By Lenin O’Mahony
News Reporter Recently the State of California’s legislature passed Assembly Bill 3121, which was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 30, 2020. This legislation effectively requires the establishment of a task force which will recommend to the state legislature a form of financial compensation, a manner of which compensation should be distributed, and guidelines for who will be eligible for such compensation. The compensation which is being discussed, is towards the African American communities in California who were effected by or descended from slavery. This task force would look into how the economic and social effects of slavery and segregation have harmed modern day communities. California joined the Union in 1850, and while it was a free state, slave holders could legally bring their slaves into the state and California law required runaway slaves be arrested and returned. California is now the first state in the nation to pass a law requiring a study of reparations, but similar legislation has been proposed in a number of other states. This law only requires an investigation into the realistic options for implementing certain forms of reparations, and actual reparations could not be approved through this law alone, but would need to go through state legislation again. Despite this law not guaranteeing any concrete results, it would be extremely disappointing for supporters of reparations for this task force to come up empty handed in terms of possible solutions. There have been some serious concerns from right leaning groups about the possibility of reparations. Some view such actions as unfair and inappropriate as the nation as a whole struggles with the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is not currently known to what extent these reparations may go in terms of money spent, or in what manner it will be distributed. Many believe that such reparations should be implemented through investment into primarily black communities that are impoverished and suffer from inequalities such as food deserts, which are situations where community members need to travel large distances in order to reach proper grocery stores with healthy produce. For many marginalized areas in the nation and state, the only sources of food are corner stores which do not carry fresh produce or natural items. We recently saw the usage of stimulus checks during the early stages of the COVID-19 economic shut down, which was used to stimulate the economy and aid individuals who had lost their jobs. Similar checks are another method which could potentially be used to distribute reparations in the state. The state task force will face another difficult task of deciding who is going to be able to benefit from the potential reparations, depending on the method of distribution. Many factors need to be taken into account and it is far from an easy process. While the job of proposing methods and rules for the potential reparation program in California is a difficult task, many people in the primarily liberal state are glad to see that this legislation passed. Recent protests and riots that sprung up across the country after the death of George Floyd were certainly catalysts behind this legislation being finally passed after years of being proposed.
0 Comments
By James Molnar
News Reporter In the wake of the first presidential debate, the Saint Mary’s community is left shocked and frankly bewildered about the state of the country. Many students express concerns about the chaotic nature of the debate, which was characterized by constant interruptions, frequent ad-hominem attacks, and substantial deviation from the intended debate format. Although it is commonly acknowledged that no distinct winner emerged from this anarchical spat, students report that there are certain respects in which one candidate had an edge. For instance, while there was a fair amount of interrupting all around, it is believed that President Trump took this to another level and that this demonstrated a lack of politeness and sportsmanship. Democratic candidate Biden, however, made use of a variety of pejoratives, calling the president everything from a “clown” to “the worst president America has ever had.” This tactic, coupled with the use of informal and almost school-yard-like rejoinders such as “keep yapping” and “will you shut up, man?” led to an impression of unsophistication and in some cases volatility. Many have also observed what one student called Trump’s “vigorous” persona on the stage. This affect has incurred both benefits and costs for the president. While it is widely acknowledged that Trump dominated Biden in the power struggle that raged between them, he came across to many as highly bombastic in the process. Although Biden certainly displayed aggression as well at certain parts in the debate, he generally assumed a comparatively passive role. While this did lead some to view him as being more self-controlled than the president, it also conveyed a sense of meekness. As the candidates’ rhetorical strategies were generally perceived as highly disappointing, one might hope that some redemption could be found in the actual subject matter of the debate. This, however, would be a mistaken impression. As Tobin Shea, a senior at Saint Mary’s, points out, there was a distinct “lack of content discussed in the debate,” but instead "a lot of talking without saying much.” There were no logical explorations of the candidates’ political theories or discussions of the differences in their value structures. Instead, the two men hotly debated the veracity of basic facts, which could be ascertained using a Google search, such as the state of the economy in past years, and the salary of Biden’s son. Despite the apparent vacuity of the debate, some believe that it revealed some deeper issues about the nature of our current democracy. As Professor Stephen Woolpert of the Saint Mary’s politics department notes, “It added to my sense of concern about the possibility that this election will create some kind of a constitutional crisis if either of the candidates feels they have grounds to challenge the legitimacy of the result.” As if this were not enough, it has been suggested that the debate itself represents a threat to the democratic process. Dr. Woolpert goes onto that say: “what really concerns me is that the people who watched it might be turned off to the whole idea of democratic politics,” as it was “so distasteful.” While there was some variation in their assessments of debate, the students of Saint Mary’s appear uniform in their agreement that they would prefer a more civilized and rational discussion in the debates to come. Mission and Ministry Center hosts Faith Sharing sessions to encourage students to discuss the Bible.
By Lenin O’Mahony News Reporter This week I had the opportunity to attend a virtual Open Book Biblical Faith Sharing Session, led by Brother David Cartetti and SMC student Lucas Drake. The session began with a prayer from Brother Cartetti, followed by a “peaches and pits” activity. Everyone present went around with the opportunity to express a ‘peach,’ or highlight of their week, as well as a ‘pit,’ or low of their week. This activity can tend to feel forced, like an uncomfortable ice breaker, but everyone began with such openness and authentic expression, it was easy to feel listened to and appreciated when I got the opportunity to explain the ups and downs of my week. By doing this activity I gained two insights, first I got to know my group a little bit, their particular struggles and joys. This really helped me feel connected to the group quickly, despite having just met them. Secondly, I was able to feel open and understood when expressing my thoughts and ideas relating to the later discussion, because I had already spoken and knew it was a safe environment to express myself. The primary goal of this weekly meeting is to read and discuss the upcoming Sunday's liturgy. I found the opportunity to participate in such a discussion, in a safe environment and community, to be incredibly beneficial, for both Christians and non-christians. Not only does it present itself as a chance for a Christian to deepen their understanding and appreciation for the weekly homily at Sunday mass, but it also gives non-christians the opportunity to ask questions and seek a better grasp of Christian thought and beliefs. When we attend church we mostly listen, the explanation we receive during mass is all we get. By attending this meeting, people who are interested in the faith or are simply seeking a deeper comprehension of Christian beliefs can ask questions and converse with others. During the reflection period of the discussion, everyone has the opportunity to speak up and give their own interpretation and thoughts on the passage that’s been read. This was a great opportunity to put into practice the open discussion for everyone that I previously mentioned, where we could ask questions and seek understanding. People who participated were able to relate the verses to their own life, to their experiences and understanding. As the meeting drew to a conclusion we ended with a group prayer that included prayer intentions. Everyone had time to write in the chat a specific prayer intention, whether it be for their own health, for a friend, or a greater overarching concept such as more love and acceptance in the world. This was a wonderful conclusion to an insightful meeting. This type of meeting reflects on Saint Mary’s efforts to not only help Christian students grow their faith, but to also give non-christians opportunities to participate in faith activities without feeling pressured or uncomfortable. It was also a great example of how the Saint Mary’s community has been working hard to remain interconnected and strong, despite the restrictions of the current pandemic. I am confident that Saint Mary’s students have access to many more clubs and activities throughout a range of ideas and goals. Whether it’s growing in faith or understanding, getting involved with social justice movements, or learning more about certain subjects, Saint Mary’s students and faculty have been working tirelessly to ensure that everyone has access to those groups through virtual meetings and events. Author’s Note: If you would like to contact Lucas Drake or Brother David Cartetti about joining these virtual meetings, their emails are lld7@stmarys-ca.edu and brotherdavid@stmarys-ca.edu, respectively. By Annika Henthorn
News Reporter California wildfires have become the pinnacle of climate change. With its relentless blaze ripping through its home turf these fires have continued to grow in both its intensity and duration, propelled by a perfect storm hand-crafted by climate change. Climate change is no longer an issue of the future, but a problem knocking at our front door, not just specifically the US, but everywhere. The fires in Australia, the ever-melting glaciers in Antarctica, and the rising sea levels eating up the coasts of countries everywhere are only a few of the overarching symptoms that climate change has inflicted. In an effort to combat this, according to NPR KQED, Governor Gavin Newsom released an executive order to “phase out the sale of all gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035.” He considers it “the most impactful step our state can take to fight climate change.” Despite it being the most ambitious climate change policy the US has ever seen, it will still allow gasoline-powered cars to be sold and bought on the used-car market. However, this policy has received pushback from Trump, in hopes of revoking the zero-emission mandate for vehicles. A spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research, deemed the order by Newsom "another silly distraction from real problems." Additionally, a senior economist from the same institute agreed that “if people want to drive electric cars, they'll buy them. You don't have to eliminate the competition." He also added that although electric cars “might not have emissions at a tailpipe,” they “do have emissions at the power plant.” Transportation has remained the top dog for emissions in the US, where electricity is rapidly declining due to new-found innovations and “ambitious climate policies.” This gap continues to widen because, according to Jessica Caldwell of Edmunds, the online resource for automobile information, "many automakers have been guilty of setting short-term targets for their electrification strategy that never came to fruition." She praised Newsom for establishing “a specific timeline that they'll collectively need to adhere to.” Assembly member, Phil Ting, supported the governor’s statement by arguing that “the fastest way to make the biggest dent in slowing the effects of global warming is to embrace cleaner cars.” According to The Sacramento Bee, Dan Sperling, a UC Davis engineering professor and a member of the air resource board, stated that “this is the future” and “there’s no question that we’re going to switch to electric vehicles.” In his opinion, it’s “really just a question of how fast and exactly what technology we use.” Currently, the market for zero-emission cars has been increasing; however, they still only “accounted for fewer than 8% of all new cars sold in California last year,” according to NPR KQED. Leaders in gasoline-powered vehicles have continued to voice the economic collapse that the policy will ultimately lead to since, currently, electric cars only make up a fraction of the cars being bought. This policy has stirred a lot of controversy in regards to its effect economically and what it entails for the future. Overall, it comes down to whether you believe the means justify the ends? By Riley Mulcahy
News Reporter Tuesday’s first presidential debate showcased the deepening of the political divide in America. The discussion, which lasted ninety minutes, was moderated by Fox News’s Chris Wallace. Wallace chose the six debate topics, including the Supreme Court nomination, Trump and Biden’s records, COVID-19, violence in major cities, and the validity of the 2020 election. Due to the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, there has been a growing controversy as to whether or not the spot should be filled before the election. When asked about his plans to nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Court, President Trump responded, “We won the election, choices have consequences, we have the Senate, we have the White House.” The president went on to say that “The Democrats would try to do it [fill the seat] faster. They had Merrick Garland but didn’t have the election.” This refers to former President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, ten months before the 2016 election, with Republicans refusing to fill the seat before the election results. The former Vice President’s response evoked the seat’s importance and urged Americans to have a say in the next Supreme Court Justice. Biden also argued that the election has “already started” and that not waiting for the results in November would be wrong. Biden pointed to Barrett’s comments on the Affordable Care Act, which she called “unconstitutional.” Biden explained his plans to expand the Affordable Care Act. At the same time, President Trump reiterated a campaign promise to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, without telling how he will replace it. Throughout the night, President Trump repeatedly interrupted Biden, warning that the Democrats are the “radical left” and “socialist.” Wallace, who was in charge of making sure the night went smoothly, repeatedly urged the President to let Biden speak, noting that Trump’s team “agreed to the rules” ahead of time. At one point, Biden, who was particularly fed up with Trump’s lack of respect to the rules, called the President’s constant interruption “so unpresidential” and asked if he could “shut up man.” In one of the most talked-about segments of the night, President Trump failed to stand against racism. According to The New York Times, Mr. Trump declined to condemn white supremacy and right-wing extremist groups when prompted by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Biden. When Mr. Wallace asked him whether he would be willing to do so, Mr. Trump replied, ‘Sure.’” President Trump then told the Proud Boys to “stand down and stand by.” Many, including members of the violent group, view this as a call of arms depending on the election results. The debate has been labeled a “the worst debate in history” by many outlets, including The New Yorker, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe. The regular rules of respect, decency, and class were replaced by Trump’s aggressive name-calling and the candidates speaking over each other. Given the contentious nature of the debate, a winner is not hard to decide. Biden laid out his policies, confronted his differences with the Democratic Party’s progressive section, and questioned Trump’s response to the COVID-19 plan. On the other hand, Trump could not take any accountability in regard to his COVID-19 task force, calling the whole thing “political.” Instead of proposing solutions, the President placed blame on the Obama-Biden administration and warned of massive voter fraud cases that are not proven. The election is less than a month away, and there has never been so much discussion on the election’s integrity. Many publications have made a call to cancel the remaining two debates, as Wallace did not control the night and Trump’s constant interruption made the debate unbearable. The debate commission responded to the criticism and with a promise to change the next debates’ format. “Last night's debate made clear that additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates to ensure a more orderly discussion of the issues.” |
StaffMadison Sciba '24, Archives
November 2023
Categories |