Days From Election, Police Killing of Black Man Roils Philadelphia

 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/us/philadelphia-police-shooting.html 

On Monday, October 26th, Walter Wallace Jr, 27, was fatally shot by two police officers. Wallace had a history of mental health issues and was experiencing a mental health crisis, which his family told the officers. In a video posted on social media, Wallace approached the officers, with someone yelling at him to "put the knife down." Then, he was shot multiple times, later dying of his wounds at a nearby hospital. Protests started immediately, resulting in dozens of arrests, cars being burned, and 53 officers hurt. 

In their response to the protests, the White House blamed the “liberal Democrats’ war against the police” for the destruction, while Biden and Harris mourned Wallace's death and condemned the looting. In the aftermath, Wallace's neighbors voiced their lack of faith in the government to solve the problems facing the nation, from racial injustice to the pandemic. The Philadelphia Police have long been criticized for excessive use of force against POC, and for what many see as abusive and violent behavior. 

It goes without saying that this makes me extremely sad and angry. Despite the impact of BLM in fighting for racial equality, systemic racism continues to take the lives of Black Americans. The tragic story of Walter Wallace is a story we have heard far too many times before. However, it demonstrates yet another failing of US law enforcement: their response to mental illness. A mental health crisis should never end in death because police are not properly trained, prepared, or equipped to respond to it. This should not even fall upon the police, which often ends in violence, but on crisis response teams, preferably ones not involved in law enforcement. 

FDA Approves First Drug for Treating Coronavirus Patients

 https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/22/world/covid-19-coronavirus-updates

On Thursday, the US Food and Drug Administration formally approved Remdesivir as the first drug to treat COVID-19, indicating the government's confidence in the drug's ability to benefit patients. Remdesivir had been approved for certain populations under emergency conditions by the FDA in May. However, according to the article, Remdesivir has been shown to not be able to prevent deaths from COVID-19. This drug, although not a "miracle cure", was originally made as a treatment for Ebola and hepatitis C, and works as an antiviral by blocking certain portions of viral genes. Since viruses such as COVID-19 harm the body by aggressively reproducing and destroying important cells, interfering with the viral reproductive cycle is an effective way to combat viral illnesses. 

However, questions remain about the legitimacy of this approval, especially because of the timing (weeks before election day) and the Trump administration's eagerness to tout a "cure" for COVID. Personally, I do not think people should be skeptical about the drug, as it had to go through third-party panels of experts in order to be approved. In addition, the drug is being explicitly described as NOT a "massive breakthrough" for preventing COVID deaths. Although the Trump administration might blow the approval of Remdesivir out of proportion, the fact that the FDA did not do so makes the bureau more trustworthy for me. At the end of the day, it's important to listen to actual experts and not rely on politicians for information about things like drug development. 

Do you think people should trust drug/vaccine approvals done under our current administration? 

Why do you think people become skeptical about scientifically sound medication? What fears do people have about our healthcare system, and where do they come from?

Kristen Welker asked the candidates about The Talk. That moment proved the value of newsroom diversity.

Article link

I never got "the talk" about the need to protect myself. My privilege made it unnecessary. Yet I do remember "the talk" on how to treat women; both my parents and my sister made that very clear. And yet, that's a different kind of "talk." A reminder to not abuse another is not the same as the reminder that you can be abused: by peers, authority figures, the police, etc. So glad this was brought up in the debate. I'm wondering, if you are willing to share, have you been sat down by your parents/guardians about these issues, essentially have you had a version of "the talk"? Any other reactions to this question in the debate?

Huge turnout in New York on first day of early voting

This year, residents of New York are allowed to vote early in the presidential election for the first time. The first day of early voting in New York was Saturday, October 24, and hundreds of people showed up to cast their votes. I think that it’s concerning that such a large number of people are gathering at the voting sites, which are located in large, crowded cities. A majority of voters wore masks and maintained social distancing protocols, but there are always some number of people that refuse to wear masks or follow social distancing, and at a time like this, those few people could cause a lot of harm. The people who show up at in-person early voting do so because they don’t trust that their votes will be counted if they use mail-in ballots. Reasons for these concerns come from situations like the following: last month, nearly 100,000 voters in New York received faulty absentee ballots, with incorrect names and addresses. This is also incredibly concerning, and raises the question of whether people should prioritize ensuring that their votes get counted or ensuring that that they aren’t spreading COVID-19. The people who vote in-person at early voting sites are willing to wait hours in long lines in order to ensure that their votes count, and I think that’s really admirable. However, I still think it’s important to recognize that it would be much safer to use mail-in ballots than to wait in large crowds to vote in person. Then again, there are lots of people going grocery shopping, eating out at restaurants, and going to beaches anyways, so I suppose that if people are going to be out and about anyways, it seems fine to allow in-person voting. Also, if in-person voting wasn’t allowed, then Postal Services would likely get overwhelmed with all the mail-in ballots, and that could cause many issues.

Article Link

1. Do you think that it’s ok that people are going out to vote in person, or do you think everyone should vote through mail-in ballots? What’s the right balance between mail-in voting and in-person voting?
2. What’s more important: ensuring that all votes get counted or ensuring that COVID-19 doesn’t spread?

Daily Covid-19 cases will hit six digits soon, expert warns, as US reports a one-day high of more than 83,000 infections

 

               (Image from CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, October 23, 2020, show); these numbers are from 10:52 P.M. ET, information continued to update throughout Friday. 

    Primary Article Link     Second article link

    On Friday, October 23rd, America recorded "more than 83,000" COVID-19 cases, the highest Coronavirus cases in a single day since the pandemic began. The previous record for cases per day was in July, with 6,000 fewer cases. As time has gone along since March 13, I think it's safe to say that the urgency of getting the nation healthier has diminished as the life we've been living the past seven months became normal. 

    From an article published on April 2nd of this year, COVID-19 was described as a war, Trump calling himself a "wartime president" and coronavirus being an "invisible enemy." Americans' health and lives have been at stake for seven months during this "war," and Americans' defense has been slacking because the cases per a single day reached the highest peak just a couple of days ago. Besides having data for comparing to previous months for virus research, as a country, it seems to be we are no better than when we started.

    Phil Murphy, governor of New Jersey recently said, "the virus has not gone away simply because we are tired of it," and in the final presidential debate last Thursday, candidate Joe Biden warned, "we're about to go into a dark winter," and Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said, "we easily will hit six-figure numbers in term of numbers of cases [per day]." 

    Osterholm also describes people's attitudes towards the virus as being "virus fatigue" or "pandemic anger" who are contributing to the rise of transmission of the virus; either choosing to ignore the guidelines because they are "fatigued" of them, or not believing the virus exists. People want to see their family and friends, that's understandable, we all do, but with the weather getting colder, going to bars and restaurants, large events, or any indoor meetings has been a major cause to the increasing cases.  

    Looking at the concept of American exceptionalism, some Americans are ignoring the issue, believing we are indestructible, greater than any challenge thrown our way, but in this case, American exceptionalism has masked (pun intended) people from being pandemically smart. How can the situation get better if people don't take proactive actions to make things better?

In your life, does the COVID-19 situation feel more or less intense? Considering the information that just the other day America reached the highest number of cases per day it has ever faced. 

Why is it so difficult to believe in something that you can't see? If America is very STEM advanced, why aren't people giving credit to science?

Do you think that a change in leadership can lead to better results in this pandemic, or has it been the individuals of the nation choosing for themselves?

Biden and Trump Offer Divergent Visions for Nation

 

    On October 22, 2020, President Trump, and former Vice President Joe Bidden had there final presidential debate which was more laid back on Thursday. Both sides had opposite views on major topics in society to day like the coronavirus pandemic and different ways to save the economy, health care system,  fighting climate change, and revamping the immigration system. The debate only lasted an hour and thirty minutes but was quite dramatic both sides having conflicting ideas. 

    Throughout the debate President Trump consistently badgered Biden to what it seemed like trying to destroy his reputation and shaping it to his advantage. He believes that Covid-19 is becoming less and less dangerous in America by the day. However he fails to give proper evidence of this and with his recent exposure to covid his statement doesn't seem convincing. He also used this particular phrase "all talk no action" throughout the debate which was quite childish but in his eyes true. He sees himself different from Bidden in that when he says hes going to do something for the better of the country he does it. Although during this debate it seemed like President Trump took most of the time badgering all of Bidden's comments then making a better case which supported his ideas. 

    On the other hand Bidden seemed quite calm and unphased by Mr. Trumps trash talk as he directly answered the questions asked of him. His idea was more promising as he seemed quite confident in his plans that he pitched to us viewers that night. He made no errors that would throw off his supporters or viewers that night. In fact he pounced on trumps constant contradicting statements on many of the topics especially about the coronavirus. For example when the president said “we’re learning to live with” the coronavirus, Mr. Biden pounced. “We’re learning to die with it,” he said. This and his more convincing speech makes Trumps speech quite shacking having less of a focus and tie to the people emotions compared to Bidden's.

    Although there is still more Bidden is proving time and time again that he may come out as the winner of the debates and our new president. President Trump still has a chance but he needs to stay on target with his pitch to us viewers. Despite that this debate was quite fun and interesting to watch and leaves me thinking who can be our next president of the United States

Question:

What do you think President Trump could do to get back in the debate in his speeches?

How do you feel about covid-19, do you believe its slowly going away or is it getting worse causing more people to die?

Article Link

Colorado Fires Still Growing

     

Photo of fires taken near Rocky Mountain National Park.

                    With little coverage, the fires in Colorado have grow to around 100,000 acres on just Wednesday night alone. The fire in the picture above is East Troublesome. It started on October 14th but has grown immensely since then. Currently the fire is the fourth largest fire in Colorado's history.  Three of the top five fires in Colorado have been from 2020 alone. Much of the nearby towns have been evacuated with officials still unsure the consequences.

    

                        With the wildfire is heading east, fire officials are saying it could combine with the state's largest fire Cameron Peak. The two fires seem to be only 15 miles away and could cause massive damage to the region. So far East Troublesome is 5% contained with the fire still rapidly growing. Already the fire has burned and forced to close the Rocky Mountain National Park. All parts of Colorado have been facing droughts in the past year with obvious repercussions. Most of the East Troublesome fire is fueled by winds and dry pine trees. 

        

        In just 2020 alone there has been around 61 large wildfires in the US. Currently they cover around 4 million acres. Other states with larger fires have been Oregon, Arizona, and Washington. Most of the state and federal government have different ideas about what the fires are from. The Californian Governor Newsom believes that the large amount of fires is from climate change. The Federal government has claimed it is due to lack of forest management. Either way these fires have been getting worse every year and there needs to be some action. Thousands of firefighters have been fighting the flames with local new channels speculating it could cost around 200 million dollars. With the election right around the corner, much of the news has been centered around politics  and not enough on issues that are causing theses fires.

            What do you think is the cause of these fires and what should the solution be?

            During the Californian fires, many inmates have been used to help fight the flames. In the future should this be allowed?

            Whose responsibility should it be to keep the fires at bay by managing forests and cleaning up dead or dry brush?

 Source:

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/22/926838887/colorado-fire-grows-by-over-100-000-acres-in-1-day-hits-rocky-mountain-national-

                    

Trump Provides aid for California Wildfires

 

On Friday the 16th, President Trump agreed to send disaster relief to California to help contain the wildfires that are ravaging. This comes shortly after the President received letters from Governor Newsom and other Republican Representatives from the state urging President Trump to send aid. The relationship between California and the White House has been shaky ever since President Trump took office. 

This Fall, California has had another devastating wildfire season. With numerous fires raging throughout the state, more than 1.8 million acres of land have been burned and thousands of homes destroyed. All of us have felt the effects of these fires one way or another. Whether it’s being forced inside because of the smoke, waking up to an Orange sky, or knowing someone who has had to flee their homes. With these fires affecting everyone in the state, one might ask “why didn’t President Trump send aid sooner?” 

President Trump has cited multiple reasons for not providing aid to California. Rather than point to Climate Change as the primary reason like Governor Gavin Newsom does, Trump instead believes that poor forest management is the number one contributing factor. Trump has said numerous times that he won’t send hundreds of millions of dollars to California until they can get their act together. The media often claims that Trump doesn’t send aid to California because of political reasons. California is a very liberal state, and probably will not be helping Trump this coming November. While this is definitely true for Californias population along the coast, which are dominated by liberals and Democrats alike. Communities more inland (and the ones who are most affected by the fires) lean more Republican. However, while these political reasons are probably there, it is unclear to what extent they are.

It would be false to say the President is completely wrong though. Year after year California is hit by devastating wildfires and the state's fire services are completely overwhelmed and caught seemingly unprepared. California has even been known to use prisoners to help fight the fires due to lack of manpower. Californian Democrats point to Climate Change as the primary cause and focus their efforts on tackling climate change to indirectly fight the fires. While Californian Republicans along with President Trump also point to poor forest management. However non-political environmental experts agree that both of these problems contribute to the wildfires. 

The wildfire issue in California has become too politicized. California needs a more direct approach to fighting wildfires, alongside the indirect help by tackling climate change. These fires affect people in California from all across the political spectrum, and Californias Democratic leaders along with the White House need to have better communication in order to properly address the Wildfire crisis.

Is President Trump's reasoning for initially withholding aid justified?

Can California do more by itself to prepare for and fight Wildfires?

Sources:

NYTimes Article

NPR Article

Trump's Hypocritical Medical Treatment for COVID-19

    On October 1, 2020, President Trump announced that he and Melania Trump had tested positive for COVID-19. Within the next couple of days, Trump was flown to Walter Reed National Medical Military Center to receive treatment for the virus. Few details were released to the public regarding his symptoms and official timeline, so it is hard to figure out what was actually going on inside the White House. One thing that we do know is that one specific treatment that Trump received was developed by human embryonic tissues, which are essentially cells harvested from aborted fetuses. This medical practice is widespread and has been used frequently around the world. However, in 2019, the Trump administration imposed strict human tissue research regulations, which backs up his pro-life stance. Although the human tissue research has been halted, the treatment that Trump received was from cells harvested from fetuses aborted before 2019. Even though these harvested cells can be stored for a long time, there is not enough to provide the public with treatment because of recent medical practice regulations. While it is technically legal to continue this research in private labs, the process is costly, and all federal grants have been rejected due to the regulations. So essentially, Trump received a treatment that will not be available to the public because of his policies.

Personally, I am not surprised by the hypocrisy in this situation because, unfortunately, it is our new normal when it comes to President Trump. Because the treatment did seemingly go well, I think that Trump should consider lifting the regulations he implemented on the research program so that more people could have access to treatment. However, I find it very unlikely that he will do this due to his commitment to the far right and his support of the pro-life regulations.

Questions: 

1. Should the remaining, viable, harvested cells be distributed to part of the public? Or because it is not widely available, would it cause more damage in society?

2. Do you think that Trump’s pro-life stance justifies cutting the federal research on human embryonic tissues? 

Article Link

Barrett’s Record: A Conservative Who Would Push the Supreme Court to the Right

 

President Donald Trump has nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacant seat caused by the tragic passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September 2020. Judge Barrett should not be appointed by President Trump to be a new Supreme Court Justice. With everything I have read and researched about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, she does not give a clear stance on certain topics I find important, such as climate change and systemic racism. Also, her views on a woman’s right to choose what she can or cannot do with their body is contrary to my own beliefs. Amy Coney Barrett has actively attempted to restrict abortion laws and admitted to signing two advertisements opposing the Roe v. Wade decision, which made abortion legal in the United Staes. If Judge Barrett is appointed, she, along with the other pro-life Judges of the Supreme Court, could impact a woman’s ability to gain access to medically safe abortion procedures through their rulings on laws or cases brought before them. Furthermore, with her appointment, the Supreme Court will also be unbalanced with more conservative leaning judges leading to less diversity in views. There needs to be more moderate to liberal leaning judges who offer other points of view so laws will be interpreted in a more balanced way, especially when it comes to situations where the Supreme Court needs to vote on key decisions affecting all Americans. 

Should Amy Coney Barrett be appointed to be a new Supreme Court Justice?

How can our Supreme Court Justice appointment process ensure there is a diversity of perspectives to avoid potentially unbalanced rulings that don’t represent the majority of Americans?

 

SOURCES:

 https://www.nytimes.com/article/amy-barrett-views-issues.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-hearings-abortion-roe-v-wade/

The Plot to Kidnap Michigan's Governor

 

                On October 8th, the FBI arrested 13 men, charging them over kidnapping or threats to the capitol. This resulted from a several-month long plot concocted by far-right Michigan extremists to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, their democratic governor, over her strict coronavirus regulations. They debated how best to execute their plan, some wanted to place a car bomb or pose as a food delivery service. Some advocated for storming the state capital, or attacking police and causing civil war. Luckily, these men caused no harm, but they went as far as testing explosives and heavily arming themselves. The FBI argued to Congress that white supremacists and violent extremists are the most critical threat facing America today, and 2019 saw the most deaths from domestic violence extremism since 1995.  

                  One analyst described this unique combination of bitterness over coronavirus lockdowns, unemployment fears, racial justice/police protests, political party polarization, and long-term impact of veterans returning home from overseas as "the perfect storm of paranoia".  Additionally, Donald Trump supported anti-government protests, tweeting "liberate Michigan", calling the armed protestors in the state capitol "good people". He never outwardly condemns terrorist groups, thrilling members of fringe militias such as the "Proud Boys". 

                This appals me, no president should encourage civil unrest and divisions within his or her country. Extremism is unavoidable regardless of the situation, but it should be far better handled than it was in this scenario. At the very least, Trump should have publicly criticized these groups, as staying silent would add to the problem. With the looming threat of domestic extremism, it's crucial that people in power manage these situations properly. The underlying issue is Trump's lackluster management of the pandemic, the protests, and his belief that the virus is a fraud, which is why he advocated to 'liberate' states. As a whole, Trump's management of the situation is unacceptable to me.

Here are some questions to consider:

1. How does easy access to guns affect domestic terrorism? How should this be weighed in gun rights debates? What changes should we make to ensure that plots like this can never be carried out?

2. How could Trump have better handled this? How do we prevent situations like this from occurring in the future? On the other hand, if people are unhappy with their leaders, what steps should they take to make change? 

3. Why is Trump dividing the country right before the election? How would this tactic prove useful/unuseful with accumulating votes? How could this help/hurt him? 

Sources:

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/10/17/the-plot-against-gretchen-whitmer

https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/10/17/videos-photos-whitmer-kidnapping-plot-exhibits/3686218001/

One last vote: In Michigan, a terminally ill man’s mission to cast a ballot

 Article link

I was shocked to learn (spoiler alert from the article) that Mr. Williams vote was invalidated because he died before election day. What?! He voted! But yet the state won't accept his vote? Come on. What's the purpose of that? I am beyond annoyed that each state has different, confusing, and nonsensical rules about voting: some allow early voting while some don't, some allow mail-in ballots to all while some don't, some allow ex-felons to vote while some don't, some require IDs to vote while others don't. Sure, federalism allows states to be in charge of voting, but past amendments (15th - people of color voting, 19th - women voting, 24th - no poll tax to vote, 26th - 18 year olds can vote) have regulated voting, as have laws like the Voting Rights Act. I think we need more uniform voting laws/regulations to enshrine consistency across the UNITED States of America. Step one: have a National Holiday to vote. What's your take on voting rules? Have a reaction to this article? 

Trump Administration Reverses Course, Approves California’s Request for Wildfire-Relief Funds

article link

On Friday afternoon, California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that President Trump and his administration had agreed to California's requests for wildfire relief funds, reversing their decision from the day before that had refused aid. The fires, which began this year early in September, have ravaged the state, burning almost 1.9 million acres of land and calling for evacuations across the state.

Last month, Newsom wrote a letter to the President explaining the $229 million damages that the fires had caused and called for help from the federal government, as California was and is still unable to pay for relief efforts on our own, especially with the costly impact of Covid-19.

While this letter alone was not enough, after the President’s refusal to help, Newsom and the House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy worked together to present a firm argument as to why the Trump administration needed to reconsider their decision; this directly contrasted FEMA’s stance, which was that the wildfire damages were not beyond the limits of the state's capabilities, and thus did not need the aid.

Luckily, the President and his team quickly reversed their decision and approved Newsom's September 28th request for an emergency declaration.

However, the President has reiterated multiple times that unless California advances our forest-management efforts, he may get rid of our emergency-relief funds, despite numerous scientists pointing towards climate change as the issue, instead of forest management skills.

Personally, while I’m glad that the administration approved the aid, I think that the much bigger problem at hand is Trump’s stance on climate change and his staunch belief that mere forest management will solve our issue of increasingly damaging wildfires. This stance, which is not backed up by the majority of scientists, has led him to resist helping us in a time of need. So, I believe that the President either needs to be educated more on the topic of climate change and accept that it exists, or step down, before more land and lives are lost.

On that note, here are some questions to consider:

1. What do you think of the Trump administration’s quick reversal of their original decision? Why did they change their minds so quickly? Do you think they made the original decision too hastily?

2. Why do you think the Trump administration approved California’s request for wildfire-relief funds if Trump thinks that the state isn’t doing a good enough job managing the fires in the first place (referring to his stance on forest management)?

Bernard Cohen, Lawyer in Landmark Mixed-Marriage Case, Dies at 86

 

Article Link

The story of Bernard Cohen makes me think of how any person can make an impact on peoples' lives. I'll be honest, his name won't be a YNTK next semester when we cover Loving v. Virginia, but behind every term/concept/event, there are thousands of people with families, hopes, dreams, sacrifices, doubts - the entire gambit of the human condition. It's nice to be remembered, as this obituary does, of how any of us can make an impact. What do you think? Is history "made" by big/important people? Do history classes, mine included, do a disservice to the discipline by focusing on the "big ideas" and not somehow "regular people"? What's the right balance?

What does ‘packing the court’ mean and why are Democrats talking about it?

 

article link

    Over the last couple weeks, you may have noticed Trump, along with many other Republicans, pressure Biden and the Democrats to answer if they would “pack the courts”. With the Democrats refusing to answer the question during the debates and online, what does it mean to Pack the courts? Will the Democrats do it if they win the house and the presidency? If Trump-nominee Amy Coney Barrett replaces Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court, the answer is rightfully yes.

    After the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Donald Trump nominated conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat. Before Ginsberg's death, the Supreme Court was 4 liberals and 5 conservatives, and in the likely event that the Republican-backed Barrett gets rushed to fill the seat, the court would become a 6-3 conservative majority. If the court becomes conservative many crucial rulings such as Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act may get overturned but if the Democrats sweep the upcoming election, they will have the power to “pack the courts”. Expanding the number of seats in the Supreme Court in order to combat the conservative lean.

    If Biden wins the election he would still need the approval of the house and senate to pack the courts, meaning Democrats would have to sweep the election for it to pass. Biden states that the US will hear his opinion on court-packing after the election is over, which Republicans have taken as a clear yes. If Biden decides not to pack the court, however, democrat rulings on issues, such as solving COVID and racial discrimination, may get overturned in the courts, halting any progress on the Democrat agendas to fix the broken America.

    If the Democrats win the election, do you agree with packing the courts? Should they be allowed to pack the courts?

    With the Trump Administration rushing to fill the seat of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ensuring a conservative court weeks before the election, the Democrats will have to pack the court, and justifiably so.

president trump refuses to take part in the virtual debate

 

The presidential election is near by and for that there are debates between the two candidates Joe Biden and President Trump. In recent events Trump tested positive for covid-19 and in response to this they were going to set up a vital debate for everyone's safety but President Trump refused to do so. These presidential debates have been a mess and have just seen the presidents going at one another and are seen as one of the worst debates in history and this cancelation also seems to be ironic due to Trump and his supporters stating that Biden was going to pull out of these debates but now Trump is. Trump acting like a child is refusing to take part in this important debate and says “that's not how debates work”. He seems to refuse to do anything that won't go his way. In response to this the second debate was pushed back to october 22. This is very immature from the president, he has been playing down the covid pandemic ever since it started and now since he tested positive and got the best treatment from americans tax dollars he is still downplaying and now refusing to take part in a virtual debate because it not what he wants, he is acting like a child. My question is do you think president trump should've been forced to take part in this virtual debate so things would stay on schedule. 

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/second-2020-presidential-debate-canceled-after-trump-balks.html 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/trump-biden-second-presidential-debate-cancelled-2020-election-b920825.html 

Trump's "Immunity" to Coronavirus

     

    Almost a week after hosting the Rose Garden Ceremony which included over 150 guests, Trump announced on October 2nd, via Twitter, that he and the First Lady had tested positive for COVID-19. The president was then flown to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where it was reported that he had symptoms of coughing, fever, and congestion. He received a number of unreleased therapies such as monoclonal antibodies and remdesivir- a drug only approved for emergency use in patients moderately to severely ill and in intensive care. However, much to everyone's surprise, Trump was released from the hospital three days later and returned to the White House. The President tweeted on October 11th, "A total and complete sign off from White House Doctors yesterday. That means I can’t get it (immune), and can’t give it. Very nice to know". Twitter ended up flagging this tweet for violating the Twitter Rules by "spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to Covid-19”. 

    In my opinion, I think it's extremely irresponsible for the President to be spreading misinformation about this deadly virus. His claim that a sign off means that he is "immune" has not been proven by the medical world and implies the idea that anyone that has had coronavirus has no reason to social distance anymore. Furthermore, Trump has been extremely sketchy with his COVID-19 test reports (the date that he was actually diagnosed is uncertain) and is yet to display evidence of a negative test after his initial diagnosis. If he is actually 100 percent coronavirus free then he should have nothing to hide and other doctors are quick to point out the unreliability of his statements. Arguably the most influential man in the world, President Trump is spreading false information about a deadly virus in the midst of a pandemic by allowing others to assume that you can’t spread the virus just because you can discontinue isolation or happen to be 10 days out from your first positive test, and that recovering from COVID-19 automatically makes you immune to ever contracting the disease again.

Do you think Twitter had the right to flag the tweet and potentially hinder our President's "right to free speech"?

Was Trump doing the public a disservice by downplaying his diagnosis and the seriousness of this pandemic?

What impact will this have on the upcoming election (if any)?

Sources:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-covid-19-timeline-diagnosis-symptoms-treatment-n1242164

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/10/11/twitter-flags-trump-tweet-hes-that-immune-to-covid-19-coronavirus-not-contagious/#1521c6edddd4

https://time.com/5896274/trump-covid-19-treatments/

New York City Closes its Schools after Reopening Them for a Short Time

    As people worldwide make adjustments to get through COVID-19, a pandemic that has become a new type of normal for everyone, one of the biggest changes was the shift in education. While some schools are allowing a mix of in-person schooling, most have resorted to online classes, whether this was in the form of asynchronous, synchronous, Zoom, Google Classroom, etc. However, even with a large number of cases in the United States, Andrew Cuomo, the governor of New York, stated on August 7th that the schools across the city could reopen. On October 1st, New York City became the first big city to reopen all its schools for 3-year olds in pre-K programs to high school seniors. However, on October 5th, New York started to close down their schools again. According to the Mayor of New York City, most of the schools that closed were private yeshivas (an Orthodox Jewish College or Seminary) with ~100 public schools. However, if the city's average test positivity rate reaches 3% (currently around 1.5%) over seven days, the public system would have to reclose.

Should New York City have more restrictions in place regarding those who are returning to school, such as age limits, how often, and making it optional?

With the reopening of schools in New York City, how do you think this will affect the rest of the United States schooling systems? Would you feel comfortable returning to school in an environment like this?

Sources:

N.Y. Schools Can Reopen, Cuomo Says, in Contrast With Much of U.S.

New York Becomes First Big City in U.S. to Reopen All Its Schools

N.Y.C. Closes Some Schools … Again

World Trade Organization Is Led by a Women for the First Time in History

 The World Trade Organization (WTO) regulates global trade agreements. Recently, the organization's current leader Roberto Azevedo announced he would step down in August. Two finalists were chosen to lead the organization, and they are both female! Okonjo-Iweala is one of these finalists, a chair of the Vaccine Alliance in Gavi, finance minister of Nigeria, and graduate from Harvard with a PhD from MIT. If she is appointed director-general she will be the first African person to lead WTO. Yoo Myung-Hee is the other finalist, South Korea's minister for trade with a master's degree from Seoul's National University as well as a doctorate from Vanderbilt University. She also was briefly working at the Korean Embassy in Beijing, China. I'm really glad to be seeing such independent and powerful women becoming one of the world's strongest leaders. Sexism still exists and women are constantly prevented from opportunities worldwide. Having a women as the director-general for WTO is really inspiring for all females. I believe girls should see this and feel empowered to do anything they wish as Okinjo-Iweala and Yoo Myung-Hee set perfect examples for a woman's potential. I hope to see more women taking higher positions around the world, especially women of color!

1. How do you feel about a woman of color leading the WTO? How will this impact the world?

2. Many people believe these two finalists were chosen just because they're women of color. What do you think about this and the concept of "token minority"?

Source: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/history-making-world-trade-organization-led-woman/story?id=73520274&cid=clicksource_4380645_10_heads_posts_headlines_hed

Charpentier and Doudna: First Two Women to Share Science Nobel Prize

 

This past week, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna became the first two women to be awarded the Nobel science prize for their revolutionary work in genome-editing. They were awarded for their 2012 discovery in which they found that parts of an ancient bacterial immune system, also known as CRISPR, could be used to edit DNA. To put it into more simple terms, many refer to this discovery as being “genetic scissors,” meaning researchers can now work with microbial genomes of plant and animal cells in a precise, in-depth way that was never possible before. In the future, this breakthrough is expected to help cure adults and children with brain disorders that would typically appear to be beyond our control. 

Much of the controversy over this event has little to do with the functionality of CRISPR itself, but rather the patent dispute and whether or not the recipients should have been credited for this discovery. I feel as though this award was well deserved, however, others seem to disagree. During the few months following Charpentier and Doudna’s breakthrough, a biochemist named Feng Zhang made CRISPR edit the genomes of live, human cells. Three is the maximum number of recipients that are allowed to share one award, and some believe that by giving the award to two people, they are excluding someone who many people consider to be a co-developer of CRISPR’s new functionality. I believe that it was a completely reasonable decision to give this award to Doudna and Charpentier, as there is no denying that they were the first pioneers in this experiment that made the initial/key discoveries. As of Wednesday, there have been 7 women in total that have won this award, while the amount of male winners is 185. 

With that being said, here are some questions:

• Do you think that Doudna and Charpentier deserve to have full credit for this award because they made the initial discoveries, or do you think Zhang should’ve been included alongside them?
• To go into a broader topic regarding women in STEM, there is no doubt that this area has been historically dominated by men. As a result, women are oftentimes not treated as equals in their field. How should we handle this issue to make the field more inclusive and equal?

To end, here is a quote from Charpentier: “I think it’s very important for women to see a clear path. I think the fact that Jennifer Doudna and I were awarded this prize today can provide a very strong message for young girls.” 

Sources:

https://www.statnews.com/2020/10/07/two-crispr-scientists-win-nobel-prize-in-chemistry/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/2020-nobel-prize-in-chemistry-awarded-for-crispr-to-charpentier-and-doudna-20201007/

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2020/summary/

‘We Need to Take Away Children,’ No Matter How Young, Justice Dept. Officials Said

Article link here

Quote 1: "We need to take away children." -- Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Quote 2: "We have now heard of us taking breastfeeding defendant moms away from their infants." -- U.S. Government prosecutor

No matter ones belief on immigration policy - whether the U.S. should accept more immigrants per year or crackdown on undocumented immigration - the policy of child separation will go down (in my perspective) as a horribly immoral procedure. President Lincoln famously said, "The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation." Well, the spotlight will shine on ex-Attorney General Jeff Sessions for pushing this program along with the Trump administration officials who signed off on it and implemented it. 

I know none of us are experts in immigration policy, but what are you views on how the U.S. should implement immigrant policy? Open boarders seems untenable, so there needs to be enforcement, but what should that look like in your eyes? Child separation is certainly off the table for me. I think refugees should be accepted though. 

Synchronous Learning vs. Asynchronous Learning in Online Education

    

     The question, "Should we have Wednesdays as asynchronous learning days," has been floating around the district amongst administration as well as students. As of right now, most students are in a synchronized learning environment online due to the covid-19 pandemic. But what are some benefits of this way of learning? There is more engagement between students as well as lots of instruction and help from teachers; however there is a strict schedule that students need to follow in order to keep up with all their school assignments as well as technical difficulties that can make it hard to participate in class. Staring at a screen for six or more hours a day, then (according to a study in a New York Times article) doing homework for three and a half to four hours (or more) each night all while on a computer can be demotivating and challenging for a high school student. According to the National Education Association, students should only be getting up to about one or two hours of homework maximum. Asynchronous learning gives students the opportunity to work at their own pace and when they have the time too. This is beneficial because then they are less stressed about meeting others deadlines, as well as having less pressure on themselves by the competitive nature of some schools. It also lets people have time to spend with family, be outdoors, do extracurriculars, and focus on mental health. As a high school student participating in synchronous online learning, do you think having Wednesdays as an asynchronous learning day would be more beneficial or harmful? Is it a good break to catch up on work, or a waste of time and a day that could be spent in class? 

Synchronous vs Asynchronous Learning Article 

Which is Right for Learners?

Pros and Cons of Synchronous Learning

Upwards of 18% of College Students believe that Violence is acceptable to stop certain Campus Speakers

Article Link

Honestly, this is really concerning. I can fully understand wanting to express one's political beliefs, and fully support polite disagreement and civil discussion. In fact, the Civil Rights movement widely achieved its goals by similar violent disobedience to what some of these students find acceptable to protest a Campus Speaker. However, such a large majority of Students willing to commit violence to achieve the goal of suppressing another person is very, very bad for the future of this country. The suppression of speech is never a good thing. If these people hold these views, and they are being shut down by violence, then they likely won't give up these beliefs; they'll just start believing them in secret. And if that happens, then eventually that could reach a boiling point, and erupt in into wider scale, more destructive conflict. Beyond that, the simple acceptance of this as an acceptable method to avoid hearing an idea or having it expressed, even if it is a bad idea, then this can be truly damaging for the maintenance of our Republic. We shouldn't feel the need to shut people down with violence, or to self-censor our ideas, even if they are stupid or dumb. If they are harmful or advocate for violence, then they should be condemned and ignored; like the push for violence among these students. 

Behind the Scenes: The Causes for Voting Among the American Youth

Daily Democrat

    The year 2020 has been without a doubt a very trying year for not only America but the entire world. With COVID-19, climate change, and other issues, it's only logical that American citizens are experiencing stress and low morale. On top of that, the presidential elections are taking place this year which makes the decision of who is going to be the leader of our nation even more crucial. The University of California surveyed people from the ages of 18-24 about their plans for the election and pleasantly, 60% of youth surveyed claimed that because of all the crises in America, they were motivated to vote early by mail-in ballots. The combination of the vicious reports of police brutality throughout the year and COVID-19 response are among the main concerns of American youth. The killing of George Floyd raised national demand for the government to combat the horrific acts of violence committed by police towards African-Americans and other people of color. Additionally, the outbreak of the coronavirus has put many families in poverty as well as ended businesses, so seeing the youth of the country recognize and demand change for these problems is a reassurance. Although there are many problems that still need to be addressed, the first step is to make sure that the nation deals with the current issues at hand and voting is the first step. As an American youth yourself - how do you feel the current state of American politics in addition to the pandemic has influenced your political view? How do you think the trend of American youth participating in politics will look like in future? 

Should the Remaining Presidential Debates be Cancelled?

President Trump left, former Vice President Biden right

Washington Post

NPR

Presidential debates are conducted to inform voters about the candidates' policies on 

the current most controversial issues of the nation. Although questions were asked by

Chris Wallace about relevant subjects (such as the coronavirus, the economy, and the

supreme court to name a few), Tuesday’s presidential debate fell short of giving the

audience a clear course of action from each candidate. Although former Vice President

Joe Biden addressed the American public on a multitude of instances, those efforts were

overshadowed by the pure chaos that filled the screen for 90 minutes. Rules were

agreed upon by both the Republican and Democratic parties, but neither candidate

strictly followed them and it turned into an interrupting war leaving viewers with a

headache. At this point why should they even continue? The Commission on Presidential

Debates is planning on adding more “structure”, but is this a futile effort as there was a

clear process at the last debate and it was still not followed? As a tangential issue, while

engaging in the debate, President Trump emphasized his skepticism on mail-in ballots

and the election process. This can be inferred as the reason why he’s “not sure” if he’ll

step down as president if the time comes. There are many obvious flaws in our country,

however, there is no evidence to support the accusation that mail-in ballots are one of

these flaws. The director of MIT Election Data and Science Lab recently published an op-ed that explained the fraud rate due to this type of voting is 0.00006%. 

This leaves the question: is encouraging chaos after election day justified civil

disobedience? Where is the line between trying to create a more reliable system and

undermining democracy?