Author: Politics Staff

Three men who killed Ahmaud Arbery convicted of federal hate crimes

national politics, Politics

Jada Urbaez, Staff

The three men who killed Ahmaud Arbery, Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael and William “Roddie” Bryan Jr., were convicted of federal hate crimes last week. 

The murder took place on the coast of Georgia on Feb. 23, 2020. Brunswick, GA had been home to Arbery and his family since his “peewee football days,” says Aaron Morrison, a reporter who sat with the victim’s family. 

On that February day, Arbery, 25, was going on an afternoon jog in a surrounding neighborhood known as Satilla Shores. Gregory McMichael reported to police that Arbery had fit the description for the suspect who allegedly committed break-ins in the area. The suspects claimed to have been doing a citizen’s arrest. The police confirmed there had been no break-ins, and therefore there was never a suspect. 

Travis and Gregory McMichael were both armed with a pistol and shotgun when they surrounded Arbery with their truck. Bryan Jr. joined the McMichaels in this encounter, utilizing his pickup truck, and three shots were fired by Travis McMichael, killing Arbery. 

The McMichaels were arrested over two months later, on May 7, and Bryan Jr. was arrested on May 21, 2020. The three men were indicted by the state of Georgia on nine counts. These include: one count of false imprisonment, four counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, one count of malice murder and one count of criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment. 

According to Georgia state law, malice murder is commited when one, “unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.” Travis and Gregory McMichael are sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Bryan Jr., the third suspect who later joined and filmed the Arbery encounter, would be eligible for parole after thirty years. 

Last week, however, a federal jury found the three murderers guilty of federal hate crimes. To convict someone of a hate crime, the jury must see if the actions of the suspects were racially motivated. 

What aided in this conviction was a suspects’ internet usage that shows a history of racial slurs, offensive/racist memes and conversations. For many consecutive years, Bryan wrote content that mocked Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Travis McMichael left a comment in a 2018 Facebook post, “I’d kill that (expletive).” Gregory McMichael shared a post that implied disregard for slaves’ suffering in the U.S. The post said that Irish slaves suffered more than any race in American history. 

In addition to internet use, there is direct evidence provided by witnesses who testified and shared that they heard the suspects make racist comments and slurs. 

The case’s prosecutor, Christopher Perras, stated that there was no evidence that 25-year-old Arbery was a threat, but the suspects assumed so because he was Black. The suspects pleaded not guilty to the hate crime charges, but were found guilty and must serve their respective sentences for their murder charges.

COVID-19 standards in the military

national politics, Politics

Elizabeth Boyle, Staff

Recently amidst all the negative news and the war raging in Europe, some positive news has come to light in Philadelphia — no more mask mandate. The Philadelphia Department of Public Health announced that on March 2, 2022, the city is moving into the “All Clear COVID-19 Response Level.” This change means the indoor masks mandate is dropped effective immediately. 

Military bases have been instructed to follow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) community COVID-19 guidelines. These guidelines will indicate whether active duty military, civilian employees, and visitors need to wear a mask on military bases. The CDC has determined that masks and screenings are no longer mandatory when the Community Level of COVID-19 is determined as low. When deciding this level, they take into consideration the hospital admissions, the percentage of inpatient beds taken by COVID-19 patients, and the number of new cases in a given community. Where Community Levels of COVID-19 are considered medium, the screening will continue but indoor mask mandates may be dropped. This means that DOD employees and service members can remove their masks based on where they are stationed.

The issue of military base locations is complicated in places such as the Army’s Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, and Marine Corps bases in Coronado, Point Loma and Camp Pendleton in California. These bases are spread over three or more counties each. These are some of the largest military bases in the U.S. and they will be waiting for further instruction from the CDC. For example, Fort Bragg covers four counties that are in a variety of ranges for COVID-19 Community Levels. 

As military bases reach lower COVID-19 levels their facilities are being opened up to include more people per building. The Pentagon has increased the occupancy of buildings from 25 percent to 50 percent. This can have an impact on efficiency as well as morale, such as when the service members express excitement for “more options for seating in the food court,” as mentioned in an email circulating to base personnel.

As for COVID-19 vaccines in the military, the Pentagon has announced they are going to be investigating COVID-19 exemptions. The Pentagon’s Inspector General has announced that he will inspect exemption requests, and if they are unsatisfactory proper punishments will be handed down. He stated that punishments are “in accordance with Federal and DoD actions.”

An intense conflict has arisen as federal legal cases have been filed by service members who have refused the COVID-19 vaccine. The judges reviewing the cases have stated that there may be issues stemming from flaws in the exemption process. Those who are petitioning have stated that “the record creates a strong inference that the services are discriminatorily and systematically denying religious exemptions without a meaningful and fair hearing.” In Texas, actions against a group of special forces sailors were stopped by the judge based on how their exemptions were handled by the Navy. In court, Navy Seals claimed that “ their accommodation requests are futile because denial is a predetermined outcome.” 

As civilian vaccines and boosters are available, the mask mandates are being lifted day by day. For our service members, rules on masks will apply based on the location they are stationed. As their mask restrictions are lifted, a struggle continues between the Pentagon and DOD for service members who do not wish to receive the vaccine or have a religious exemption. 

Russia-Ukraine situation, an update, and some insight

international politics, Politics

Elizabeth Boyle, Staff

Russia has gained a global audience because of its tensions with Ukraine. After positioning approximately 190,000 soldiers, armored military units, and naval vessels outside the Ukrainian border for several months, Russia has officially invaded Ukraine. Russia invaded the southeast region of Ukraine on Russia’s border, specifically Luhansk and Donetsk provinces. Both provinces have Russian-backed separatist-held areas. The world is talking about the reasoning behind Russian President Vladimir Putin’s motives for the attack. Here are five potential rationales and the arguments that go along with each.

1. Russia was threatened by NATO expansion.

            Putin, on more than one occasion, has claimed that NATO expansion is the central driver of Ukraine versus Russia crisis. Many believe that NATO was trying to play off of Russia’s insecurities by putting pressure on it. Putin responded violently to his perception of a threat from NATO when he invaded Georgia in 2008 and, to a lesser degree, when he annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. Some believe that if Putin can prevent Ukraine from becoming a NATO member, he will no longer feel threatened by NATO expansion in Ukraine. By invading Ukraine, Putin has, in the short term, eliminated the potential for Ukraine to become a NATO member because NATO will not accept a country that is under the partial control of Russia.

2. Russia was threatened by Ukrainian democracy.

            Many who believe that Putin is not threatened by NATO believe that he is threatened by Ukrainian democracy. These people look at history over the last 30 years and claim that while NATO is a variable in the conflict between Russia and the West, it is not the major contributor. Instead of looking at NATO expansion, the people who agree with this argument look at the increase of democracy in Europe and Asia as a threat to Putin’s autocratic rule. NATO expansion by including Ukraine in the alliance was not a short-term threat because Russia had already invaded and seized part of Ukraine in 2014. Ukraine would not be admitted into NATO as long as Russian forces were operating on its soil, as they have been in Crimea and the Luhansk and Donetsk provinces. If NATO were to admit Ukraine while the Russian military operated on its soil, Ukraine could invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter calling for NATO military action in the collective defense of one of its members. This eliminates the argument that NATO expansion is the cause of Putin’s invasion because he had already prevented Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO by invading Ukraine in 2014. As an autocrat, essentially President-for-Life, Putin does not want Ukraine to stand as an example to the Russian populace. Putin’s goal is to return Ukraine to the control of one of his selected colleagues, such as former President Viktor Yanukovych, who was removed by Ukraine’s parliament in February 2014 due to his close ties to Russia.

3. Russia wants to expand its sphere of influence.

            If Ukraine were to fall under Russian control, it would greatly increase the power Russia has. Although many people don’t realize it, Ukraine is an important country in terms of natural resources, agriculture, and industrialization. Ukraine is the second-largest country by land in Europe, second only to Russia. Ukraine has the second-largest iron ore reserves in the world at 30 billion tons. It ranks in the top three in Europe in terms of mercury ore reserves, shell gas reserves, and recoverable uranium ores. Ukraine places in the top five in the world for the production of rye, potatoes, corn, barley, and sunflower oil. Ukraine also ranks in the top five in the world for the largest natural gas pipeline system and iron, clay, titanium, and turbines exportation. Having access to these resources would increase Russia’s economic independence and its economic influence in Europe. The argument could be made that modern-day Russia looks to America as an example. The U.S., after its founding, continued to expand its influence into Latin America and the Caribbean and assisted in the removal of European powers from the Western Hemisphere. Secretary of State Richard Olney, in 1895, said, “The United States is practically sovereign on this continent and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition.” As a country such as the U.S. grows into a hegemonic power with a large sphere of influence, it begins to fear for the economic and political consequences of challenges to its power. Within a country’s sphere of influence, it has the power to influence regional and global aggression beyond its borders. If Putin were to increase Russia’s sphere of influence through the use of Ukraine’s resources and Western proximity to NATO countries, he would be able to increase Russia’s economic and political power within Europe and beyond.

4. Russia wants to reestablish the historic Russian empire.

            As mentioned in rationale number three, Ukraine’s resources help it economically compete on a global scale. If Russia were to gain control of Ukraine, it would have access to these resources. By looking at history, one can see that, for hundreds of years, Russia was a strong empire full of many people and cultures and had a great amount of global power by virtue of its geography and economic potential. One potential reason for Putin’s invasion is a want to return to that powerful Russian empire. The old empire was able to control resources including the productive capacity of the people by gaining land and its resources by conquest. By annexing Ukraine into Russia, Putin would be able to move Russia a step closer to returning to the historic and powerful Russian empire. 

5. Russia wants to reestablish the geographic contours of the Warsaw Pact.

            In this argument, one must read Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Russian people. Putin starts his speech by saying, “I would like to emphasize again that Ukraine is not just a neighboring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture, and spiritual space.” Putin goes on to say that Ukraine was “entirely created by Russia or to be more precise by the Bolshevik communist Russia.” Putin talks about the borders that the USSR used to have and praises Stalin’s leadership there. The way he talked could lead one to believe that Putin is worried Russia’s borders will shrink in the coming future. This leads to the fifth reason why Russia would want to invade Ukraine: to reestablish the geographic contours of the Warsaw Pact. There was no independent Ukraine when the Warsaw Pact was signed and Putin’s speech could lead one to think he wants to see that again. In April 2005, Putin referred to the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Those who believe in this rationale think that the combination of the Russian and Soviet empires collapsing is what Putin aims to reverse with the goal of bringing the Russian empire back to its previous power and borders. He wants to undo the “catastrophe” of the demise of the USSR.

Now that you’ve read five highly popular theories on why Putin invaded Ukraine, what do you think? Is Putin worried about the spread of democracy in Europe? Is he trying to ruin Ukraine’s eligibility of entering NATO for fear of NATO expansion? Or maybe Putin is trying to increase Russia’s power and align their sphere of influence with the past Russian Empire, which includes increasing its borders as they were when the Warsaw Pact was signed?

Opinion: The United States should not be shocked by Russia’s planned invasion of Ukraine

international politics, Politics

Andrew Plunket, Staff

Header Image: BNN Bloomberg

After recent reports that Russian troops have been authorized to invade Ukraine by military officials, the world waits in anticipation. While Russian forces continue to mobilize upon Ukraine’s border, Western leaders, including President Joseph Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, have levied sharp criticism against Vladimir Putin’s aggressive maneuvers. In fact, in a press conference last week, Biden boldly exclaimed, “if Russia pursues its plans, it will be responsible for a catastrophic and needless war of choice … the United States and our Allies are prepared to defend every inch of NATO territory from any threat to our collective security as well.” Yet, as news continues to permeate the media landscape about Russia’s imminent invasion of Ukraine, one thing remains crystal clear: the United States and its allies should not be surprised by recent displays of Russian aggression.

Since Putin’s rise to power in the early 2000s, Russia has demonstrated that it is not a reliable international partner. Its blatant interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election and other democratic staples within the Western world, continual attacks upon fundamental principles of human rights like the right to free speech and attempts to subvert international resolutions have proven that a Putin-led Russia is not to be trusted. Putin’s distinctive Machiavellian-style politics has replaced the pursuit of peace with the attainment of power and global prestige as the main goal of Russian foreign policy. The established norms do not matter for Putin; rather, total control manifested through military campaigns and propaganda is the only matter of chief importance. 

In his endless pursuit of power, Putin has single-handedly isolated Russia from the international community and has transformed a once emerging center of Eastern democracy into an unrecognizable stronghold of authoritarianism. As this crisis continues to worsen, it is evident that the days of SALT treaties, perestroika, glasnost, and good-faith negotiation have far passed.

 It remains bewildering, therefore, as to why Western leaders, particularly those within the U.S., continue to be surprised at Russian efforts to expand its influence. In observing the remarks made by Western leaders about the proposed invasion, sentiments of shock, vague threats, and disappointment seem to characterize most of the West’s formal press releases, statements, and speeches. Putin has demonstrated time and time again that he is not to be trusted, and yet, the West’s only response has involved measly economic sanctions and condescending finger-wagging. For example, when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, the Western world replied with sanctions, empty promises, and lengthy speeches, thus ignoring the plethora of international transgressions committed by the Russian state. It is clear that Russia is unwilling to cooperate with international law. And, until measures of democracy are restored within the nation and its despotic leader is replaced, Western leaders must recognize that diplomatic pleas for peace will only fall upon deaf ears.

 Moreover, in addition to the dangers posed by Putin’s rule, the U.S. must recognize that its own pattern of brutal imperialism and cultural hegemony is directly responsible for Russia’s aggression. Although the U.S. likes to model itself as a picturesque beacon of democracy, an in-depth study of its history reveals that it has consistently abused human rights, unjustly invaded foreign nations/territories, and exercised soft power through propaganda, censure, and “big stick” diplomacy. It is the ultimate hypocrisy that the U.S. so strongly protests the Russian occupation when, just a few months ago, it ended a twenty-year invasion of Afghanistan. 

Additionally, U.S. occupations in Latin America and East Asia further point to its natural proclivity towards violence as a means to secure power. Therefore, the U.S. cannot be surprised that other nations attempt to imitate its own strategy. If the U.S. can invade Afghanistan, Iraq, and other nation-states without much international backlash, why would Russia not do the same thing? The American sense of moral superiority must end. The U.S. has set an extraordinarily dangerous precedent of imperialism, and now that Russia is seemingly set upon the same path, it condemns its actions. The U.S. must not pretend to be ignorant about the causes of this crisis. It is a direct result of American imperialism, and thus, the U.S. must accept this crucial fact if any solution is to be attained.

 Of course, in order to secure peace and liberty for future generations, diplomacy still must be triumphed as the primary solution. Russia currently maintains the second-largest military behind the United States and is still an integral component in the political structure of Europe/Asia. However, the time for big stick diplomacy and coercive politics is over. Displays of strength will not solve this crisis; if they did, then Russia would have already won the day. If real progress is to be achieved, transparency, empathy and a commitment to preserving peace must replace the current machismo-style diplomacy which has characterized the crisis thus far. Until these goals are pursued, it seems that our darkest days lie ahead.

Asian Americans are still victims of violent crimes

national politics, Politics

Jada Urbaez, Staff

Header Image: Justin Sullivan via Getty Images
Asian American social justice protestors at a San Francisco assembly at Embarcadero Plaza on March 26, 2021.

Although the “Stop Asian Hate” movement gained less traction after its spike in engagement last spring, Asian Americans and people of Asian descent across the world are still victims of violent crimes. Christina Yuna Lee, 35, a Korean-American woman, was killed in her New York City apartment this past weekend. Lee was getting out of a taxi and was followed up six flights of stairs by suspect, Assamad Nash. 

Lee was stabbed more than 40 times, and neighbors called 911 after hearing screams from the apartment. When police arrived, Nash allegedly changed his voice to sound like a woman to say police were not needed. An hour later, officials knocked Lee’s apartment door down, and found her shirtless and slain in the bathtub. 

Nash has a history of charges in New York and New Jersey, including assault and possession of stolen property, and has been arrested six times since 2015. For the killing of Lee, Assamad Nash has been charged with burglary and murder. 

New York City has what some may consider an alarming hate crime report rate. In 2021, the New York Police Department received a collective 524 hate crime complaints, and made a total of 219 hate crime related arrests. It is known that Asian American New Yorkers are the victims at the heart of hate crimes throughout the city, experiencing over a 300 percent increase from 2020 to 2021. 

Another headlining murder of an Asian American woman happened on the New York City subway on Jan. 15, 2022. Michelle Go, 40, was pushed into the tracks by Martial Simon while a southbound R train was approaching the station. A 75-year-old Korean-American woman was attacked in Queens earlier this year. The elderly victim suffered face injuries including an inflamed left eye and a bleeding head, and told news sources she is “lucky to be alive.” A South Korean diplomat, 53, was punched near East 35th Street and 5th Avenue earlier this month and suffered a broken nose. The suspect fled the scene. The New York City Police Department has stated the Queens and Midtown attacks are not hate crimes.

New York Mayor, Eric Adams, was interviewed by Eyewitness News, regarding the pattern of these crimes throughout the city. When discussing Michelle Go’s murder, Adams stated, “People want to walk around and say, ‘Oh, he targeted someone else first, then he went to Ms. Go.’ Maybe that is the fact, but that is not what I feel.” Adams also shared that the NYPD has been “reluctant” to identify these crimes as hate crimes, and he does not agree with the incidents’ classifications. 

US Embassy in the Solomon Islands Signals Focus on the South Pacific

international politics, Politics

Elizabeth Boyle, Staff 

Header Image: YourBigSky

On Feb. 12, during a tour starting in Australia and ending in Fiji, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced the U.S. will open an embassy in the Solomon Islands. The Solomon Islands are located in the Southwestern Pacific Ocean. Blinken explained the reason for this new embassy is to increase the U.S. presence in the South Pacific Ocean as China becomes “strongly embedded.” The State Department said that, although the United States and the Solomon Islands have a good history dating back to World War II, China is “aggressively seek[ing] to engage” with the businessmen and politicians in the Solomon Islands. China is allegedly making promises concerning infrastructure loans and debt levels while trying to strike business deals in the Solomon Islands.

While Blinken talked about the embassy “enhancing the political, economic and commercial relationship” within the islands, setting up an embassy there will be quite pricey. It is estimated the initial setup will cost $12.4 million. The embassy will be located in the capital of the Solomon Islands, Honiara. The first steps of the process would be leasing the space for the embassy and having two U.S. employees and five local personnel to staff the embassy. To further increase U.S. presence in the Solomon Islands, the State Department talked about the Peace Corps reopening their office and moving volunteers back to the Solomon Islands.

While in Fiji, Blinken spoke with the Fijian acting Prime Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and other Pacific leaders. This was the first visit of the U.S. Secretary of State to Fiji in 36 years. The topics of their meeting included the potential threat of China, climate change and rising tensions between Ukraine and Russia. Sayed-Khaiyum welcomed Blinken, “Mr. Secretary, your being here shows that promise was more than words. We have just held the most historic and comprehensive meeting ever between Fiji and the U.S.A. and a wider meeting with our fellow Pacific leaders. We believe that both mark the start of more direct partnership between Fiji and the U.S.A., and a new era for America in the blue frontier of the Pacific.” He expressed that the islands in this Pacific region felt very left out and overlooked by the major countries. He said he felt the islands were, “small dots spotted from plane windows of leaders en route to meetings where they spoke about us rather than with us, if they spoke of us at all.” 

Blinken met with leaders from Australia, India, Fiji and Japan. These four nations form a group of Indo-Pacific democracies called “The Quad” created to counter the influence of China. Blinken shows support for The Quad by saying, “You can see the strength of that commitment to the Indo-Pacific throughout the past year.  Just look at some of the key markers on our calendar, from President Biden being the first U.S. president to address the Pacific Islands Forum to our increasing engagement with The Quad, whose ministers I just met with in Melbourne, to deepening our cooperation on a range of security and defense priorities through AUKUS.”

As the U.S. increases ties in the Pacific, China continues to try to increase political and military ties in the Solomon Islands. The Solomon Islands sent shockwaves through the South Pacific regions when they decided to pull their support from Taiwan and support China in 2019. This essentially started a divide within the country that continued through Dec. 2021 when Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare survived a no-confidence motion against him in parliament. 

Democrats demand the release of student debt memos from the White House

national politics, Politics

Rachel Phillips, staff

Header Image: Chuck Schumer via Twitter

Dozens of Democratic leaders, including House majority leader Chuck Schumer, are calling on President Biden to fulfill one of his largest campaign promises: to cancel student debt. Despite the president’s previous interest in a loan forgiveness program, he expressed skepticism at his legal ability to implement wide-scale cancellations last year. 

Since then, the president has been working on memos with the Department of Education and the Justice Department about his legal authority to cancel the debt or implement a partial forgiveness program. However, these memos have yet to be shared with the Democratic leaders, who are asking for the report, or the general public. In a letter to the White House, led by Sen. Warren, Sen. Schumer, Rep Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D. Mass), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) and backed by 85 House and Senate Democrats, Biden was asked to release the memos immediately. 

“Publicly releasing memos outlining your existing authority on canceling student debt and broadly doing so is crucial in making a meaningful difference in the lives of current students, borrowers, and their families. It has been widely reported that the Department of Education has had this memo since April 2021, after being directed to draft it,” reads the letter.

 Statements have also been made by individual progressive leaders, with the most recent being Rep. Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez. In an interview with the New Yorker, AOC called out the hesitancy of the current administration, stating “this really isn’t a conversation about providing relief to a small niche group of people. It’s very much a keystone action politically. I think it’s a keystone action economically.” 

With the midterm elections quickly approaching, many progressive leaders are also emphasizing the political and economic implications of delivering on this major platform promise. However, despite the increased pressure from Democratic leaders, the Biden administration has still not released information regarding the reports. In addition, when asked about the cancellation of student debt in a January press conference, Biden did not provide any concrete answers, but rather reiterated that the issue remains a priority that is being continuously researched. 

Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona also reiterated the efforts of the president and his team, stating, “the administration is continuing to have conversations about broader loan forgiveness even as it touts the debt it has canceled by expanding or improving existing programs, such as those for public service workers or student borrowers who have become severely disabled.”

Local school district ordered by judge to continue their mask mandate

local politics, Politics, state politics

Jada Urbaez, Staff

Since school districts have reopened, many parents and students have demonstrated and spoken out because they believe masks should not be worn in schools. More recently, COVID-19 cases have declined locally, and some people are becoming tired of taking precautions. Hence why Perkiomen Valley School District, located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, wanted to halt the mask mandate for their district. 

The school board voted at the beginning of 2022 to no longer require students to wear face coverings. Parents took this decision to court, arguing stopping the mandate would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Instated in 1990, this Act prohibits discrimination of the disabled and provides equal opportunity in public settings. Fighting to continue Perkiomen Valley’s mask mandate would ensure the disabled would be able to safely attend classes without complications or life-threatening risks. The plaintiffs, who were represented by Attorney Carmen De Gisi, claimed not wearing masks would put students who are immunocompromised or disabled at an unnecessary risk, which ultimately defies the 1990 Act. 

The opposing side argued that masks cause discomfort and difficulty for the children to learn the material taught in school. In addition, parents argue that some students have anxiety, and wearing masks exacerbates their anxious feelings. All in all, the parents who wish to cease the mask mandate argue they make students uncomfortable, cause an inconvenience and do more harm than good. The federal judge disagreed and ruled that the Perkiomen Valley School District must continue the mask mandate for students, faculty, and staff until further notice.

COVID-19 cases reached their all-time peak in Pennsylvania just a month ago, but have decreased expeditiously since then. On Jan. 8, 2022, Pennsylvania reported 33,650 new cases, which bumped the state’s seven-day average to 25,848. However, just about a month later, 2,794 new cases were reported on Feb. 6, which brought the weekly average to 6,207. This decrease in positive cases may cause other school boards to do what Perkiomen Valley did, but they also may get declined by a judge for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.Editor’s Note: Help stop the spread of COVID-19 by getting vaccinated, boosted, and tested.

Russia and NATO aerial interaction

international politics, Politics

Elizabeth Boyle, Staff

While Russia has recently gathered a global audience by deploying troops to Ukraine’s border, they have also gathered the attention of the United Kingdom while attempting to fly near U.K.  airspace unannounced. 

            On Feb. 2, 2022, Russia attempted to fly four military-strategic bomber aircraft near U.K. airspace. When the British Royal Air Force determined the Russian planes had a projected course of flying over U.K. airspace, the air force quickly had jets take off from the nearest military base in Lossiemouth located in northeast Scotland. Because they were unsure if this situation would be hostile, the jets launched were Typhoon jets. A Typhoon FGR.Mk 4 is a combat jet that is agile and can do a wide range of air operations including high-intensity conflict. At the same time, Oxfordshire, England launched a Voyager air-to-refueling tanker which can use pods located under the wings to quickly refuel jets. The report from the U.K. states that the bombers were “intercepted and escorted [out of the airway].” 

            This group has been called to intercept other aircraft that approach the U.K.’s controlled airspace. It is called the “U.K. area of interest” and is international airspace policed by the U.K. This time and during a similar Russian near incursion in November 2021, the Russian bombers did not enter U.K. airspace. The U.K. believes that when the “U. K. area of interest” airspace is entered without an invitation there are two potential issues. First, the Russian jets navigate without communication with the U.K.’s air traffic control system, thus endangering civilian aircraft in the area. Secondly, entering these airspaces unannounced could be a national security threat to the U.K. and its citizens. 

            Russia’s actions of unpredictable and potentially provocative air routes could provoke the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to take action. A report produced by NATO in December of 2021 states that 290 NATO missions were flown in 2021 due to Russian aircraft posing potential threats. A school of thought is emerging globally that Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, may be using provocative military aircraft flights to gauge NATO responsiveness to potential military threats. Putin, according to some observers, also highlights to his domestic audience that NATO’s responses to the Russian flights are an indication that NATO does not respect Russia’s right to free access to the international airspace. After all, an interception by NATO aircraft has often taken place over international waters. As the situation on the Ukrainian border continues to stress the international community concerned with a potential Russian attack into Ukraine, aerial interactions elsewhere in Europe highlight the contentious relationship between Russia and NATO and the potential for miscalculation in an atmosphere of increasing distrust.

Why neither party is supporting a candidate for the 2022 PA senate race

Politics, state politics

Aidan Tyksinski, staff

Header Image: Generals International

Why neither party is supporting a candidate for the 2022 PA senate race

While the 2022 Pennsylvania Senate race is one of the most discussed midterm races in the nation, it seems that two major players in the race are willing to stay uninvolved for the time being. Both the Pennsylvania Republicans and Democrats are unwilling at this point to throw their support behind any candidate fighting for soon-to-be-former Senator Pat Toomey’s seat. While both parties have a good reason not to do so at the moment, some candidates need these nominations more than others. 

For the Democratic party, there are a couple of reasons that no candidate has support, the biggest being that the pool of candidates is currently too big. For any Democratic candidate to get a nomination, they need at least two-thirds support from the committee. When the committee held this vote over a week ago, there were four frontrunners: John Fetterman, Val Arkoosh, Connor Lamb and Malcolm Kenyatta. The number of frontrunners recently shrunk by one due to Arkoosh dropping out of the race late last week. 

Out of the three leading candidates, it seems that most of the Democratic Committee is torn between Fetterman and Lamb. Fetterman, the more progressive of the two, has gotten more donations than any other candidate in the party. However, it seems that many members of the committee feel that Fetterman’s message might not create a lot of turnouts in the very purple state, and view Lamb as a moderate whose message could swing the seat back under Democrats’ control. During the voting for the nomination, 159 members endorsed Lamb, 64 members endorsed Fetterman and Kenyatta got 49. A candidate must get 176 votes for the nomination.

For the Republicans, the reason for not picking a nomination is much simpler: there is currently no clear front-runner in the race. The two current front-runners, Dr. Mehmet Öz and David McCormick, both joined the race very recently and have no experience running a political campaign. With this seat as valuable as it is, the Pennsylvania Republican Committee seems to be playing it safe until after the primary, when there will be a clear candidate for the November election.As it stands, either McCormick or Öz could win the primary in May. Using their deep pockets, both candidates have created attack ads against each other and the Democratic party. Both have also accused each other of having ties to foreign countries, with McCormick also throwing around the idea that Öz’s ties in Hollywood will not make a good senator for Pennsylvania. The party is not the only main player staying silent on the race. Former President Trump, whose advisors say is paying close attention to the open seat, has been silent on the race ever since the candidate he supported, Sean Parnell, dropped out in November of last year. In the coming weeks and months, it will be interesting to see if more candidates fall out of the race, and which party will back a candidate first.