Major news networks will air Trump’s primetime appeal for border wall funding, tonight. The move has drawn criticism from a variety of sources. 

A USA Today opinion piece argues that news networks should only air Trump’s appeal with live fact-checking: 

It is a disservice to the American people to broadcast, without context or real-time fact-checking, someone who is using the airwaves for the sole purpose of lying to the American people about an overtly racist agenda.

Seth Meyers argued that networks shouldn’t give Trump the airtime to express his lies: 

Although Trump originally wanted to give the address at the border, he instead opted for the gravitas of the Oval Office. NPR notes that the Oval Office has been the scene of many monumental announcements, and Trump may be trying to invoke the authority of office.

TV networks feel bullies into allowing the address:

This despite the fact that many did not a similar address from Obama in 2014. Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer released a statement: “Now that the television networks have decided to air the President’s address, which if his past statements are any indication will be full of malice and misinformation, Democrats must immediately be given equal airtime.”

More news.

Over two weeks into the government shutdown there seems little hope of a consensus. The New York Times underscores the gap between the two groups with this anecdote:

Vice President Mike Pence insisted on beginning the first meeting with a prayer, so the chief of staff to the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, asked God to “to bring us together” when negotiators met Saturday in Mr. Pence’s ceremonial office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

The next day, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s staff members, who were representing the Democratic side, began with their own prayer, which noted that Jesus and Mary were both refugees.

The two disparate prayers underscored the stalemate that lawmakers find themselves in as the shutdown drags into its third week: The two sides could not even agree on a pro forma invocation.

Some lawmakers, the Washington Post notes, are declining or donating their pay in solidarity with those who affected by the shutdown, but that does nothing to bring the two sides closer together. 

Trump, meanwhile, is ramping up his efforts to get the public on his side. He plans to make a prime time address at the border to further sway people. He even, allegedly, lied about former presidents’ support for the wall. He has also threatened to eschew negotiations altogether and use emergency powers to build the wall, which NPR notes would be wide open to legal challenges. 

Despite the fallout from the shutdown––including a little sh*tshow in the national parks––and despite the public initially blaming Trump for it, the negative opinion towards Trump might be being shifted to Congress.

More news.

In 2014, ISIS seemed poised to take over the Middle East. Now, five years later, the group faces extinction. They’re not going quietly. According to CNN, an ISIS missile injured UK special forces members in Syria, the final hotbed of fighting:

Two members of the British special forces have been wounded in an attack by ISIS fighters in Syria, according to the Kurdish news agency Rudaw…The soldiers were hit by an ISIS missile attack on a Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) base in the east Syrian town of Shafa, Deir ez-Zor, Rudaw said. A Kurdish fighter was killed in the attack.

The UK did not confirm, but did not deny, the incident. 

Although President Trump has ordered US troops out of Syria:

In a statement to NPR, a coalition spokesperson said the U.S. mission in Syria has not changed. “We will continue to fight to achieve an enduring defeat of ISIS,” the statement said. Separately, the military has said it tries to avoid civilian deaths and has called ISIS a “ruthless enemy” that hides among civilians.

NPR further reports the dire circumstances for civilians and US coalition fighters in Syria. 

Finally, the New York Times reports that two Americans that joined ISIS are on the front lines in Syria:

A 34-year-old man from Houston who sent a résumé and cover letter seeking a job inside the Islamic State was captured alive on the battlefield alongside another American fighting for the terrorist group, according to the Syrian Democratic Forces, who announced the arrest on Sunday.

More news.

There’s a reason that China has dominated the news cycle for the past month or two: we’re witnessing the rise of the new world superpower. It’s ruthless, it’s authoritarian, and the entire world should be nervous. 

In the past months, we’ve relayed the following stories about China:

The genocide perpetrated against the Uighurs. It began by calling the Uighurs, a predominately Muslim ethnic minority, subversive. Then China began forcing the Uighurs into forced labor camps. Now, China is targeting Uighur intellectuals, in much the same way Nazis targeted Jewish intellectuals: “The mass detention of some of China’s most accomplished Uighurs has become an alarming symbol of the Communist Party’s most intense social-engineering drive in decades, according to scholars, human rights advocates and exiled Uighurs.”
China’s authoritarian population control methods. social creditThe Chinese have instituted a Black Mirror-esque scoring system. The worse your “social credit,” the harder your life becomes––think worse jobs, worse schools, worse pay, and fewer opportunities. 
China’s Cold War against the United States. waging a Cold WarAccording to a top CIA expert, China has been against the U.S.. China’s recent bellicosity (re: invading Taiwan and sinking U.S. aircraft carriers) supports that view.
Landing on the dark side of the moon. Landing on the dark side of the moon is more than just a cool scientific and technological feat. It’s a symbolic act that shows dominance in those fields. It’s also, potentially, evidence of China’s long-term strategy. The dark side of the moon may contain mineral resources that China will be in a better position to exploit. 
All of this indicates that China is positioning itself for international dominance in the next fifty years. As the U.S. and Russia continue to bicker, China will silently gain ascension. 

More news.

I recently published an article that got a lot of criticism. In it, I argued that John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight actually hurts democracy. It does so perhaps unintentionally, but in its attempts to be both funny and informative, I suggested it made some errors. Between comments calling me an idiot, a moron, etc., a few correctly pointed out that I lazily made my claim and offered no evidence to support it. They were right. In this article, I will more clearly state my case: John Oliver hurts democracy. 

What is a healthy democracy? 

In order to understand what it means to hurt democracy, we need to agree upon an “unhurt,” or an ideal democracy. And we should also set aside the fact that America is a republic (since we elect representatives), and not a direct democracy (since every single person doesn’t vote for every single issue)––at least, we should set it aside for now. Here are some things that, hopefully, we can all agree are necessary for a healthy democracy: 

An informed population: voters must be informed about what they’re voting for. Without a good grasp of current affairs, their votes are wasted. 
An educated population: voters need to be educated not only about the issues, but about the world in general. They need to know how to think and read critically, and they need to use those skills to inform their politics. 
A humble population: A recent Vox piece argued for the importance of humility. The realization that you are not infallible is crucial in a democracy, for the insistence that you are infallible is tyranny. When voters are humble, they’re willing to be wrong––they’re willing to root for the other side of the aisle if it means success for America. 
A respectful population: When Thomas Jefferson was elected in 1800, it was called the Revolution of 1800. Why was it revolutionary? Because power passed peacefully from one party to another, and at that time in the world such a thing was revolutionary. While there has always been, and there will always be, animus from the losing side, without a foundational level of respect for all Americans democratic changes of power will not last. 
How John Oliver hurts democracy

I think Oliver, in one way or another, hurts each of these points. 

Oliver offers very biased information: Oliver’s show was always left-leaning. That’s why I liked it, because I’m left-leaning. I recently counted the number of episodes directly related to the sitting president in the most recent season and in season two. Of the 32 episodes in the most recent season, 11, about one-third, were closely connected to Trump and the Trump administration. In season two? None were as closely related to the Obama administration––despite covering topics like government surveillance. Oliver did cite the Obama administration’s unwillingness to consider statehood for U.S. territories  for about four seconds (really) in one episode, but it was almost as an aside. He spent more time on a clip from America’s Got Talent. 
But this is a comedy show! That excuse has been used to dismiss criticisms against shows like Oliver’s or the Daily Show with John Stewart, but it’s a diversion. It doesn’t matter that these shows are comedies. Oliver’s show, though funny, makes convincing and well-researched claims and argues for policy change. It has real influence over people’s thinking. 
So what if it’s biased? Everyone is biased! Yes. Everyone is biased. Does that mean, however, we should simply dig into our biases? It’s fine to agree with someone’s politics, but things get dangerous when that agreement comes with a catch––and there is a catch to Oliver’s show. See the next points for that.
Last Week Tonight stymies critical thinking: The “it’s just a comedy show” excuse that I mentioned early is nefarious. Comedy is powerful––and comedy speaks truth to power. It’s an important tool for criticizing those in power precisely because it circumvents critical thinking in the audience by couching truth (or falsehood) in humor. Comedy shows criticizing political administrations are important, even critical. But when those comedy shows package their humor in the form of “hard-hitting journalism,” you have to wonder where the line between jokes and journalism is, and whether the audience knows.
Last Week Tonight models the opposite of humility: I can’t tell you how much I can’t stand the current administration, and I’ve expressed that discontent through my midterm ballot. But I refuse to allow myself to “hate” a man I’ve never met. I don’t need to mock him or make fun of his family, I don’t need to surround myself with negativity in order to remind myself to vote a certain way. Instead, I’m actually rooting for the current administration. I want them to do a good job. Oliver’s show, on the other hand, seems like it revels in negativity. Maybe they feel an obligation, or maybe they think they’ll get a better audience (which they’re not––average viewership on YouTube is down). I found that watching Oliver too much made me feel superior to Trump and Trump supporters. Like I knew something they didn’t. That’s not a good way to view your fellow American, and it certainly won’t lead to real dialogue. 
John Oliver’s show leads to disrespect: In a comment to one article I posted someone called me a snowflake. An alt-right snowflake. The existence of such a term is some kind of bizarre metacommentary on the state of both U.S. politics and Russian influence on U.S. politics, but that’s besides the point. So let me be clear: I’m not offended by Oliver or his show. I don’t like Trump’s administration, so criticisms of it don’t bother me. What bothers me is the lack of respectful discourse and a kind of educated humor that encourages audiences to do the same. Watching Last Week Tonight is bound to make people––even educated, thoughtful people––bitter and angry about Trump and his supporters. That’s a dangerous way to think about half of your country, and it’s not helpful.
Hopefully that explains the previous post a bit more. I look forward to reading your comments.

More television.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a 29-year-old woman. She defeated an incumbent House Representative in New York and was immediately catapulted to the national stage. As a self-described Democratic Socialist, her politics are quite left-leaning. Since about half of the U.S. population leans more conservative, naturally a lot of people disagree with her politics. That’s totally ok. It’s the rhetoric that surrounds her that’s worrisome. 

I don’t refer to the the political spats, either. For example, Outgoing Senator Claire McCaskill called Ocasio-Cortez a “bright shiny new object.” Ocasio-Cortez fired back on Twitter, saying “”Not sure why fmr Sen. McCaskill keeps going on TV to call me a ‘thing’ and ‘shiny object,’ but it’s pretty disappointing.” Fair enough, but that’s fairly standard partisan bickering. 

What worries me is the dance video that came out. In the video, a college-aged Ocasio-Cortez dances around barefoot. No big deal. Seriously––it’s no big deal. Some on the left have speculated, however, that it was a right-wing attempt to discredit Ocasio-Cortez. You know, because the state of our politics is so bad that some embarrassing dance moves spells certain political death.

I do not think, however, the video was leaked by a right-wing enemy. It’s clumsy, it’s pointless, and it’s not embarrassing. What makes me think that? This paragraph from the NYT write up:

An edited version of the original footage surfaced when a Twitter account with the handle @AnonymousQ1776 published it online. “Here is America’s favorite commie know-it-all acting like the clueless nitwit she is,” read the tweet from @AnonymousQ1776, which incorrectly described it as a video from her high school days. The account was deleted before it resurfaced and disappeared again on Saturday. 

This is what worries me. This tweet is inane. It’s over-the-top in its political vehemence. It seems like it could come from some “basement-dwelling right-wing nut job” from middle America. But it seems more likely to me that this is an example of Russian interference in U.S. politics. The goal of this video was not to discredit Ocasio-Cortez, but instead to get Americans arguing with each other.

More politics.

China’s quiet Cold War against the United States is heating up. Rear Admiral Lou Yuan of the Chinese Navy recently spoke to the Military Industry List summit, saying that the continued disputes over the South China Sea could be solved by sinking two US aircraft carriers. Yuan believes that the trade war between the two countries is part of escalating tensions and signals a “strategic issue.” 

The previously cited article continues: “In his speech, he said there were ‘five cornerstones of the United States’ open to exploitation: their military, their money, their talent, their voting system — and their fear of adversaries.”

Yuan believes that sinking an aircraft carrier would lead to too many casualties for the US to stomach: 10,000 sailors. If that happened, he said, “We’ll see how frightened America is.”

The Navy Times also points out the threat to Taiwan: 
If the US naval fleet dares to stop in Taiwan, it is time for the People’s Liberation Army to deploy troops to promote national unity on (invade) the island,” [Yuan] said. “Those who are trying to stir up trouble in the South China Sea and Taiwan should be careful about their future.

A retired Chinese Lt. General reiterated this pint: 
 
The PLA is capable of taking over Taiwan within 100 hours with only a few dozen casualties. A possible military conflict may take place in Taiwan soon. (But) As long as the US doesn’t attack China-built islands and reefs in the South China Sea, no war will take place in the area.
China’s language led the Washington Examiner, a conservative paper, to opine
Ultimately, this editorial is another warning for the U.S. — a warning that challenging China’s island imperialism and its feudal economic strategy is only going to become more complicated. And while growing allied support for U.S. actions in the Indo-Pacific are positive, in the end, China will only be deterred by America. We must seek a more constructive relationship and resist China’s defining challenge.

More news.

On Thursday, January 3 House Democrats passed a spending bill that specifically omitted funding for the border wall, snubbing Trump and his threats to veto any such bill. The bill did not make it past the Senate.

On the following day, Trump met with congressional leaders, but the two sides seem no closer to an agreement:

Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, the Senate Democratic minority leader, said after the talks in the privacy of the White House Situation Room that Trump told the group he would be willing to keep the affected government agencies closed for “months or even years.”

According to the New York Times:

Mr. Trump had no hostile words for the opposition. “I found the Democrats really want to do something,” he said. He designated Vice President Mike Pence, Kirstjen Nielsen, the Homeland Security secretary, and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser to meet with congressional representatives this weekend.

But Reuters points out that this positivity belies Trump’s willingness to take extreme measures to avoid negotiation: 
But raising the stakes in his tussle with the newly emboldened Democrats, Trump threatened extraordinary measures to build the wall, which he says is needed to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into the United States.

More news.

It has been a rough few years for for-profit colleges. Unlike traditional non-profit colleges, for-profit colleges make people rich. As a result, these colleges do anything they can to make money off students, including saddling them with enormous amounts of debt even if the students will never be able to pay them back, and even if the colleges themselves are absolutely not worth that money. They also knowingly take advantage of veterans, taking either their GI Bill money or encouraging them to take out loans. John Oliver’s segment does an excellent job of exposing how terrible these places really are: 

In the past few months, hundreds of millions of dollars of student debt from for-profit colleges has been forgiven. Nearly 180,000 of Career Education Corp.’s students won’t have to pay back their collective $493 million dollar debt, according to NPR, according to a series of settlements: 

The settlements, announced Thursday, describe a pattern of deception that misled prospective students about the potential cost of enrolling in CEC’s programs and their job prospects after graduation, among other issues.

About 20,0000 of Education Corporation of America’s students aren’t so lucky:

On Thursday, the U.S. Education Department contacted students enrolled at Education Corp. institutions — Virginia College, Brightwood Career Institute, Brightwood College, Ecotech Institute and Golf Academy of America — to offer guidance, including students at company campuses in Maryland and Virginia.

And as for their debt: 

A recent update of loan forgiveness regulations requires the Education Department to automatically forgive the loans of some students whose schools close, but the stipulation doesn’t immediately apply to ECA schools, according to the department

More education.

Cannabidiol, or CBD, is everywhere. Hemp is now a legal crop, which is leading some to hope that CBD is now going to be federally legal (not the case). People are dripping CBD oil under their tongues, filling their coffee and beer with it, and rubbing it on their aches and pains. True believers say it cures everything from anxiety to epilepsy, and despite its often hefty price tag they swear that it’s worth every penny.  Whenever a drug promises to cure every ailment, alarm bells should go off. So what’s the deal with CBD? 

 First, it’s very soon to tell. While there are some studies hinting at promising results from CBD, you may not want to jump on the CBD bandwagon just yet. Cecilia Hillard, director of the Neuroscience Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin, notes “There’s no regulatory agency that’s overlooking (CBD oil’s) purity, its concentration, whether or not there are other things that are present in the oils like pesticides, or molds, or heavy metals and so forth.” 

A New York Times piece made a similar point: 

A 2017 study in JAMA reported that only 26 of 84 samples of CBD oils, tinctures and liquids purchased online contained the amount of CBD claimed on their labels. Eighteen of them contained THC, which could lead to intoxication or impairment in some individuals. And a quarter had less CBD than advertised. 

The author concludes: “Future studies may show otherwise, but at present CBD looks more like an expensive placebo than a panacea.”

More health.

We recently dissected Jerry Falwell Jr.’s interview with the Washington Post, in which he said (seriously) that Trump could do no wrong in his eyes. Further, he said that Trump could do no wrong in any evangelical’s eyes. 

Not all evangelicals are of one mind about this. Southern Baptist Alan Cross tweeted a four part takedown: 

Here’s parts 3 and 4, to save you a click:

3) Hitler advocated for “positive Christianity” rather than a prophetic Christianity. Support the state as it advances its own interests and the state will leave you alone. Except, the state demands loyalty. Falwell’s position is disaster for the church in a democratic republic. 4) None of this is to say that Trump is Hitler or Falwell is promoting Nazi ideology. Not at all. Rather, this is about how history teaches us about the way subversion happens. Falwell lays the groundwork for church capitulation to the state. He should be vigorously critiqued.

All we have to say about Cross’s comments: Daaaannnngggggg.

Despite this scathing critique, many evangelicals continue to support Trump. The Washington Post notes that Trump is simultaneously relying on evangelicals to support the Wall and using the Wall to drum up support amongst them. 

The Atlantic, meanwhile, notes that changes are brewing: “behind the scenes, a group of Christian elites is quietly working to create new ways for rich evangelicals to affect the world around them—and to foster a different public image for the church.” This group seeks to break ties with the Republican party. 

More about religion. 

Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va., recently gave an interview with the Washington Post. In this interview, he both praised Trump and defended his stance on evangelical politics––a stance he wrongly believes to be the normative evangelical political position. In this interview, his theology (if you can even call it that) is weak. Here are some of the issues.

It’s such a distortion of the teachings of Jesus to say that what he taught us to do personally — to love our neighbors as ourselves, help the poor — can somehow be imputed on a nation. Jesus never told Caesar how to run Rome. It’s a distortion of the teaching of Christ to say Jesus taught love and forgiveness and therefore the United States as a nation should be loving and forgiving…

What a tricky argument Falwell Jr. makes here. In essence, he’s suggesting that religion is and individual affair, and that politics and religion are inherently separate. With that argument as a foundation, he can suggest that Jesus’ teachings only apply to an individual and not a nation. As a result, the nation––and the nation’s leader––can do despicable things. Ergo Trump isn’t so bad.

But there are so many problems with this argument. First, nations as we understand them didn’t exist in Jesus’s time. Jesus wasn’t thinking about things in terms of nations and individuals because that’s a very modern way of seeing the world. It’s also very modern to think that religion is an individual and not a communal phenomenon. Jesus speaks of a kingdom of heaven––that’s a community of people. He laid down guidelines to live together in community, and that can more easily extend to nations than to individuals. And finally, Jesus absolutely did tell Caesar how to run Rome! His Passion was a giant middle finger to Roman authority. His teachings challenged Roman rule in subtle, but powerful ways. 

The government should be led by somebody who is going to do what’s in the best interest of the government and its people. And I believe that’s what Jesus thought, too.

This is stunningly wrong and self-defeating. First, in the best interest of the government and the government’s people? That’s corruption. Second, Jesus absolutely, categorically, did not teach this and there is no scripture to support it. There’s a line in Romans about obeying the government, but that’s Paul’s teaching, not Jesus’. Moreover, Jesus’ teachings point people away from earthly power––think of the rich young ruler. 

There’s two kingdoms. There’s the earthly kingdom and the heavenly kingdom. In the heavenly kingdom the responsibility is to treat others as you’d like to be treated. In the earthly kingdom, the responsibility is to choose leaders who will do what’s best for your country.

I’m not sure where he’s getting this binary from. Jesus talks about only one kingdom––the kingdom of heaven. 

It’s fine for Falwell Jr. to support Trump, but it’s very incorrect to claim that his reasons for doing so are scriptural. His reasons are laid out clearly in the interview: 

Why have Americans been able to do more to help people in need around the world than any other country in history? It’s because of free enterprise, freedom, ingenuity, entrepreneurism and wealth. A poor person never gave anyone a job. A poor person never gave anybody charity, not of any real volume. It’s just common sense to me.

I’m reminded of a Bible verse. Perhaps Jesus was wrong, though, and giving out of poverty isn’t the best way to go. Maybe he should have got the poor woman a job at Facebook so she could write a fatter check. 

More about religion.