knows that all too well:

“Lawyers for Donald Trump have called on The New York Times to retract a bombshell report in which two women claimed that Trump had touched them inappropriately.”

In the open letter sent to the newspaper, demands were made to cease further publication of the report, have it removed from the website, and issue a full retraction and apology.  Threats have been made that lawsuits were being drafted against the Times and The Palm Beach Post, which had published another story about sexual assault allegations against Trump.

It’s easy to see a portrait here of a complete crybaby, someone so thin-skinned that can’t have any criticism at all put out there.  He must have his praises sung at all times as if he’s God Almighty.

With this incident (and many others in the past), a more sinister picture emerges.  It is one showing a man, running for the highest office in the land, who doesn’t understand the point of the First Amendment and a free press.  He simply doesn’t understand that the press is there to hold public figures running for and holding office accountable, and criticize them when they merit critcism.

You do not have democracy when you don’t allow the press to do its job, and you should not be anywhere near the White House if you can’t understand that simple fact.

In class, we spoke about how trump is a media magnet with him getting a lot of free media coverage, well it’s good to know Hillary is finally catching up.

According to Carl Bialik of FiveThirtyEight who tracks media coverage for the two presidential candidates through mediaQuant, a Portland, Oregon, firm that analyzes television, print and online media and social for the quantity and quality of mentions of candidates.

“While Trump hogged free media coverage earlier in the 2016 campaign, Clinton started matching his pace soon after both nominations were clinched. That trend continued in September: Clinton got coverage worth $423 million on television, in print and online, to Trump’s $465 million in September.”

Also noteworthy is the quality of media coverage, according to Bialik “Since mid-September, Clinton’s net favorability rating is 10 percentage points better than Trump’s”

Obamacare was a hot topic during the last presidential debate with the presidential candidates arguing for or against repealing the affordable care act (ACA). Each candidates’ comment on the ACA is stated below:

Clinton: “If we were to start all over again, we might come up with a different system. But we have an employer-based system. That’s where the vast majority of people get their health care. And the Affordable Care Act was meant to try to fill the gap … 20 million people now have health insurance. So, if we just rip it up and throw it away, what Donald’s not telling you is, we just turn it back to the insurance companies, the way it used to be.”

Trump: “Obamacare is a disaster. You know it, we all know it. … Their method of fixing it is to go back and ask Congress for more money. More and more money. … We have to repeal it and replace it with something absolutely much less expensive, and something that works.”

Argument Against Repealing Obamacare 

As a result of passing the ACA, the uninsured rate has dropped in every congressional district in the country, and the uninsured rate is at the lowest it’s been since the Great Recession according to the US Census Bureau.

To be specific: “The uninsured rate for non-elderly Americans has fallen from about 16.6% in 2013 to 10% in the first quarter of 2016, and  8.6% taking into account seniors who have near-universal coverage.”

As Secretary Clinton noted during the debate, the law made it illegal for health insurance companies to exclude people based on their health status and allowed young adults to stay on their parents’ plans. It also expanded Medicaid eligibility to people with incomes below 138 percent of the federal poverty line (though 19 states have chosen not to).

I would have to agree with Secretary Clinton, it is better to fix Obamacare than to repeal it. To repeal Obama Care will be to waste years of progress and to start over, what is the guarantee of a positive outcome.

 

The popular belief is that free trade agreements (FTAs), like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, are either economically evil or good. The truth is that there is no clear consensus on the effects that NAFTA has had on the American economy. Economist have had a hard time sorting out the true affects of the agreement. Unable to discern between the effects of technology, national economic trends, and China’s admission into the WTO, many economist have been unable to provide a ‘net effect’ or ‘net sum’ of FTAs impact on the American economy. Which begs the question, why pursue them so vigorously?

The Obama administration seems to view these FTAs as a way to solidify relationships with foreign nations. The administration seems to believe that once the relationships and economies become deeply intertwined, it becomes imperative for all nations involved to maintain good relations as we’ve seen with Mexico and their anxiety over Trump and the Presidential election. With the Philippines recent moves to establish closer ties to China and Russia at the expense of the long friendship with the U.S., the President seems more determined now than ever to make sure the U.S. ratifies the agreement before he leaves office.  Judging by the brash talk coming from Russian official lately, it maybe time for the public to think of the FTAs in different terms.

First off, Kudos to the artists who made the above image. It is the first caricature that I have seen that has successfully made Donald Trump look like tolerable.

In this article titled “How Will the Next U.S. President Tackle Climate Change?”, the author speaks on polls and past Republican candidates’ platforms. It is a well-known fact that Donald Trump is not in support of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), policies aimed at combatting climate change (Paris Treaty and Clean Power Plan), nor is he in support of the notion that man-made climate change exists. Ignoring the science, Trump has seemed to create a sort of bandwagon on the issue.

The 2012 Republican candidate Mitt Romney believes in climate change and in 2008 John McCain acknowledged that climate change was a problem, supported that human behavior contributed, and that we should take action. According to a Gallup survey in March, Republican support of the issue had increased.  However a more recent poll from Pew shows that Republican support is waning. What gives?!

Which brings me to the question: What influences the electorate to support platforms, Science and research or are they blindly following their representative?