Category: Politics and Geopolitics

Part 187- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 3

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment General Topics, Politics
Part 187- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 3

Today we start strong with Vivek Ramaswamy’s second truth: There are two genders.

Identity and Gender

Today’s world is changing. There are new ideas, concepts, feelings, and environments that we wouldn’t have even imagined of years ago. One of the ideas we’ve seen more around us is the creation of identity and categorization of gender.

The LGBTQIA+ community, to be more specific, has grown to become even more diverse within the past years. Due to this, there has been a rise of demands for recognition of the different pronouns, genders, and identities people have chosen for themselves. A recent example is the addition of Two-spirit to the acronym, changing it to 2SLGBTQIA+. These new changes and expansions have been making many politicians a bit antsy about what to do.

2 Genders in Politics

The most well-known actions in politics taken against the queer community has to be the ones by Ron DeSantis in Florida. From the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, to the “Anti-Trans Bathroom” Bill, and so many more, he’s been quite notorious for fighting the 2SLGBTQIA+ community head on. I’d say this relates quite strongly to religion in politics. In my last post, I talked about Governor DeSantis’s strong religious beliefs and how that can be seen in his political actions. He’s very proud of his Catholic beliefs and Christ-centered household. Some of these beliefs include the demonization of same-sex couples or those who identify as a different gender than that assigned at birth.

Nikki Haley is quite similar, showing strong support for the “Don’t Say Gay’ Bill, and going as far as taking restrictive measures towards trans kids participating in sports. She believes that the idea of one using pronouns different than assigned gender at birth, or those of opposite gender playing on a sports team “weakens the country.” Vivek Ramaswamy has also verbally shown his opinions towards trans people, refusing to believe they exist, and proactively spreading false, dangerous narratives about 2SLGBTQIA+ people. Several of the other GOP potential candidates- such as Mike Pence, Asa Hutchinson, and Tim Scott- have expressed similar views by signing anti-LGBTQ+ bills, supporting conversion therapy, introducing federal legislature that defunds schools protecting trans children, and a number of other actions.

The Democratic Party candidates have been more open towards the community.The Biden presidency has “documented more than 200 policies, statements, and appointments to include and protect LGBTQ people” their first two years. Many other democrats have voiced their support and determination to stand with the LGBTQ+ community for equality and rights. I can see how this relates to the secular vs more religious-affiliated viewpoint of the two parties.

My Perspective

I support 2SLGBTQIA+. Some of my friends are queer, and I love how that makes all of us unique and have a different personality and opinion on things. I think the whole 2SLGBTQIA+ group is fascinating and beautiful really. I love to see how queer people express that side of themselves and how happy they are when they show who they truly are. It really shows how they’ve found who they are. A lot of times that could mean coming out as gay, trans, non-binary, gender-fluid, etc. 

This world is constantly changing. It’s complex and confusing, and we often lose sight of who we are and what our identity as a person is. I love seeing these people on Instagram or online and in real-life and how they’ve found who they are. I really don’t care if you’re this or that. It’s not my business to decide if it’s right or wrong. What I really prefer is for you to feel happy and free. Where you can live as who you are and not be forced to follow a norm and standard defined by others. Sure, at birth we are given two genders; male and female. But overtime, we grow to understand ourselves more than others. We understand the world and we interpret things differently. Certain things feel right to us more than others, and gender is often one of them.

But, there are also times where this can become too overwhelming.With the constant fight for equality and recognition of 2SLGBTQIA+ identities- such as pronouns- we’re now facing the need to ask what pronouns someone goes by. That I’m fine with. I want to make sure I’m addressing someone the way they want to be addressed or referred to as and don’t want to make them uncomfortable. But there come times where I feel unsure about what pronouns they go by based on name or features. I don’t want to come off as rude by assuming pronouns or gender, but I also don’t want to be seen as signaling someone out simply for being different if I ask them for their pronouns and not anyone else.

Apart from that I wanted to bring up the newest addition to the 2SLGBTQIA+ acronym; the 2S. The 2S was added for Two-Spirit, which in my opinion, does not fall under the LGBTQIA+ community. Two-Spirit is “a term used within some Indigenous communities, encompassing cultural, spiritual, sexual and gender identity.” The term reflects “complex Indigenous understandings of gender roles, spirituality, and the long history of sexual and gender diversity in Indigenous cultures.” It refers to people having a masculine and feminine spirit. To me, this feels more culturally associated than identity. I’m not saying it’s not, but it relates more heavily to the type of work a native does- as there are often specialized work roles within native communities- and social roles and clothing. Although it falls under someone’s identity, this more strongly encompasses how a person acts within the community and the roles they take on based on gender, rather than merely how they want to be recognized in society. It’s something ingrained within their cultural traditions- societal roles and participation within the community- whilst many of the other LGBTQIA+ identities don’t.

Otherwise, I feel that someone’s identity should be based on what makes them the most comfortable. They should feel safe, and free to express how they want to regardless of common social norms and customs. We shouldn’t try and define someone else’s identity based on our beliefs or religion. America is the land of the free, and if we don’t hav the freedom to express who we are and who we want to be, then is it truly America?

That was my take on the second truth, there are 2 genders, and I look forward to seeing you in the next one!

Part 186- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 2

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment General Topics, Politics
Part 186- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 2

Picking up from last week, this is part 2 of the 2024 election series. Last post I discussed a brief structure of this series, a table of the potential Republican candidates with aIl of their beliefs, as well as listed Vivek Ramaswamy’s 10 point plan. This is the first of the 10-post section talking about each of the points in detail and analysis from my perspective.

Just as a recap, here are the 10 points I am talking about.

10 Truths as per Vivek Ramaswamy: 

  1. God is real
  2. There are two genders
  3. Human flourishing requires fossil fuels
  4. Reverse racism is racism
  5. An open border is no border
  6. Parents determine the education of their children
  7. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind
  8. Capitalism lifts people up from poverty
  9. There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four
  10. The U.S. constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history

The reason I chose to integrate Vivek Ramaswamy’s 10 point plan is mainly because he’s the only candidate so far to have made his beliefs clear. He’s set up a very straightforward list of values he abides by, which he uses, and I want to use this as the basis of which I compare the potential candidates.

So, without further ado, let us begin with the first point.

Religion in Politics

Religion has had a tremendous influence over politics in the recent years. Abortion bans, laws against LGBTQ rights, religious lessons in school, it’s been heavily debated everywhere. But more specifically, when I mean religion in the United States, I mean Christianity.

America has been a country created and built fro freedom. Our first colonists, ‘settlers’, came for religious persecution. To escape the Church of England that opposed their different religious views. It’s essentially why Freedom of Religion is part of the First Amendment. But times have now changed. Back then there was one main religion with different branches that had different takes on it. That religion is Christianity. There were Protestants, Catholics, Quakers, Lutherans, Baptists, and so much more. In a way, they all had most of the same values, making some of the current topics we face in politics to be unthought of back then.

But as time passes by, America has slowly become a melting pot. You don’t see just one religion or multiple branches of that one religion, but instead multiple. Religions from all around the world, with each of their own unique tradition can be seen everywhere in America. Given this, we should feel the need to take all religions in account the best we can rather than just one. Yet, that doesn’t happen. Why is that so?

The Republican Party is heavily supported with evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics, while the Democratic Party tends to have liberal Protestants, Catholics, and secular voters in support. This ratio of supporters is what tends to make one party more bent on supporting certain decisions than other. But is that RIGHT? What effect can we see from this in today’s political decisions?

For me, I don’t think it’s right. Like I mentioned, America is influenced by religious freedom. To practice one’s own religion without fear or punishment. We shouldn’t be a country based on religion to make our decisions. One might bring up that countries that have religious governments in retaliation. True, but to compare that to America would be wrong. India, as an example, is a country where Buddhism and Hinduism originated from. It’s a cultural and religious hearth, where these values are integrated. America on the other hand is much different. We have a mix of religions and cultures that different people follow and live by everyday. While certain things are accepted in some religions it isn’t in others.

When politicians start making Abortion bans because their religion prohibits it, it’s almost like they’re forcing their religions on others. They expect others to follow a rule they follow in their religion, even when we all believe in different things. You shouldn’t bring religion and politics into play together, especially when we all have different ideas on religion. In a way, it takes away from freedom of religion. I mean, if your religion doesn’t allow abortions then that’s absolutely fine. But why should you stop me from getting one if I need it, when I am allowed to do so by my religion? The two shouldn’t correlate.

Candidates and Religion

I want to point out a very clever thing Vivek Ramaswamy did when describing his first truth. He said ‘God is real’. That’s it. It doesn’t necessarily say WHICH God he talks about. We would think he’s Christian but in reality he’s actually a Hindu. He proudly supports this, even while quoting parts of the Bible during tours. And really, that’s the greatness of it I guess. It doesn’t specify to which God is real, but simply that God is real. It aligns with all religions. Apart from that, he also states that we would hope for people to not fear making a leap to support him despite being of a different religion. Vivek Ramaswamy talks about how he’s a person of faith, similar to evangelical Christians. He’s connecting the two to show how difference in religion plays no part in his willingness to represent them.

Nikki Haley is a little different. Unlike Vivek Ramaswamy, she converted to Christianity. A lot of people constantly asked her about her religion and background when she identified as her parents’ Sikh religion as well as her husband’s Methodist faith. It got to a point where people understood she was talking about God, but more specifically which God. She finally addressed that she was Christian, as in order to gain the support needed to become South Carolina’s governor, they had to make sure it meant believing and praying to their Christian God. If she was was born into a Sikh family but converted to her husband’s religion, then does she truly believe in Christianity or did she do so for political gain? Moreover, if she believes that God is real then why would she feel the need to convert? She’s doesn’t necessarily use religion to advocate her political views, such as on abortion. She said she was “unapologetically pro-life” but will not “judge anyone who is pro-choice”.

Ron DeSantis is a different story. Ron DeSantis very proudly asserts his Christ-centered household and his Catholic beliefs. One of the things he advocates most for is religious education in school. His kids go to a school where they are taught stories from the Bible, and he says he and his wife are grateful for it, as well as when “{their} our kids are coming back from preschool or kindergarten and talking about David and Goliath.” He uses his religious views to support his actions including the attack on Disney, and religious education in schools. He has also said that “the country is ready for a spiritual revival to get back to what he believes are its founding principles.” However, our Founding Fathers didn’t base our founding principles on Christianity but rather on unalienable rights.

With Democrats, they tend to be more secular when it comes to religion. They don’t align with one religion and tend to act independently from that. President Biden, who is Roman Catholic similar to Governor DeSantis, however he doesn’t necessarily publicize it that much. Although it’s known he’s Catholic, he doesn’t talk much about his beliefs compared to others. He also doesn’t combine this with his political decisions.

(These are the most I’ve found on candidates based on religious values)

My Perspective

I respect all religions. It really doesn’t matter to me that much what you believe in, unless it results in trying to force those beliefs on someone else. That’s exactly what can be seen with the Republican Party from time to time.

I’m assuming that’s mostly what makes people so biased against Republicans at first thought. We tend to think about the actions that have come from beliefs in certain religions compared to some of the other values they have. Now, looking at this with a deeper analysis, I think I might understand why Republicans tend to be more Christian aligned. In the past, most Americans were white Christians who mostly followed the same God- with varying beliefs based on religion type. But as America has slowly become less white, less Christian, people are trying to hold onto their beliefs the best they can. Back when their religious beliefs and values were always present in the community and in people around them, there wasn’t much worry. But with the varying ideas, beliefs, cultures, and religions that have built and created the diverse community America is today, it’s not as easy. (Most) Republicans are trying to adhere with the Christian nationalism, making it more supported by evangelical Christians.

But these fears also lead to a lot of anti-Black, anti-immigrant, antisemitism views. (To name a few) It also leads to the need to bring back old practices in the past and increase the practice and teachings of Christianity to children in settings other than just at home. They want to keep the same values they’ve known stable, and consistent and don’t like the change with opposing views. There becomes a need for religious education ins chooses, Abortion bans, anti-woke bills, and LGBTQ freedom restrictions. It’s because of this that people- a lot of kids in my generation I’m mainly referring to- tend to view the Republican Party negatively. And, I’m not saying the Republican Party are necessarily right in these aspects. I strongly disagree with them on these topics, but after doing more research on them through this series, I’ve come to find myself understanding a lot of their views. Republicans constantly bring religion into politics, forcing those with different religions to abide and follow rules they don’t have to in their own religion.

In a generation where things are increasingly confusing, the only thing we all want to do is to find our own identity. We want to truly find who we are, make our own decisions and choices, and not to be coerced into something by others. I know, we’re bound to fail at that. We’ll make mistakes and do stupid things that we think are right, thinking we know better. But really that’s how we’ll grow. It’s how we’ll find what we want to do, how we want to work and be the person we want to be. But that ability is often taken away. A lot of time we’re falling into step as our parents. We repeat the same words they said at home in school, or growing up to believe the same things our parents our without a second thought. While that may be fine since we don’t know much at this time, it also prevents us from thinking for ourselves. To actually come up with our own ideas and opinions rather than regurgitating whatever someone else said because it sounded impressive and even right. But for how long would we keep doing this?

I feel that we should let people find who they are and build their own identity than trying to force things on one another. In certain circumstances, it is necessary to guide others, but we shouldn’t force a right or wrong based on one standard. Your right could be my wrong and vice versa. Maybe we’re both wrong or even both right. Regardless, it shouldn’t get to a point where we force that on another person. Especially religious beliefs.

This concludes the first truth of Vivek Ramaswamy’s 10 truths. See you next week for the second truth; There are 2 genders.

Part 185- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 1

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice, Politics
Part 185- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 1

It’s that time again; U.S. presidential elections. This is the second edition to my election series which I previously started for the last election in 2020. The overall framework of this series is to use Vivek Ramaswamy’s 10 truths. Vivek Ramaswamy has very openly and strongly expressed his beliefs in 10 simple bullet points, and I’ll be using these to analyze each candidate’s values. (This goes for both parties)

10 Truths as per Vivek Ramaswamy:

  1. God is real
  2. There are two genders
  3. Human flourishing requires fossil fuels
  4. Reverse racism is racism
  5. An open border is no border
  6. Parents determine the education of their children
  7. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind
  8. Capitalism lifts people up from poverty
  9. There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four
  10. The U.S. constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history

These points will be used to categorize as well as compare each candidate and each of their views on each of these points, allowing for me- as well as you- to decide which candidate you’d most likely want to support based on similar aligning views. Following the analysis of each point, I’m going to discuss the effect these beliefs play in politics as well as in every day life. This part will be discussed from my point of view, as a teenager.

The candidates will be formatted into a table at the end with their position on each of these 10 truths, as shown below. Although the table below consists of only Republican potential candidates, I’ll be discussing both Democratic and Republican candidates the best I can.

CandidatesAbortionEconomyForeign PolicyImmigrationOther
Donald TrumpPro-lifeAmerica first; China as a business partner, not political peerAmerica first; long term benefits for American citizensAgainst illegal immigration, US-Mexico wallPro-guns (2nd Amendment)
Ron DeSantisSupported bills restricting access to abortion, stopped short of saying he would support a federal banCut individual taxes, slash government spending, “American energy independence” and rollback of electric vehiclesOpposes additional US involvement in Ukraine, reduce economic ties with “communist China”, the US would no longer “kowtow to Wall Street”Eliminate the visa lottery and limit “unskilled immigration”Frequently “touted his opposition to gender-affirming care for trans people and other public health measures such as mask mandates”
Vivek RamaswamyPro-life, would not back a national abortion banUS should abandon its climate goals to drive down energy costs and boost its GDP, in favor of some corporate and individual tax cutsCriticized US aid to Ukraine, saying it is strengthening Russia’s alliance with Chinadeport “universally” and end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants (who would then be required to apply to become a citizen)
Tim ScottPro-life, would support a national 15-week banTax cuts and stronger economic competition with China. Championed legislation establishing “opportunity zones” which are meant to increase economic development in low-income areas by incentivizing private investmentSupports continued US aid to Ukraine, says Biden has not done enough. “Soft on China”In favor of a wall along US southern border to curb illegal migration and drug trafficking
Nikki HaleyPro-life, federal abortion ban “unrealistic”Opposes raising national debt limit, “veto spending bills that don’t put America on track to reach pre-pandemic spending”Labeled Chinese Communist party an “enemy”, criticized Trump for trying to befriend Chinese presidentVowed to tighten security at US-Mexico border, add 25,000 patrol agents, require companies to verify employees’ status online.
Chris ChristieNot support federal abortion banTargeted “excessive government spending” as the reason for inflation and floated cuts to social security, including MedicareTough on China-and-Russia, support for continued US aid to Ukraine
Mike PencePro-life, in favor of six-week abortion banBoosting US economy, employment high and inflation low (focus solely on reducing inflation), advocated for cutting social security benefitsAdvocated for continued US aid to UkraineVowed to finish the border wall
Doug BurgumPro-life, not support a national banPrioritize growing the country’s tech and energy sectorsWinning “Cold War with China” is importantSupports stricter restrictions of migration. Says Biden “hasn’t done enough to secure the US-southern border”
Asa HutchinsonPro-life, support a national banFloated extreme measures to balance the federal budget and reduce debt including cutting federal non-military workforce by 10%Would not cut economic ties with China, advocated for more action to counter China’s threat against Taiwan,Supports harsh restrictions on immigration
Organized from The Guardian

So let’s get into our ACTUAL first post of this series with the first truth; God is Real.

Part 181- Why the British Monarchy should be Abolished

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Politics ,

Welcome back to another post! Today we will be coming back to a topic I once briefly covered in the past: The British Monarchy. Now, short disclaimer before I begin: Everything in this post is of my own opinion based on research as well as accounts and stories I’ve learned about growing up. I have strong opinions about this topic so I will be very blunt and also speak informally in addressing people and title given that I simply do not care to do so. Given you have been notified, I will now proceed and explain the several factors of which I believe the British Monarchy should be abolished for.

Side Note: This post was originally going to be titled, ‘Why the British Monarchy can go suck it’, but given that it’s a little too bit of a vulgar term, I’ve revised it to something more suitable.

If you haven’t read my post on the Queen’s passing, then here is the link for that: Queen Elizabeth II’s Death In that I cover more in depth stories and events as well as reactions to the Queen’s death which will further justify my clams listed below. 

My main points for this topic are:

  • A Legacy of Colonization and Exploitation
  • Questioning the Relevance of the Monarchy
  • An Examination of Hypocrisy and Double Standards
  • Accountability and Reparation

Followed by a conclusion to summarize everything.

I live in a country that sometimes glorifies the British. The British are our allies, which is stupid since our original founding fathers moved to America to get away from England. I can’t agree with these views since, well, they aren’t great. My first point shows why.

A Legacy of Colonization and Exploitation

A big problem I have with the British Monarchy is how the expansion of their empire was based on deceit and subjugation. My prime examples will be from India, but this has happened in many, many other countries as well in the past. The British didn’t come to India under the motive of colonization, but under business. They actually deceived the people and took advantage of Indians and their resources. Before anyone realized what had happened, the British were already too powerful. During their rule, they treated Indians like they were dogs. They would have signs saying, ‘No dogs or Indians allowed’. They destroyed the education system and wiped out our history, replacing it with their system. India’s GDP was between 25 and 35% of the world’s total GDP, and that dropped to 2% by India’s Independence in 1947. The literacy rate was at 70% and dropped to 12% after the British. People were starving; they were dying and struggling to live. They were deprived of their food, resources, wealth and education after the British colony, leaving India to the country it is today: A small country with a big population.

British policemen hold men from the village of Kariobangi at gunpoint while their huts are searched for evidence that they participated in the Mau Mau Rebellion of 1952.

Questioning the Relevance of the Monarchy

The British monarchy is utterly useless. Like what is the actual point of them? They have their own Parliament- which is more flawed than anything else mind you- and still need royals to act as some face or whatever. Sure, the British monarchy was once the rulers of this great empire or something, but times have changed. Do we need you? No. The only purpose they actually serve is waving at people they take money from while sitting and looking pretty as they open new museums and sign birthday cards for 100-year-olds. Yeah, totally living the royal life. They could be literal trillionaires or even billionaires with the amount of wealth they have yet they still get money from the people. Like, what is the point of that? Relax guys, I think they can survive without a few million dollars. Oh yeah, wanna know what else? All that money and wealth they own isn’t theirs. A good portion of their wealth- including their ‘sacred’ Crown Jewels- are stolen from former countries and colonies they ruined. It would be really nice if they returned the Cullinan Diamonds or even the Kohinoor back to the original owners.

LONDON, ENGLAND – JANUARY 11: One of the replica sets of the British Crown Jewels made in honour of the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953 (est. £5000- 7000) goes on view at Sotheby’s on January 11, 2018 in London, England. It will be auctioned in the Of Royal And Noble Descent sale at Sotheby’s London on the 17th January 2018. (Photo by Tristan Fewings/Getty Images for Sotheby’s)

An Examination of Hypocrisy and Double Standards

Another thing I want to point out is that the whole West is better than East conception. It’s often seen with America and the UK being seen as some supreme country that is all-powerful or something. Yeah not really. I mean, in terms of technology and development you could say so. But in reality, a lot of policies they implement or even things they’ve done are just really hypocritical. For example, calling things a flawed democracy or a full democracy. There’s something called a Democracy Index which is an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit- a division of the Economist Group which is a UK-based private company. Emphasis on UK-based. How biased. A flawed democracy is defined as a nation where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honored but may have issues. (Media freedom infringement and minor suppression of political opposition and critics.) There are 5 categories of which 60 questions are asked: Electoral process and pluralism Civil liberties Functioning of government Political participation Political culture Given this, I will very much point out that the UK does not deserve to be as highly ranked as it currently is. (18th) Firstly, the UK Parliament- is split into the House or Lords and House of Commons. The House of Commons is an elected chamber with 650 members and the House of Lords has 778 members and has a kind of passed-down title. Although this is now abolished, there are still 92 out of 750 hereditary peers who sit in the House of Lords. Now, putting all this aside, I want to point out the biggest hypocritical factor in all this. Minor suppression of political opposition and critics. So the monarchy doesn’t have much power, yet it still has some say in the way of politics. For example, a Royal Assent of the Monarch is required for all Bills to become law, and certain delegated legislation must be made by the Monarch by Order in Council. The Monarch also has some executive powers to do this such as make treaties, declare war, award honors, and appoint officers and civil servants. So really, they are still somewhat significant in politics. My main point is that there still is oppression against criticism against the Monarchy. Just recently, during the King’s coronation, a group of ‘Not my King’ activists protested during the ceremony and had 64 people arrested. The reasons for arrest were:

  • Prevent a breach of the peace
  • Conspiracy to cause a public nuisance
  • Concerns people were going to disrupt the event

So even basic protesting is wrong? I mean, the whole point of protesting is to get your voice heard and motivate change. Sure, these are valid concerns. But, really? Protests will cause public nuisance. Not everyone will like them but that doesn’t mean they’re necessarily bad. If they had started to get violent then yes, it’s a problem. But from the clips and articles I’ve seen, these protestors were peacefully protesting. Now, while some arrests made were for weapons and drugs, others seem to be simply for disrupting the event.

Is expressing an opinion now wrong? Can people no longer freely express what they feel about something anymore? Not everyone has to like the monarchy, and if people want to bring some change about it by protesting peacefully, shouldn’t they be allowed to do so? Even before the coronation was set to begin, they were told that over 1,000 protestors were expected to gather and demonstrate against the event. Taking this into account, shouldn’t they have known that there would be some public nuisance? This also goes against the basic civil liberties, as stated for one of the categories which a government is labeled. If one gets arrested for expressing these civil liberties, then really, shouldn’t they be lower in their ranking?

Accountability and Reparation

Do you know how infuriating it is to see the British Monarchy flaunt their golden carriages and Crown Jewels across the world to the countries they stole it from? Do you know how much it angers me to see them enjoying the luxuries and goods they stole from my people and so may others? Do you know how painful it is to imagine your ancestors suffer and cry and watch helplessly as the ancestors of those royals and British proudly took our resources, our wealth, our history and culture, and even our lives? How they watched as we suffered and killed ourselves so we wouldn’t be killed by them? How even today, such events are considered ‘a shame’? How not even a simple, sincere apology is uttered? How do they dare to flaunt their wealth so proudly to millions across national and even global television with no shame as to how they even got these luxuries from?

And they still think they deserve to be called royals or to have some position? Despite how hypocritical and racist they are? None of them do. That’s why I believe the British Monarchy needs to be abolished and the Crown Jewels as well as wealth should be returned back to the countries they stole it from.

Part 178- Geneva Conventions

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice, Politics and Geopolitics

Hello! Today’s post will be a geopolitical one and in this we will be discussing the Geneva Conventions. In today’s post we will delve into the significance of the Geneva Conventions and their impact on international humanitarian law. In times of armed conflict, these treaties play a crucial role in protecting civilians, prisoners of war, and wounded soldiers. We’ll explore the history, purpose, and key provisions of the Geneva Conventions, which have become the cornerstone of contemporary humanitarian efforts worldwide.

Our post will have these main factors:

  • The Genesis of the Geneva Conventions
  • A Code of Protection
  • A Growing Body of International Law
  • Ensuring Accountability for Atrocities
  • Global Adoption and Application

Followed by a conclusion to summarize everything we discussed. Let’s get started!

The Genesis of the Geneva Conventions

The idea for the Geneva Conventions was first brought up by a Genevan business man, Henry Dunant. After witnessing the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino, a gory battle in the Second War of Italian Independence, Dunant wrote a first-hand account of what he had seen; called A Memory of Solferino. Along with his observations, he had proposed a solution: ‘All nations come together to create trained, volunteer relief groups to treat battlefield wounded and offer humanitarian assistance to those affected by war.’ (As noted by HISTORY.com) 

The Geneva Conventions only apply in times of armed conflict, and are primarily designed to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part on hostilities. However, these apply to government who have ratified its terms. Every country has ratified all four Geneva conventions, but the protocols ratified varies. Countries who have ratified all four Geneva Conventions and three protocols include the majority of European and South American countries, the majority of Oceania, a few African Countries, as well as the Philippines and Kazakhstan. The United States has only ratified Protocol III in addition to Geneva Conventions I-IV. 

A Code of Protection

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols is a body of Public International Law, designed for the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war, and soldiers incapable of fighting. There are four Geneva Conventions and three Additional Protocols; and these are a major part of international humanitarian law adopted by all nations in the world.

The First Geneva Convention was in 1864, and was adopted to protect wounded and infirm soldiers and medical personnel who are not in active hostility against a Party. The first attempt to expand this treaty being unsuccessful led to a clarification of these ru;es, and extended them to maritime warfare. 

The Second Geneva Convention improved and supplemented the 1864 convention by extending its protections to victims of maritime warfare, including shipwrecked soldiers and other naval forces, as well as special protections to hospital ships. 

The 1929 conference yielded two conventions. One, for the protection of wounded and sick armies in the field, was the third version to replace the original 1864 convention, and the other was adopted after the experiences of WWI showed the deficiencies in the protection of prisoners of war. The Third Geneva Convention required that ‘belligerents treat prisoners of war humanely, furnish information about them, and permit official visits to prison camps by representatives of neutral states.’ It replaced the 1929 Geneva Convention that dealt with prisoners of war. 

In addition to these three conventions, a Fourth Geneva Convention was added with protection of civilians. It gave civilians the same protections from inhumane treatment and attack afforded to sick and wounded soldiers in the first Convention. This was added after WWII due to the horrific acts on and off the battlefield performed by the Germans. 

With two Geneva Conventions revised and adopted, and the second and fourth added in 1949, the whole set is referred to as ‘Geneva Conventions of 1949’ or just the ‘Geneva Conventions. The 1949 conventions have been further modified with three amendment protocols. 

A Growing Body of International Law

Over the years, the Geneva Conventions have evolved to address the changing nature of warfare and protect individuals from new threats. The three Additional Protocols, adopted in 1977, further enhanced the conventions’ protections, covering civilians, military workers, and journalists during international armed conflicts.

Protocol I increased protections for civilians, military workers, and journalists during international armed conflicts and blended the use of “weapons that cause superfluous injury  or unnecessary suffering,” or cause “widespread, long-term and severe damage to teh natural environment.”

Protocol II stated that all people not taking up arms be treated humanely and there should never be an order by anyone in command for “no survivors.” It was also added that children should be well cared and educated for, prohibiting taking hostages, terrorism, pillage, slavery, group punishment, and  humiliating or degrading treatment. 

Protocol III was created to recognize the symbol of the red crystal, an additional emblem of humanitarian protection, in addition to the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red shield of David as universal; emblems of identification and protection in armed conflicts. 

Ensuring Accountability for Atrocities

Grave breaches are the most serious crimes. Ensuring accountability for these breaches is essential to deter future atrocities and promote a more just world. Grave breaches of Geneva Conventions III and IV include:

  • Willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
  • Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
  • Compelling a protected person to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power
  • Willfully depriving a protected person of the right to a fair trial if accused of a war crime

Grave breaches of  Geneva Convention IV also include:

  • Taking hostages
  • Extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly 
  • Unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement

Global Adoption and Application

The Geneva Conventions only apply in times of armed conflict, and are primarily designed to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part on hostilities. However, these apply to government who have ratified its terms. Every country has ratified all four Geneva conventions, but the protocols ratified varies. Countries who have ratified all four Geneva Conventions and three protocols include the majority of European and South American countries, the majority of Oceania, a few African Countries, as well as the Philippines and Kazakhstan. The United States has only ratified Protocol III in addition to Geneva Conventions I-IV. 

Conclusion

Despite warfare changing dramatically over the years, the Geneva Conventions are still considered the “cornerstone of contemporary international humanitarian law.” These treaties have come into play in recent international; armed conflicts including the War in Afghanistan, 2003 invasion of Iraq, invasion of Chechnya, and even the non-international armed conflict of the Syrian civil war. The world would have been a much different, possibly less humane place, if these Conventions had not been adopted. 

Works Cited

(n.d.). American Red Cross | Help Those Affected by Disasters. https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/atg/PDF_s/International_Services/International_Humanitarian_Law/IHL_SummaryGenevaConv.pdf

Geneva conventions and their additional protocols. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions_and_their_additional_protocols

Geneva conventions. (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Geneva-Conventions

History.com Editors. (2017, November 17). Geneva Convention. HISTORY. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/geneva-convention

International committee of the Red Cross. (2018, July 16). International Committee of the Red Cross. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/geneva-conventions-1949-additional-protocols

Protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol 1). (n.d.). OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/protocol-additional-geneva-conventions-12-august-1949-and

Part 174- The drama of politicians

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Politics , , ,

So there’s been some pretty intense dramas going on in the past week about the next speaker of the house. If you didn’t know, our new Speak of the House is Kevin McCarthy who gained this position after 15 ballots. Surprisingly, it’s not the highest as the most ballots ever is actually 133. But anyways, let’s indulge in this topic and explore why it took 15 ballots to elect Speaker McCarthy.

Firstly, and for one of my absolute favorite reasons, there’s drama. It’s the classic teenage high school drama, except with adults at higher levels and with more serious topics. One of the representatives who absolutely refused to vote for Speaker McCarthy until the 15th ballot was Matt Gaetz. So apparently there’s this little beef between the two that Mr. Gartz has not let go of. When Mr. Gaetz was accused with sex trafficking claims, apparently, Mr. McCarthy did not present a strong enough defense for Mr. Gaetz. For this reason, Mr. Gaetz absolutely refused to vote for him. If you ask me, I find it amusing how government officials who are respected adults and members still act the way my current peers do. It’s really funny.

In the end, he did vote for him, which is why Mr. McCarthy got the position. Why did it take so long though? What made Mr. Gaetz and the other representatives who refused to vote for him, suddenly changed their mind?

Two words. Back scratching. “I scratch you back if you scratch mine.” The price for Mr. McCarthy to become the next speaker required patience, determination, and a little bit of luck to get the right proposal for a vote.

According to CNN, some of the requirements for Mr. McCarthy to become speaker include:

  • Seventy two hours to review the bills before they come to the floor
  • Giving members the ability to offer more amendments on the House floor
  • More Freedom Caucus representation on committees, including the powerful House Rules Committee
  • A McCarthy-aligned super PAC agreed to not play in open Republican primaries in safe seats
  • Any member can call for a motion to vacate the speaker’s chair – this is significant because it would make it much easier than it is currently to trigger what is effectively a no confidence vote in the speaker. Conservatives pushed hard for this, while moderates are worried it will weaken McCarthy’s hand.
  • Restoring the Holman Rule, which can be used to reduce the salary of government officials
Now the most eye-catching is the Holman Rule. Perhaps you’ve never heard of it before and that’s why it stood out. In fact, I had never heard of it before. (As well as a few other things on the list but that’s for later) So you know what I had to do. I did a little research, and here’s what I found.
The Holman rule is a provision in the rules of the United States House of Representatives that allows for individual line items in appropriations bills to be targeted for reduction or elimination. The rule, which was first implemented in 1876 and has been used intermittently since then, allows for any member of the House to offer an amendment to an appropriations bill that would reduce or eliminate a specific item of spending. The rule is typically used as a tool to target spending on specific programs or projects that an individual member or group of members oppose.

Now, reading that, it doesn’t include anything about cutting salaries. I know. Let me explain. As a measure to make it easier for lawmakers to eliminate federal agencies or slash the pay of individual agencies, the House restored the Holman Rule. As part of this rules package. It will “allow individual lawmakers to reduce the number of federal workers at specific agencies or cut their compensation as a provision or amendment to an appropriation bill.” This rule also allows lawmakers to target specific federal programs or offices, such as the FBI. They can use this to target the FBI or to “zero-out funding for specific federal investigations”. Essentially, they can use this bill as a reason to specifically target and remove agencies they do not want. Sly isn’t it?

Another shady back scratching deal that took place includes a “one-member election trigger”. 20 Republicans held out on voting for McCarthy until the 15th ballot. Why? For different reasons, they all could dislike Mr. McCarthy. That’s why this one-member election trigger agreement must have been a really good deal. The concession gives the ability for just ONE legislator to trigger a vote on whether to remove the Speaker from office. So anytime a legislator, even for a second, doesn’t want Mr. McCarthy as Speaker, all they have to do is say so. (Of course there’s most likely a longer process, but you get the point) This motion has had a long history, but it was raised to a minimum of 5 people to trigger the vacate. This time, it just takes one person. It could be Mr. Matt Gaetz, or maybe Ms. Lauren Boebert. It could be any of those 20 who refused to do so. It could even be a Democrat representative.

One more major event that took place was the restraining of Congressman Mike Rogers. After the 14th ballot, Mr. Rogers- an ally of Speaker McCarthy- was physically restrained for bellowing and jabbing fingers at a fellow Republican who was not supporting Mr. McCarthy. The main reason I brought this up was because it reminded me of The Caning of Charles Sumner. Senator Charles Sumner, an abolitionist Republican, was caned by Representative Preston Brooks, a pro-slavery Democrat, in 1856. Charles Sumner denounced the Bleeding Kansas crisis in a speech. This speech argued for the immediate admission of Kansas as a free state. He talked about the hateful embrace of slavery and the hideous crime. A response to this from Mr. Brooks included a caning. If I remember correctly from my history class, Mr. Sumner was badly beaten. To be fair, Mr. Brooks asked his fellow Representative on dueling etiquette , to which they replied that Charles Sumner was no gentleman – and a drunkard- and did not merit honorable treatment which is expected in a duel. That’s why they believed a cane beating in public to humiliate him would be better suited. Now although the two situations are rather different, this event was the first thing I thought of when I heard about the restraint.
Anyways, that was just the main points I wanted to cover regarding the Speaker elections. I’m now curious to see how things will play out and how each of these new requirements will be used in the future. Bye!

Part 171- U.S. as a superpower

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Economics, Politics and Geopolitics
Part 171- U.S. as a superpower

Hey guys, so I’m back. We’re skipping the cutesy, simple posts of high school to economics. Why? Because I got dragged into the inescapable pit of it. (…) Anyways, moving on. 

America. It’s a great country. (Speaking from a biased American point of view) But to be clear, it’s a very powerful country. America is the world’s most dominant economic and military power. When mentioned, it’s naturally accepted. We don’t really take time to question how such a nation ended up at the top. We don’t stop and think about the factors that made it so, and so that’s why I want to take time to briefly explain not just how America became the strongest country in the world, but also how American currency became the most powerful. (To be clear, American currency is the main topic. It was just awkward talking about a small topic so I’m adding everything else in.) So let’s talk.

Our two leading questions are this: “How did America become the most powerful country in the world?” And, “How did the United States make the US Dollar the most powerful currency in the world?”

How did America become the most powerful country in the world?

So the United States wasn’t always a very powerful country. They were very fragile, having won independence that “was a war away from being lost”. From 1783-1898, they were a fledgling power, concerned with expanding its borders from the Atlantic to Pacific Coast to fulfil the belief of Manifest Destiny- that God had ordained for the U.S. to expand its territory and control the whole continent. But over the course of time, things began to change.

The Idea of Manifest Destiny

The first factor was a shift from an agrarian economy to an industrialized one during an Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s. This switch led to allowing the U.S. to make the necessary equipment to become a superpower. Within this time period, one major war took place, the Spanish-American War. The Spanish-American War was victorious for Americans against the crumbling Spanish Empire. In this, not only did it make for Puerto Rico and distant islands of Guam and Philippines colonies, but also allowed for America to project its power abroad through a colonial empire. From 1898-1945, America would set its sights on Asia and the Caribbean, cement its alliance with Britain and France through World Wars, and eventually, lead to America having the largest economy in the world and become the largest industrial producer.

So now let’s dig deeper. After World War II, the United States came out, unquestionably, as a superpower. Seen in both WWI and WWII, America acted as war merchants first, and then war participants. While the other countries and empires were dedicating their resources and manpower towards the war, America used its capital and manpower to instead, become the “major supplier of cotton, wheat, brass, rubber, automobile and machinery, and thousands of other goods”. This resulted in America facing one of the greatest economic booms in the world. This was seen in WWII as well, with the only participation seen when Pearl Harbor was bombed. From making so much money out of these two wars, America came out having 75% of the world’s monetary gold after WWII. Other countries were not only economically devastated, but also in ruins from the war, leaving America unscathed. Not only that, at the end of WWII after the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was undoubted the United States was indeed on another level. Emerging from the war, both America and the Soviet Union were seen as superpowers, both with very different ideas for the future.

After WWII, America set up a network of bases across the planet to allow itself to project it’s power worldwide. The Soviet Union, who wanted to spread communism, would quickly challenge this superpower. In retaliation, America would station soldiers in Japan and Europe to prevent the spread. This period of geopolitical tension between the two nations is known as the Cold War. They had open yet restricted fighting. There was no direct war, as both had access to nuclear weapons. Thus called the ‘Cold War’.

Source: {history.com}

So now that we’ve established that, let’s talk about how the US Dollar became so powerful.

After WWII, 44 countries met in “Bretton Woods’ in July 1944 with the principal goals of creating an efficient foreign exchange system, preventing competitive devaluations of currencies, and promoting international economic growth.” (investopedia.com) As a result, they made the Breton Woods Agreement. Once implemented, its provisions called for the U.S. dollar to be pegged to the value of gold, and for all other currencies in the system to be pegged to the US dollar’s value. This agreement led to minimized international currency exchange rate volatility which helped international trade relations, more stability in foreign currency exchange, and currency stabilization for trade of goods and services as well as financing.

Source: {britannica.com}

This would help in situations where two countries look towards trading with each other, even if they didn’t trust each other. Think School provides an example as such, where Indonesia and Pakistan trade with each other. If Pakistan gives Indonesia 1 million dollars, Indonesia could easily trade that in with the U.S. for the equal amount of gold. However, if this was done in Pakistani Rupees, and let’s say 10,000 PKR= 1 gm gold, Pakistan could print more money and change it to 20,000 PKR= 1 gm gold. This could lead to a collapse in Indonesia’s value of trade. In order to prevent this, the transaction could be done in US dollars, making for the U.S. to guarantee the amount of dollars in gold. 

This Agreement also served as the creation of two major organizations today. The World Bank,and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Due to the ruins and devastation faced by countries in the war, they desperately needed funds and loans to build their country back up. So with the U.S. provided funds, the World Bank provided numerous long-term loans to countries to get them back on track. The IMF serves as a way to keep track of the global economy, assess policy makers, and lend money to countries in economic crisis.
This Agreement sealed the importance of the U.S. Dollar, and gave the Dollar its first wave of dominance.

So that was a brief explanation as to how America became a superpower. It took time, patience, and the use of some clever tactics. The result of this being the position and level to which it is at today. So, thanks for reading, and have a great day. 

Part 165- Sri Lanka Crisis

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Economics, Politics and Geopolitics, Social Responsibilities , , ,
Part 165- Sri Lanka Crisis

Sri Lanka is currently going through the worst economic downturn faced since independence from Britain in 1948. Facing power outages, lack of food, bankruptcy, and overwhelmed by numerous loans, the island nation is struggling. However, it hasn’t always been this way. 

In the 19th and 20th centuries, Sri Lanka became a plantation economy famous for it’s cinnamon, rubber, and Ceylon tea, something that remains a trademark national export. The development of ports under British rule strengthened the island and made it a center of trade. It’s major economic sectors are tourism, tea export, clothing, rice production, other agricultural products, and overseas employment, especially in the Middle East. From 2005-2011, Sri Lanka’s per capita income doubled. 

However, in 2016, it’s debt started to accumulate as infrastructure started to develop. This led to a near state of bankruptcy. In the fourth quarter of 2016, there was an estimated debt of $64.9 billion. In 2018, China agreed to bail out the country with a loan of $1.25 billion to deal with foreign debt repayment spikes in 2019-2021. In September of 2021, Sri Lanka declared a major economical crisis. But how exactly did Sri Lanka fall into debt? How did such a thriving economy crash? There are three main factors that caused this. Infrastructure, COVID, and the previous ban of chemical fertilizers.

Toruism and overseas employment, both of which provided the country with an input of foreign currency, crashed due to the pandemic. People stopped traveling, during this period, and people were also losing jobs. Prior to the pandemic, the country had proudly achieved upper-middle-income status, yet today half a million people have sunk back into poverty.Apart from that, there was also a ban on fertilizers put in place, partly to save foreign exchange. However, this led to domestic rice production falling 20% in the first six months. As a result, they were forced to import $450 million worth of rice. The ban also devastates the nation’s tea crop, the primary export and source of foreign exchange. Although the policy has been suspended and the government is offering $200 million to farmers as direct compensation, it hardly makes up for the damage and suffering the ban produced. 

Today, they now heavily rely on imports from other countries. “Soaring inflation and a rapidly depreciating currency have forced Sri Lankans to cut down on food and fuel purchases as prices surge.” (foreign policy.com) This has led to power cuts lasting up to 13 hours a day. The Rajapaksa government also promised tax cuts, which were enacted before the pandemic. With less money from the taxes, the government was unable to make some of these necessary purchases. 

Sri Lanka has also fallen into debt due to loans from other countries. One of them is China. Sri Lanka, situated between the key shipping route between the Malacca Straits and the Suez Canal, which links Asia and Europe. However, the only major port in Sri Lanka is the Port of Colombo, and it is catered towards container handling and is unable to provide facilities for port related industries and services. Therefore, a new port near the city of Hambantota, which has a natural harbor and is close to international shipping routes, was proposed. With the help of the Chinese government and workers, this port was built.

This relates to China’s Belt and Road Initiative; a global infrastructure development strategy developed by the Chinese government to invest in nearly 70 countries and international organizations. It’s about improving the physical infrastructure through land corridors that roughly equate to the old Silk Road. This also includes a maritime Silk Road along ports. Hambantota was built with Chinese investment to become part of this. “But the billion dollar project using loans and contractors from China became mired in controversy, and struggled to prove viable, leaving Sri Lanka saddled with growing debts.” (bbc.com) In 2017, Sri Lanka agreed to give “state-owned China Merchants a controlling 70% stake in the export on a 99-year lease in return for further Chinese investment.” So basically, using a loan from China, Sri Lanka is paying Chinese workers to build this port, causing the money to go directly back to China itself. So they’ve pretty much fallen in what is called a ‘debt-trap.’ This has been seen in other parts of the world, where, “Chinese lending has also proved controversial, with contracts whose terms could give China leverage over important assets”, can be seen. Some examples include:

  • Pakistan
  • Ethiopia
  • Djibouti
  • Mongolia
  • Sri Lanka
Many more included. (These are countries listed part of the Belt and Road Initiative, and are in debt. Not all countries part of the Initiative essentially owe debt.) But what China does, is step in, offer some assistance through money/loans to solve a problem a country has. This is mainly related to large infrastructure projects like roads, railways, ports, and also the mining and energy industry. As of right now, there are more than 40 countries in this category whose debt exposure to Chinese leaders is more than 10% the size of their annual economic GDP. 
Apart from that, it’s interesting how this works. There’s not really any international law that says China cannot do something like this. There are laws for it being domestic, but not internationally. We have loan sharks domestically, and just foreign/international debt. 
Overall, I think that Sri Lanka made the mistake of doing something they couldn’t afford. At that time, during the agreement of building the port, Sri Lanka was already in debt. This was a huge risk they had to take. If it didn’t prove to be viable, as it didn’t, Sri Lanka ended up being in more debt. They shouldn’t have done something they weren’t sure about and weren’t stable to proceed with. Although China was helping them pay off some debt they had at that time, by doing so, they got themselves into a more deeper problem. Not only that, I think that the government was taking really hasty decisions just for the sake of getting money and trying to get out of the problem. This whole Hambantota port project was thought of for decades, but only now put in because China was offering to invest in it to pay off debts. I feel like they should have started this project much before instead of when they had a problem. I can’t really say much regarding the pandemic, as that was something no one could have expected. However, I think that at that time, when rice-production and other agricultural products were still going strong within exports, the government shouldn’t have done anything about it. Maybe waited until later to put in tax cuts and the chemical fertilizer ban. Wait until the country was able to pull itself out instead of doing it quickly. So pretty much, don’t do something you can’t afford to do. 






Part 141- Town Council Meeting Claims

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice, Politics , , ,

Opening Statement 

An incident from a few weeks ago. On May 25th, 2021, during a Town Council meeting from my town, there was a slightly heated discussion between Ms. Nimphius, Chairperson of the Parks and Recreations board, and Ms. Fleury, the Mayor. During the discussion, several claims were made, and I am here to check if these claims were true.

The process to collect Evidence

It took about 2 weeks to collect the allotted evidence for the claims. Through this process, I made a list of the claims made and the required evidence to prove them. Then, I wrote down specific questions and notes according to each claim that needed to be answered. I then started to collect my evidence. This includes going through the given websites on the Town Council page, emailing Mr. Jaramillo, and filing an Open Records Request. Finally, I have all the evidence needed to justify these claims. 

Claims

Claim 1: Interrupting Behavior by Ms. Nimphius
Claim By:  Ms. Fleury, Mayor, Town of Trophy Club
When: Town Council meeting on 5/25/2021
Ref: Meeting Video at 27:58 in the video. 

Evidence needed:

  1. Agenda packets for Town Council Meetings
  2. Past Town Council Meeting Videos

Evidence: 

  • Agenda packets for Town Council Meetings – <Link>
  • Minutes of Town Council meeting when P&R Board or Ms. Nimphius appeared.
  • Past Town Council Meeting Videos <Link>
Parks & Recreation ( P&R) showed up only at following Town Meetings on
  • 04/13/21 – Town Council Meeting 
    • Video <Link>
      • Ms. Nimphius gave an update
      • Videos did not show the full meeting.
    • Minutes of Town Council meeting <Link>
      • P&R Board or Ms. Nimphius appeared.
      • Minutes do not show interruptions 
  • 05/11/21 – Town Council Meeting <Link>
    • Video <Link>
      • Ms. Nimphius gave an update
      • Videos did not show the full meeting.
    • Minutes of Town Council meeting <Link>
      • P&R Board or Ms. Nimphius appeared.
      • Minutes do not show interruptions 
Claim assessment: Cannot be proven

Claim 2 ( Part 1) : Unproductive Meetings 
< Made by Mr. Lamont>
When: 05/25/21 Meeting, At 24:16 into the video
Evidence Needed:
  1. Agenda Plans
  2. Meeting Minutes
  3. Hours for P&R board 
The 03/08/21 minutes did not show Mr. Lamont attended the meeting, and the minutes for the 05/18/21 meeting do not exist. However, the minutes do follow what was written in the agenda. So, the meetings cannot be proven to be unproductive.
Claim 2 (Part 2): Productive Meetings
<Made by Ms. Nimphius>
When: 05/25/21, At 24:24
Evidence Needed:
  1. Agenda Plans
  2. Meeting minutes
  3. Hours for P&R board
Agenda Packets: <For Both>
Found from two links:
  • Missing 2020 and 2021 packets
  • Has 2020 and 2021 packets
Both links do share an agenda of items discussed during meetings. However, some items ( in my opinion) can be discussed over email instead of during the meeting. Ex: Goat yoga, Easter bunny photos, easter eggs, pickleball, etc.
Meeting Minutes: < For Both>
Hours: < For Both> 
  • Not Available/Do not exist
Claim: Cannot be Proven
Claim 3: Meeting twice in a 40 hr week, 4 hours each meeting, is taking away valuable time <Actual Sentence?>
< Made by Mr. Lamont>
When: 05/25/21, At 26:53 into the video
Evidence Needed:
  1. Hours spend by Parks and Recreation staff preparing for meetings
Hours:
  • Data provided only shows time spent booth 
  • Hours recorded by only 2 staff members
Claim: Cannot be Proven

My Opinions and Views:

Claim 1

My Assessment: The claim was not correct, and cannot be made. Despite there being minutes and agenda packets that show Ms. Nimphius showed up, the video does not show that. The videos are incomplete or do not show the full meeting, and do not Ms. Nimphius showed up. Therefore, the claim cannot be proven. 
Other Notations …. Even though I don’t have the evidence to prove the interrupting behavior, in my view, or even just on the behavior in the meeting. When I was watching the video, I observed a few things. For example, Ms. Nimphius’s posture when she was speaking. She wasn’t standing properly when she was speaking. To me, it seemed like she could have been uninterested or even bored at the meeting. I also noticed her tone. When Mr. Lamont was asking her questions, I could hear some annoyance in her voice. She didn’t say anything rude, but I felt that her tone wasn’t very respectful. I also want to compare her testimony and behavior to Mr. Jaramillo’s. 
After Ms. Nimphius left the meeting Mr. Jaramillo was asked to finish updating the Council. He was very respectful and was listening attentively to what Ms. Fleury and Mr. Lamont were saying. Even when Mr. Lamont was saying that the two meetings were unproductive, instead of arguing that they were, he took the feedback respectfully. His posture was also respectful. Both his feet were on the ground, and he was quiet when another was speaking. Also, both Mr. Jaramillo and Ms. Nimphius gave a different update to the council. Ms. Nimphius told the Council what was upcoming on the agenda, but Mr. Jaramillo said there weren’t. I don’t understand how this happened, but perhaps the agenda update Ms. Nimphius happened spur of the moment. Maybe there was something new added to the agenda that came up all of a sudden and Mr. Jaramillo was not informed. 
I couldn’t find any behavior traits Ms. Fleury or Mr. Lamont had in their behavior.  
Claim 2-
My Assessment: The Meeting Minutes do not show that Mr. Lamont attended the March meeting, and there are no records for the May meeting. So, Mr. Lamont’s claim cannot be proven. However, this does not mean Ms. Nimphius’ claim can be proven as well.      
I was reading the agenda packet and as I was reading, I saw a couple things that were not very necessary to talk about during the meeting. I think that they could have been discussed through email and that could have given extra time at the meeting. So, the meetings were only partially unproductive, but I think were productive. But, I also wanted to add in one more thing. Mr. Lamont and Ms. Nimphius mentioned Sports Agreements. Mr. Lamont asked about the agreements, and Ms. Nimphius said that they were still being discussed with the sub- committee. The way she said it sounded like she didn’t know what was happening. I think instead of saying it was being finalized with the sub-committee, she should have let another member speak or give an update, or even said that she would get back to Mr. Lamont on that. 
Claim 3-
I want to say that I think Claim 3 is an overstatement. Yes, there were a few things on the agenda that were unnecessary and wasted some time, but I don’t think that the meetings are taking away valuable time. As I was going through the agenda there were quite a few, very important items that would not take away valuable time. Maybe some hours were taken away, or, maybe even after having those meetings, the action taken was slow or very minimal. Either way, I think that Mr. Lamont made a rash claim to say that the meetings took away valuable time. 

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the claims made by Ms. Fleury, Ms. Nimphius, and Mr. Lamont cannot be proven.

Side notes:

I really just want to say one thing. Mr. Lamont, Ms. Fleury, and Ms. Nimphius have all made claims that cannot be proven. These are people I could look up to or admire, but upon seeing their claims, I don’t know how I can. How can I look up to someone who makes a claim that cannot be proven? That’s all.
Finally, I just want to point out how much information I’ve gotten to back these claims up. Barely any. ( I hope this doesn’t come out as rude.) It took me about 2 weeks to finally have everything I need/ that exists and in the midst of it, I got a bit stressed. I sent an email to the Open Records Department again and even the mayor, talking about what I needed and how bad the information was kept. I have to say, I sounded extremely rude in that. I didn’t mean to, I was just stressed because I was not able to acquire the information I needed when I needed it. So, I would like to apologize to the mayor and the Open Records lady, again, for being rude in the email. But, I am still not very pleased that the Town Council has not managed their records properly. Many items do not exist or are not properly kept, and I think that this should be fixed. Those records that should be open to the public, are not complete. 

Part 130- Biden Cabinet Members

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Politics , , , ,

Today’s post is on the members of Mr. Biden’s Cabinet. Below is a table of all the Cabinet members and my opinion on them. ( I know this is not yet completed, but this is what I have so far. I had to finish since it’s getting late and because I’m really exhausted. Like, my brain isn’t even helping me process my thoughts properly and I’m spacing out. I’ll update this tomorrow, and have the full, completed list ready. Bye!  )


Cabinet member

Info/opinion

Secretary of State: Antony Blinken

Bio: Mr. Blinken has held senior foreign policy positions in two administrations over the two decades. He has a recurring mantra: the U.S. should work with its allies and within international treaties and organizations. He also views U.S. leadership in multilateral institutions as essential. He has spent a 6-year term in the Senate with Mr. Biden and has strong ties to other, close Biden advisors.

Opinion:

https://www.politico.eu/article/nine-things-to-think-about-antony-blinken/

Secretary of Treasury: Janet Yellen

Bio: https://www.federalreservehistory.org/people/janet-l-yellen

Secretary of Defense: Lloyd Austin

Bio: Mr. Austin is a retired American four-star Army general who served as the 12th commander of United States Central Command. He was greatly involved in the internal U.S. discussions and the negotiations with the Iraqi Government leading up to the signing of the Strategic Partnership Agreement. The would-be the first Black defense secretary. 

Opinion: 

Attorney General: Merrick Garland

Bio:  Mr. Garland is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The New York Times reported, “Mr. Biden’s choice reflects his respect for Mr. Garland’s reputation as a centrist and his belief that he can restore the Justice Department’s independence and inspire a deeply demoralized workforce.”

Opinion:

Secretary of Interior: Deb Haaland

Bio: Ms. Haaland is a member of the U.S. House, representing New Mexico’s 1st Congressional District. In a press release, Biden’s office said, “Haaland is a barrier-breaking public servant who has spent her career fighting for families, including in Tribal Nations, rural communities, and communities of color…”If confirmed, she will be the first Native American Cabinet secretary.

Opinion: I’m not sure if Ms. Haaland is the right nominee for Secretary of Interior. Yes, she has spent her career fighting for families of rural communities and of color, but I’m not sure if that is enough experience for this. 

 

Secretary of Agriculture: Tim Vilsack

Bio: Mr. Vilsack has held 0m

.this position before in the Obama administration from 2009-2017. As head of the USDA, Mr. Vilsack was responsible for implementing programs that provided “leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on public policy, the best available science, and effective management.”

Opinion: Mr. Vilsack has indeed put as much as he can into supporting programs that provide food, agriculture, natural resources, etc., and has really dedicated a lot to it. I think he is the right nominee for this. 

Secretary of Commerce: Gina Raimondo

Bio: Ms. Raimondo served as the general partner of Point Judith Capital, a venture capital firm headquartered in Rhode Island. The New York Times reported that Ms. Raimondo “is seen as a relatively traditional choice for commerce secretary, a post that oversees relations with the business community but also technology regulation, weather monitoring and the gathering of economic data, among other duties.”

Opinion: To be honest, currently I am not sure what to expect from Ms. Raimondo. I don’t have enough information/ evidence to actually make an opinion so, for now, only time will tell. 

Secretary of Labor: Martin Walsh

Bio: Mr. Walsh was previously a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, serving in that office from 1997 until 2014 and representing the Thirteenth Suffolk district. He was the Chairman of the Committee on Ethics and served as a Co-Chair of the Massachusetts Democratic Party Labor Caucus.

Opinion: 

Secretary of Health and Human Services: Xavier Becerre

Bio:Mr. Becerre is an American politician and lawyer serving as the 33rd and current Attorney General of California since 2017. He previously was a member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Downtown Los Angeles in Congress from 1993 to 2017. 

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: Marcia Fudge

Bio: Ms. Fudge is a member of the U.S. House, representing Ohio’s 11th Congressional District. Ms. Fudge has also served as chief of staff to U.S. Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones during Jones’s first term in Congress. 

Opinion:

Secretary of Transportation: Pete Buttigieg

Bio: Mr. Buttigieg is an American politician and former U.S. Navy intelligence officer. Mr. Biden said in a statement, “Jobs, infrastructure, equity, and climate all come together at the DOT, the site of some of our most ambitious plans to build back better. I trust Mayor Pete to lead this work with focus, decency, and a bold vision — he will bring people together to get big things done.”

Opinion:

Secretary of Energy: Jennifer Granholm

Bio: Ms. Ganholm is a Canadian-born American politician, lawyer, educator, author, and political commentator. She clerked for U.S. Judge Damon Keith on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 1990 she became an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan. In 1994, she was appointed Wayne County Corporation Counsel. 

Opinion: 

Secretary of Education: Miguel Cardona

Bio: Mr. Cardona is an American educator who has served as the Connecticut Commissioner of education since 2019. He began his career in education as an elementary school teacher. Mr. Cardona then became the youngest principal in Connecticut at the age of 28. 

Opinion: I think that Mr. Biden made a good decision in nominating Mr. Cardona to be Secretary of education. Even though he may or may not have a lot of knowledge and experience in politics, he was an education” figure”. To know how to do something is different from experiencing it. This is similar to Mr. Cardona. Even though he may or may not be as experienced as the other members in politics, he knows schools and what it is like being a teacher, and how things will affect kids.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Denis McDonough

Bio: Mr. McDonough is a former White House chief of staff, serving in the Obama administration.

Secretary of Homeland Security: Alejandro Mayorkas

https://ballotpedia.org/Joe_Biden_presidential_transition