Group items tagged

This article discussed the plans for reopening college football within the United States amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. I was drawn to the article because I was interested in learning about the guidelines and restrictions the United States was using to reopening recreational activities, such as college football. Through reading the article, I thought it was interesting that there was no coherent reopening plan, like with the NBA, but rather that different states and universities had very differing plans regarding what guidelines and restrictions will be in-place for reopening this activity. I would be interested in taking a deeper look into how other countries have attempted to reopen recreational activities and how their methods were different from those taken here.

Following up to the other comments on this post, I am curious how these universities expect to pull off this bubble, since there have been many outbreaks in colleges due to parties and general disregard for safety. I think this will only make an outbreak within college teams more likely and it is extremely worrying that there is not a unified plan to address these issues.

I agree with what Luke and Aaron have said. I think that attempting to create a "bubble" won't work for such large teams and at the college level. It's irresponsible of the officials to attempt to move forward with the season and risk the lives of the students. In my opinion, they should just scrap the entire season because they have no unified plans.

This article details the activities of ISIS since its emergence in 2013. It really concise and provides great links to other more in depth articles. Nice way to summarize and frame ISIS.

After the US walked away from discussions on Syria, President Putin stepped up his country's military activity, with an enormous mobilization of first responders and civilians on the home front. In addition, the President redeployed nuclear weapons, making sure to leave some in place for American surveillance satellites to see. Mr. Putin also suggested the reopening of Russian military bases in Vietnam and Cuba. However, many see this as a distraction from the Russian economy, which is showing the first dip in income for the country's citizens since Putin assumed the Presidency in 2000. The nation's budget is also being heavily slashed, with healthcare and the military losing 33% and 6% of their funding, respectively. People inside Russia commented that the new budget leaves money for the military and police, and little else. Further speculation is that Mr. Putin is using the same strategy he employed in the Ukraine, which is to ramp up Russia's military and leverage that in diplomatic conversation with other nations. Some of Putin's comments also suggest that he wants to push Russia as a concern of the US Presidential election, and make sure that whoever the next President is will see Russia as a force to be reckoned with.

This is an in-depth look into the next (and current) integration of climate denialism: climate "inactivism." It details how right-wing pundits, funded by oil companies, are encouraging people to accept climate change, but refrain from addressing it. They co-opt the language of social justice, calling climate activism elitist or an intentional ploy to harm working-class people. This contains an element of truth, but what started as a legitimate critique is now being used to halt any climate activism in its tracks.

This seems really concerning. I'm interested in seeing what kind of response, if any, there is in the UK.

Disrupting large events and especially important pieces of art has been a trend in climate activism recently, at least the most documented/reported. Although this tactic may get the conversation started, in my opinion, it drives away many people who could (but don't) climate activism.

Yeah, I agree -- it makes the climate movement seem irrational rather than scientific.

It's crazy/a little sad that this is what some people feel like they have to resort to in order to spread the word. I understand that they usually have the right intentions however this can also just be seen as something done for publicity/attention.

The war in Afghanistan has been going on since the Presidency of George W. Bush, costing upwards of 500 billion dollars and the active duty of 1% of all American lives. The debate about the future of the war has recently risen to the surface in American politics due to the upcoming Presidential Election. In the vice-presidential debate, Representative Paul Ryan noted that he and his running partner do not want to "lose the Taliban" and lose all the claimed progress they have achieved thus far. In contrast, Biden noted that the war has been fruitless and promises to remove all US troops by 2014. A "victory" in the war is improbable and practically impossible ever since the US got involved in Iraq. Personally, more time spent in the country fighting will not help the minimal gains achieved in Afghanistan.

Illustrating how the Bank's role in Latin America and the Caribbean has evolved in recent decades, countries in the region now turn increasingly to the institution for more than direct lending, including such services as risk insurance, commodity swaps, and climate adaptation finance.

The region is doing worse. "Latin America and the Caribbean finds itself in the fifth year of an economic slowdown and the second consecutive year of GDP contraction. Worsening external conditions coupled with domestic challenges have reduced expectations for regional growth to -0.7 percent in 2015, with economic activity projected to drop to -1.3 percent in 2016." But also, Mexico and the Caribbean are experiencing 2% growth, while South America is declining 1.7% or more. Why?

I think it is because (and this is just a theory, I do not know for certain) Mexico and the Caribbean have a direct relationship with the USA, which gives them extra economical assistance outside the World Bank.

This article details the World Bank's activities in Europe and Central Asia. I found it interesting that the vast majority of their efforts focus on the former Soviet Union, where economies are troubled and immigration from North Africa poses a huge problem.

Things are not going well: "Significant poverty reduction over the past decade is reversing, and the sharing of prosperity is stalled in many countries. About 14 percent of the region's population-more than 66 million people-live in poverty, including almost 19 million who live on less than $2.50 a day, the extreme poverty line for the region."

MOSCOW - When the Russian authorities began a series of investigations this spring into the business affairs of a prominent opposition lawmaker, it was widely viewed as thinly veiled political retribution. But in a sign of how quickly the tables can now be flipped in such disputes, allies of the politician, Gennady V.

This article concerns attempts by Russian lawmakers to target opposition party members who they believe have violated Duma policy by "engaging in business or other paid activities". The controversy over the hypocrisy present in the aforementioned investigations sheds light on a question that interests me greatly: will Russia's corrupt and billionaire-driven government be sustainable in the long term? This particular case also raises questions about the mechanisms used by the ruling party, United Russia, in maintaining control over the Russian government.

This article also speaks to political culture, a key part of comparative politics analysis. Russia's transition to democracy has been halting, and many CoPo scholars say this is because Russia has a civic (and by extension political) culture that is used to authoritarianism of one sort or another. The notion of rule by democratic law is taking a long time to take hold. Is this explanation adequate? Compared to other countries?

The Islamic State lays siege on the city of Kobani, and refugees flee to safety. Turkey must decide whether or not to take action. Understandably, the country has delayed this decision for quite a long time since there are many related risks.

As the US armed forces have to scale back due to sequestration, the biggest problem afflicting the Army is how it will adapt--not only to budget cuts, but to a new era of warfare. Drone strikes and special operations are becoming more prominent and crucial for taking out national security threats in foreign countries, but do these smaller operations merit a downsizing of the the current active-duty troop body? Some top officials think it's important to maintain a larger army in case we need to mobilize (i.e. war with Iran or North Korea). On the other hand, other officials think a downsizing is imperative: today, the Army spends absurd amounts on health care and other benefits (52% increase since 2001), while ineffective officers remain in the army so they can receive retirement pensions. As Defense Analyst Arnold Punaro says in this article, "The Department of Defense [is going to turn] into a benefits company that occasionally kills a terrorist". In short, the US Army must change, but it's not clear how that will happen.

Russian government says Vladimir Putin requested to meet with President Obama next week during their travels to the United Nations. The meetings comes as Obama and Putin have been at odds over Russian military activity in Ukraine and Syria.

CDIZ, Spain - The San Jose Park in the center of this port city bustled as evening fell. Children scrambled on the playground. Young people strolled arm in arm. Amid the activity, Leonor Molina, an immigrant from Ecuador, leafed through a catalog as she watched over an elderly Spanish woman in a wheelchair.

An article about a global summit on biodiversity. It would be interesting to see if countries that disagree politically can set aside their differences to work together on a global problem.

Similarly to what Harrison said, it's interesting to see countries that can't seem to agree on much politically starting to come together here. Good!

It's scary to think that we may need to protect 1/4 of the world's land. I hope that we can make that happen. But at the same time, there are daunting problems facing that possible goal, one of the largest being over population. I clicked on this link in the article (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/10/17/biodiversity.un.summit.briefing/index.html), and found this excerpt that I thought was great: "The demand for food, energy and clean water is projected to increase sharply, over the next 40 years. The world population is expected to grow from 6.8 to 9 billion people, and disposable incomes will also increase. Agriculture and urbanisation often compete with nature over the same land areas. Under unchanged policy, biodiversity will continue to suffer. If we keep meeting this growing demand, the amount of land used for human activity will expand enormously; not only in the supply of food but also in relation to biofuels. This would mean a further decrease in the space available for natural ecosystems. Biodiversity also reduces as a result of ecosystem overexploitation, disturbance and fragmentation, climate change, soil contamination, and water and air pollution. However, biodiversity is useful and of great importance to humanity, among other things because it stimulates soil fertility, manages water regulation and takes care of essential carbon uptake. In addition, many people feel that preservation of species richness and maintaining valuable nature areas are also our moral obligation." In light of that, I feel even more strongly that people should think hard about how many kids they have and their effect on overpopulation. Maybe each woman should have no more than one child (unless she happens to have twins, triplets, etc.), and strongly consider adopting at least one child. But then population decline means trying to support a proportionally larger elderly generation.... O.o

An interesting perspective on what transnational means from the IEEE, world's oldest association of electrical engineers!

This article intelligently reveals the difficulties of bridging many different countries, which vary politically and culturally, under one goal or line of thought. The specific laws within each country (and each region of each country) must hinder uniform implementation to a notable extent, but I admire the organization's dedication to its vision. However, I wonder if, with the various global regions and political orientations into which the IEEE is divided, interpretations, and not just implementations, of the organization's vision may be different. With that in mind, can implementations change not only according to local laws, but also according to personal biases?

I found the part about regulations in certain countries especially interesting. It seems ridiculous that a country would ban the import a technical journal. The fact that the author never gives specifics about which country he is referring to further backs his points about what it means to maintain a transnational organization. And while I'm sure that the IEEE is committed to its goal, I am not sure how committed its members might be and if they might bring about international disputes despite the IEEE's best efforts.

Intriguing article about differences in "universal values"

Makes you wonder if "universal values" exist, and if they do exactly what are they. I've always liked to think there's a universal moral compass: don't kill, don't do anything to hurt other people, etc. But in this article universal values are defined as a democratic government, and one section talks about how the Chinese government had good "universal values" when it responded quickly to a flood. So what I'm getting from this is that "universal values" means actively caring and helping others/going out of your way to do so... yet this article only talks of universal values in respect to the government. So is the government the only part of the population that needs universal values?

Newspaper of Occupy Wall St.