Sen. Udall won’t run in 2020

Santa Fe New Mexican – After nearly 30 years as a major player in New Mexico politics, U.S. Sen. Tom Udall announced Monday that he will not seek a third term in 2020.

The imminent departure of Udall, who is 70 but looks years if not decades younger, will almost certainly set off a scramble to succeed him — particularly among Democrats, who are fresh from an election cycle they dominated and may see no obvious Republican hopefuls.

Udall, who served five terms in the U.S. House of Representatives before winning his first Senate term in 2008, did not give a clear reason for his decision.

“The worst thing anyone in public office can do is believe the office belongs to them, rather than to the people they represent,” he said in a statement. “Now, I’m most certainly not retiring. I intend to find new ways to serve New Mexico and our country after I finish this term. There will be more chapters in my public service to do what needs to be done.”

His statement listed a series of priorities for the remainder of his term, including climate change, election reform and an overhaul of campaign finance laws.

“Without the distraction of another campaign, I can get so much more done to help reverse the damage done to our planet, end the scourge of war, and to stop this president’s assault on our democracy and our communities,” Udall said.

The statement did not mention any specific plans for Udall’s future.

Udall championed a variety of pro-environment issues during his time in Congress.

“Colleagues are likely to remember him for shepherding through Congress an overhaul of the nation’s chemical regulation law, the Toxic Substances Control Act,” a story in Bloomberg Environment said Monday. “Udall also has been a leading voice for a federal renewable energy standard requiring states to get a portion of their electricity from renewable sources.”

Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, also lauded Udall’s work on issues that included toxic chemicals and federal methane rules, noting his willingness to work toward compromise.

Referring to Udall’s late father, former Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, who served during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, Krupp said: “Like his father before him, Tom Udall brought American idealism and Western pragmatism to Washington — and left our nation a stronger, healthier, and more beautiful place.”

Shortly after Udall’s announcement hit the news, tributes from across the state’s political spectrum started pouring in.

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said in a statement that Udall “has been a consistent beacon of leadership and moral clarity in turbulent times.”

New Mexico’s other senator, Martin Heinrich, also a Democrat, also praised his colleague. “Everyone who knows Tom Udall knows that he will never stop fighting for what he believes in,” Heinrich said.

Even former U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, vanquished by Udall in the 2008 Senate race and now chairman of the state Republican Party, had kind words.

“Tom was my colleague in the Congress and also a worthy opponent when I challenged him for the Senate seat he won in 2008,” Pearce said in a statement issued by the party. “He’s been a devoted public servant and advocate for his constituents in New Mexico and I am proud to call Tom my friend.”

National Republicans were not so gracious about Udall’s decision. “The Democratic Party’s lurch toward socialism has even longtime party leaders running for the hills,” said a statement from the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Udall was born in Tucson, Ariz., into a long-established Western political family. His grandfather, Levi, was an Arizona Supreme Court justice. His uncle Morris “Mo” Udall was a longtime Arizona congressman and sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1976. A cousin, Mark Udall, served as a congressman and senator from Colorado.

“The Udall name in the West is a positive,” Lonna Atkeson, a political science professor at the University of New Mexico, observed during the 2008 Senate campaign. “A Udall in the West is like a Kennedy.”

Tom Udall moved to New Mexico in 1975 after earning a law degree from Cambridge University in England. He later graduated from the University of New Mexico School of Law.

It didn’t take long for him to get into politics, but his first two races were unsuccessful.

In 1982 he ran in the Democratic primary for the new 3rd Congressional District, an overwhelmingly Democratic district created after the 1980 census. The Democratic primary attracted three other candidates, including a relative newcomer, Bill Richardson, who had come close to winning the 1st District race in 1980.

Udall finished last in that primary.

He lived in Albuquerque for a time and made another unsuccessful run for Congress, losing in the general election to Republican Steve Schiff.

But that was the last election he lost.

Two years later, Udall rebounded, winning the statewide race for attorney general, a position to which he was re-elected in 1994.

After Richardson left his congressional seat in 1997 to serve in President Bill Clinton’s administration, the state Democratic Party Central Committee nominated Corporation Commissioner Eric Serna for a special re-election to fill Richardson’s 3rd District seat. That choice proved to be a disaster for the Democrats. Green Party candidate Carol Miller won enough votes to allow the Republican Bill Redmond of Los Alamos to win a plurality.

Ineligible to run for a third term as attorney general, Udall in 1998 made another move for Congress. He defeated Serna in the Democratic primary, then, even with Miller on the ballot again, Udall went on to easily beat Redmond in the 1998 general election.

Once in Congress, Udall was a loyal vote for the administration during Clinton’s last two years in office. He then became a reliable critic of Republican George W. Bush. In 2001, he voted against the Patriot Act — an issue on which he was in the minority even within his own party. The controversial bill expanded law enforcement powers to fight terrorism, and critics say it’s an assault on civil liberties.

He remained a critic of the controversial law. In 2011, after Congress reauthorized the Patriot Act, Udall released a statement calling the law a “far-reaching piece of legislation with the power to undermine the Constitutional right to privacy of law-abiding citizens.” Of his vote in 2001, he said, “It was an unpopular vote at the time, but when the details of the new law were examined, the breaches on our civil liberties became clearer.”

Also in 2001, he voted against the Iraq War resolution, as did a majority of House Democrats.

When six-term U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici announced in 2007 he wouldn’t seek re-election, the pressure was on Udall to give up his safe House seat and his coveted seat on the House Appropriations Committee assignment. At first, he said he wasn’t interested. Later, however, he relented. He went on to defeat Pearce in the 2008 general election.

Source: US Government Class

‘No collusion,’ after all?

Washington Post  – President Trump has uttered the phrase “no collusion” in the past two years to pretty much anybody who would listen — more than 200 times. On Friday, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia investigation ended with the news that Mueller won’t be indicting anyone else. Nobody has been charged with conspiracy in working with Russia during the 2016 election, and now, nobody will, at least by Mueller’s team.

Of course, Mueller’s findings have not yet been made public. Even so, some of Trump’s top surrogates are already declaring victory. Here’s the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel:

Without the report, though, can we really draw such conclusions? Here’s what we do know:

It has been clear for months that Mueller was pursuing possible conspiracy angles late into his investigation. Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was revealed to have lied about sharing polling data with an associate with alleged ties to Russian intelligence. And a top Mueller team lawyer said the episode went “very much to the heart of what the Special Counsel’s Office is investigating,” according to a transcript of a hearing between Mueller’s team and Manafort’s attorneys.

Longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone was also recently indicted on charges related to his outreach to WikiLeaks, which disseminated documents the Russians had hacked. His indictment said that “a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE,” which was a curious and unusual use of the passive voice that didn’t indicate who did the directing. There was plenty of thought that person might be Trump. The president denied it.

Ultimately, Mueller didn’t charge Stone or Manafort with conspiracy, even as he charged them with other crimes. And it appears Mueller won’t be indicting anyone else within Trump’s inner circle.

It’s worth noting that collusion (which is a blanket term Mueller’s team has used for a number of different types of conspiracy) is a crime that’s very difficult to prove. Even the publicly known links between the Trump campaign and Russia have been somewhat tenuous, as Philip Bump has rightly emphasized for months and months.

This brings us to Trump. According to existing Justice Department guidelines, a sitting president cannot be indicted. The fact that Mueller isn’t indicting Trump tells us nothing about his conclusions about the president personally. But the fact that none of his campaign aides or advisers are going to be charged with conspiracy does suggest Trump won’t be accused.

Trump could still theoretically have collusion-related problems, particularly if (a) Trump directly colluded or (b) someone else colluded on his behalf but for some reason is not being charged with it. Perhaps they cooperated and got leniency, for example. Or perhaps Trump publicly asking Russia to steal more of Hillary Clinton’s emails could amount to collusion by itself. It’s possible, but it seems unlikely.

In that way, Trump and his supporters can rightly be encouraged by Friday’s news.

It does not mean, however, that Trump is out of the woods. For all the focus on collusion, it was never the most problematic aspect of Mueller’s investigation for Trump personally. The collusion narrative was the sexiest one for the media to cover (and the one Trump pushed), but obstruction of justice was always the more likely crime Trump had committed.

Friday’s news tells us next to nothing about whether Trump’s myriad questionable actions vis-a-vis the Russia probe, starting with firing James B. Comey as FBI director, might land him in hot water. Mueller’s investigation has also sprouted other probes in which Trump has been implicated (but not directly accused of criminal activity) in Michael Cohen’s campaign finance violations, and in which Trump’s finances and entities are being scrutinized.

Trump, to his strategic credit, kept the focus on “NO COLLUSION” throughout, perhaps knowing it was unlikely it would ever be proved and that the lack of proof could then be used to undermine whatever else Mueller finds on him. “They didn’t find collusion, so they looked for a bunch of other stuff” is already an argument the Trump team has been making. Given the intense focus on the topic, it’s important to emphasize how much Friday’s news indicates Trump was probably right — at least in Mueller’s eyes.

But it’s also worth noting that Trump doesn’t seem to be celebrating quite yet. In fact, he’s been very quiet. Perhaps that’s because he has decided to let other people draw these conclusions rather than step on his good news. Or perhaps it’s because he knows this is hardly the end of his troubles.

Source: US Government Class

Clarence Thomas makes rare intervention during Supreme Court arguments

Fox News – Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas surprised court watchers on Wednesday when he made a rare intervention in court arguments — asking a question in a case where a death row inmate is challenging his conviction and sentence.

Thomas, who is the only African-American and the only Southerner on the court, asked his rare question toward the end of arguments in a case involving a black Mississippi death row inmate, Curtis Flowers, who was tried six different times for the 1996 murders of four people in a furniture store.

Flowers’ lawyers claims a white prosecutor had a history of impermissibly using jury strikes to exclude African-Americans from the jury.

The Associated Press reported that a clear majority of the court appeared “troubled” by the actions of the prosecutor — District Attorney Doug Evans — in the prosecution of Flowers.

Thomas asked if Flowers’ lawyers in the case had made similar decisions, and the race of any struck jurors. Lawyer Sheri Lynn Johnson said three white jurors were excused by Flowers’ lawyer.

According to The Washington Post, two of Flowers’ trials were hung, and convictions in three others were overturned because of misconduct by Evans.

But the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld his 2010 conviction, despite Evans striking five of six black jurors, arguing that Evans had race-neutral reasons for the strikes.

Thomas’ last questions in a case  were in 2016, and that was his first intervention in a decade. He has said previously that he relies on the written briefs and believes his colleagues interrupt too much.

Fox News’ Bill Mears and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: US Government Class

Supreme Court weighs race factor in Virginia gerrymandering case

ABC News – The Supreme Court Monday waded into a long-running dispute over the use of race as a factor in drawing Virginia’s state legislative districts, setting the stage for a major decision that could reshape the electoral landscape in a key swing state on the eve of the 2020 presidential election.

The case centers on 11 state House of Delegates districts whose boundaries were drawn in 2011 following the 2010 census and have high numbers of black voters. Critics allege the map was drafted to “pack” racial minorities into districts to limit their political influence elsewhere; defenders say race did not predominate other race-neutral considerations.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires states like Virginia with a history of systemic discrimination to consider race as a factor when drawing boundaries. However, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause limits states from using race to restrict voting rights of a minority group.

“I’m wondering how a state can comply with the Voting Rights Act on the one hand and Equal Protection on the other in this narrow band,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The Republican-controlled House of Delegates, in drawing the map, decided that in each of the 11 districts – where minority voters make up a majority of the population in Virginia – black voters should be at least 55 percent of the eligible voter pool to ensure that African-Americans could elect a candidate of their choice.

The plan at the time received wide bipartisan support and was supported by many members of the Virginia black caucus. The Obama administration Justice Department also signed off.

Source: US Government Class

Senate votes to reject Trump’s national emergency declaration, setting up his first veto

CBS News –

In a rebuke of the president, the Senate voted 59-41 to pass legislation Thursday afternoon rejecting President Trump’s national emergency declaration concerning the U.S.-Mexico border. Twelve Republicans joined Democrats in voting to pass the resolution.

The president issued his emergency declaration as a way to free up funding to build his long-promised wall along the southern border after Congress refused to provide the $5 billion he originally requested. New budget requests now put that total dollar amount at over $8 billion.

When the bill moves to the president’s desk, Mr. Trump will likely issue his first veto of his presidency. “I look forward to vetoing” the resolution, he tweeted Thursday.

He told reporters in an Oval Office ceremony, “I’ll probably have to veto. And it’s not going to be overturned. And we’re going to have our whole thing. It’s been — the legal scholars all say it’s totally constitutional. It’s very important it’s really a border security vote. It’s pure and simple it’s a vote for border security, it’s a vote for no crime.”

The House passed its version of the resolution last week, largely along party lines.

Leading up to Thursday’s vote, many senators, including Republicans, called out the president’s order as an abuse of emergency powers, claiming it could set a dangerous precedent.

“It’s a question about the balance of power that is core to our constitution,” Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, told reporters on Thursday.  Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, in speech on the senate floor echoed his colleague, saying “This declaration is a dangerous precedent.”

Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, meanwhile said that while he supports Mr. Trump’s goals of securing the border, “this continues our country down the path of all powerful executive – something those who wrote the Constitution were fearful of.”

In an apparent flip, just moments before the senate’s vote, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina, announced that he would vote against the resolution — a change in his position from when he wrote in an opinion piece for the Washington Post that he could not support the national emergency declaration. Tillis had written that as a conservative he couldn’t endorse a precedent that “future left-wing presidents will exploit to advance radical policies.”

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told his colleagues, “The beauty of this government demands that we rise to the occasion this afternoon.”

“Let’s keep our government with the same balance of power that has served us so well for the past two centuries,” he added.

Here are the Republicans who voted in support of the resolution of disapproval:

  • Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee
  • Sen. Roy Blunt, Missouri
  • Sen. Susan Collins, Maine
  • Sen. Mike Lee, Utah
  • Sen. Jerry Moran, Kansas
  • Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
  • Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky
  • Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio
  • Sen. Mitt Romney, Utah
  • Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida
  • Sen. Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania
  • Sen. Roger Wicker, Mississippi

Republican Sens. John Cornyn, Thom Tillis, Cory Gardner, Ted Cruz and Ben Sasse sided with Mr. Trump by voting against the resolution.

After the vote Thursday afternoon, Sen. Toomey said in a statement to CBS that while he’s supported Mr. Trump’s efforts to secure the border, “when I disagree with the president, I feel a responsibility to stand up and say so. For these reasons, I joined a bipartisan majority of my colleagues in voting to terminate the president’s national emergency declaration.”

Sen. Paul issued a similar statement, saying “I stand with President Trump on the need for a border wall and stronger border security, but the Constitution clearly states that money cannot be spent unless Congress has passed a law to do so.”

Source: US Government Class

Parents accused in college admission scams could face “serious time” in prison

CBS News – Celebrities and business leaders, including actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin, are among 50 people who face criminal charges in a massive college admissions scam that was revealed on Tuesday. More arrests could come in the weeks and months ahead. Prosecutors say some of them paid millions to get their children into elite schools like Yale, Stanford, and the University of Southern California.

CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman told “CBS This Morning” on Wednesday these parents could be facing “serious time” in prison.

“We’re dealing with mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to commit these crimes. And what you have here are two schemes. You have the cheating that is the test taking or the paying for others to take the tests, the scoring of the tests. And then you have the one that’s really complicated which is showing that your children are athletes when they’re not so that they get in as they put it through a side door,” Klieman said. “People are so angry all over the country about this case. So the parents need to be punished severely in order for there to be deterrents.”

William Singer plead guilty Tuesday to running the biggest college admissions scam federal prosecutors have ever seen. They say he became a cooperating witness turning in A-list clients. According to court documents, Singer was the CEO of a college prep company in California.

The company would not only help doctor SAT and ACT tests it would also create the false impression the students were elite athletes by bribing coaches and creating fake athletic credentials complete with altered photos for kids. Some of the students didn’t even play the sports for which they were recruited.

“Some of the kids really didn’t know. But you also have to believe that some of the kids did know. And so are they going to be criminally prosecuted? Possibly, but highly unlikely. So what happens to them in college? If they’re in college now, isn’t the remedy with the college, does the college expel them? How about the people who already got degrees? Does the college then decide to rescind those degrees? Then it spins on to employment. You know, because everything has been falsified since the beginning. These parents did their children no favors.”

Klieman added that she doesn’t think the accused parents will be able to throw money at the problem like they allegedly did to get their kids into college.

“No one’s getting out of this,” she said. “There’s too much attention put to it. It’s one thing to buy your way in to education for your children, which I find appalling and disgusting, frankly, but it’s another thing at this stage to just think you can buy a fancy lawyer and get out of this. These parents probably had no thought that at some point they would go to prison.”

Bari Norman was an admissions officer at Barnard College and is now the co-founder and director of counseling at Expert Admissions, a service that helps students get into college. She said although she was never approached as an admissions officer, parents have asked her as a high school counselor whether she can guarantee their entrance into an elite school.

“This skirted the entire system. We know that development and advancement offices exist for the purposes of making a campus better, enriching the academic experience. This was an entirely different thing,” Norman said.

“I have had people approach me when I’ve been on this high school side to say ‘Hey if I offer you this amount of money, can you guarantee that my child will get into this school or an Ivy League university.’ The answer is, of course, no. There are no guarantees that I can make and neither could anyone actually,” she said.

“This really speaks more so to how high-stakes college admissions has become, what a status symbol it’s become that even celebrities feel that it is not enough.”

Source: US Government Class

State Senate panel backs bill to change Electoral College process

Santa Fe New Mexican – As the 2020 presidential campaign kicks into gear, New Mexico is a step closer to joining a group of states attempting to change how the country selects its leader.

The Senate Rules Committee backed a bill Sunday that would allow New Mexico to join a compact of several other states committed to putting its Electoral College votes behind the candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide.

Known as the national popular vote, the idea is part of a movement aimed at removing what backers argue is an outdated vestige of American democracy, but which critics of the bill argue would undercut the political power of smaller states like New Mexico.

Under the U.S. Constitution, each state gets an Electoral College vote commensurate with the number of representatives it has in Congress. Under the formula, smaller states are overrepresented. New Mexico has five Electoral College votes while California, with a population nearly 20 times larger, has 55 votes.

Critics of the popular vote contend the Electoral College ensures smaller states have an outsized voice in electing the president.

But backers argue small states are still left out as candidates focus on a handful of political battlegrounds — often, states with larger populations — they might be able to win.

Moreover, proponents of House Bill 55 argue the popular vote is more equitable, ensuring a voter in Los Angeles or Phoenix counts as much as a voter in rural Wyoming.

The election of President Donald Trump, who received nearly 3 million fewer votes than Democrat Hillary Clinton, has added urgency to the issue. But the measure’s sponsor, Sen. Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque, has carried such legislation for years. This may be the first year it has a real chance of getting to the governor’s desk.

“It really gets to one person, one vote, which I think is the most empowering concept of all,” said Sen. Jeff Steinborn, a Democrat from Las Cruces who sits on the Senate Rules Committee.

But another member of the committee cautioned against viewing the idea through the lens of past elections.

Changing how presidents are elected will change the strategy, said Sen. Daniel Ivey-Soto, D-Albuquerque. Candidates will spend more time in parts of the country, such as Texas and California, that are not as big of priorities under the current system, in which swing states are key.

“You cannot relitigate the last election based on a different set of rules,” Ivey-Soto said.

Republicans say the idea would undercut New Mexico’s political clout.

“Under this bill, the East and West Coast will determine the president, and it diminishes the impact of votes and our state on a national stage,” Rep. Bill Rehm, a Republican from Albuquerque, said after the measure passed the House last month.

Moreover, critics point out, the bill could put New Mexico in the strange position in the future of putting its electoral college votes behind a candidate who did not win the state.

The New Mexico Attorney General’s Office noted in an analysis of the bill that a candidate who loses an election due to a popular vote compact would likely challenge the arrangement in court.

The Senate Rules Committee advanced the bill with a vote along party lines.

House Bill 55 goes next to the Senate Judiciary Committee. If it clears that panel, it would go to a vote of the full chamber.

The compact would not take effect until states with a total of 270 electoral votes, enough to win the presidency, have signed on to the agreement.

Twelve states with a total of 172 electoral votes have joined the compact, including California, Illinois, Maryland and Hawaii.

Colorado’s Legislature passed a similar bill this year. With that, the compact would have 181 electoral votes, still leaving a ways to go before the agreement would take effect.

Source: US Government Class

What Happened When I Made My Students Turn Off Their Phones

As a teacher who has long witnessed and worried about the impacts of technology in the classroom, I constantly struggle to devise effective classroom policies for smartphones. I used to make students sing or dance if their phones interrupted class, and although this led to some memorable moments, it also turned inappropriate tech use into a joke. Given the myriad deleterious effects of phones – addiction, decline of face-to-face socialisation, deskilling, and endless distraction, for starters – I want students to think carefully about their phone habits, rather than to mindlessly follow (or not follow) a rule.

After reading my Aeon essay on the topic, a representative from a San Francisco startup called YONDR contacted me. YONDR makes special pouches that keep audiences from using their phones at shows. You silence your phone, slide it into the pouch, and lock it at the top. After the performance, or if access is necessary before then, you can unlock the case in the lobby by touching the lock to a metal base, similar to anti-theft tags on clothing. Performers such as Dave Chappelle and Alicia Keys have used YONDR – whose motto is ‘Be here now’ – to curtail unsanctioned recordings and, when they look into the crowd, they see faces, not phones. The approach seems less draconian than forcing people to part with their tech, as separation anxiety defeats the goal of increased engagement.

YONDR sent me pouches to use in class. At the start of the winter semester, I introduced my students to the routine: before each class, they’d silence their phones, get a pouch from the box, and lock their phones in. Before leaving, they’d unlock the case and put it back in the box. During class, I didn’t care if they put the pouches on the desk, in their pockets, or if they clutched them tight. I told them this was an experiment for an eventual article, and that I wanted their honest opinions, which I’d collect via surveys at the beginning and end of the semester.

Initially, 37 percent of my 30 students – undergraduates at Boston University – were angry or annoyed about this experiment. While my previous policy leveraged public humiliation, it didn’t dictate what they did with their phones in class. For some, putting their phones into cases seemed akin to caging a pet, a clear denial of freedom. Yet by the end of the semester, only 14 percent felt negatively about the pouches; 11 percent were ‘pleasantly surprised’; 7 percent were ‘relieved’; and 21 percent felt ‘fine’ about them.

Workarounds emerged immediately. Students slid their phones into the pouches without locking them, but because they still couldn’t use their phones in class, this became a quiet act of rebellion, rather than a demonstration of defiance. Some of them used their computers, on which we often search databases and complete in-class exercises, to text or access social media. I’m not comfortable policing students’ computer screens – if they really want to use class time to access what YONDR denies them, that’s their choice. The pouches did stop students from going to the bathroom to use their phones. In previous semesters, some students would leave the room for 10 to 15 minutes and take their phones with them. With phones pouched, there were very few bathroom trips.

A quarter (26 percent) of my students predicted that YONDR would make the classroom ‘more distraction-free’. At the end of the semester, twice as many (51.85 percent) said it actually had. I can’t tell if this is a grudging admission, as though conceding that broccoli isn’t so bad after all, or an earnest one. Once, after class, I noticed a pouch left under a desk. A few minutes later a student raced in. ‘I totally forgot about my phone after I put it in the pouch,’ she said. ‘I guess that means they’re working.’ Perhaps she daydreamed about something else or produced a magnificent doodle, but chances are she was actually engaged in the class.

When I asked whether society would benefit from decreased phone use, only 15 per cent said no. Two-thirds (65 percent) said yes, and 19 percent said: ‘I think so.’ Half (50 percent) of students mentioned better communication and more face-to-face interactions as benefits of using phones less. ‘I started to notice how my cellphone was taking over my life,’ one student wrote. ‘[B]eing in the shower is a time I really appreciate because it forces me to spend some time away from my phone, just thinking rather than mindlessly scrolling.’

My goal with this experiment was to get students thinking about their habits, rather than to necessarily change them. Students should question authority, including mine. It’s easy for me, and, I suspect, much of the older generation, to seek evidence to support the idea that life was better before smartphones. My students admit they can’t read maps, that they find reading and writing on paper antiquated, that they don’t memorise information they can google. Yet these are not confessions – these are realities. Some changes are simply changes. Not everything needs to be a value judgment, but students generally agree that phone use in the classroom is inappropriate – only 11 percent believe a class phone policy is unnecessary.

At the beginning of the semester, 48 percent said that a more distraction-free environment would help with learning. Given that, I asked why we still surround ourselves with phones in the classroom. A fifth (20 percent) used the word ‘addiction’ in their responses – a word they often avoid. Many mentioned boredom. Unfortunately, societal norms suggest that phone use is an acceptable response to boredom. But as philosophers such as Søren Kierkegaard and Bertrand Russell have argued, boredom is essential – it ignites imagination and ambition. Boredom isn’t something from which students need rescuing.

One student voiced a reductionist explanation: ‘We are idiots. We cannot control our behaviour.’ While I appreciate the pithy observation, the resoluteness of these statements troubles me. If we write ourselves off as idiots, then why bother examining the way we live? If we have no control over our behaviour, what’s the point of trying to change?

Technology is part of humanity’s narrative. That’s neither inherently good nor bad – the implications are up to us. While 39 percent of my students said that studying the effects of phone use didn’t change their thoughts or behaviours, 28.5 percent try to use their phones less and 21.5 percent now try to be more aware about how/when they use their phones. Half of my students think more critically about the role of phones, and that’s the first step in guiding our relationship with technology, instead of letting tech guide us.

Still, I wanted some sense of where my students’ generation will take this story. I asked them whether they’d ever implant their phones in their bodies (as predicted by industry leaders at the Davos World Economic Forum in 2016) and here’s what they said:

  •  7 percent: Yes! The closer I can be to my phone, the better
  •  7 percent: Yes – it’s inevitable, so I might as well
  •  7 percent: Depends on the cost
  •  11 percent: Depends on how many other people are doing it
  •  36 percent: Depends on the physical risks
  •  32 percent: No way

Two-thirds of my students would at least consider making their phones part of their bodies, which would mean accepting all the consequences of screens, instant gratification and information-dependency. But as with all hypothetical questions, perhaps when the possibility arises, some will decide to preserve the ability to put down their phones. Perhaps they’ll remember that time with the kind of nostalgia I feel for the experiences of childhood that no longer exist.

In the novel Ishmael (1992) by Daniel Quinn, the ape Ishmael tells its human pupil that it’s an expert in captivity.

‘I have this impression of being a captive,’ the pupil says, ‘but I can’t explain why.’

‘[You’re] unable to find the bars of the cage,’ Ishmael replies.

I keep returning to this idea when I think about the YONDR experiment. Ishmael is talking about the destruction of the environment, but his observation applies to human use of technology too. Participation in modern-day civilisation requires technology, particularly smartphones. We pay bills, communicate with friends and family, get our news, and apply for jobs, college and healthcare via websites and apps. The old-fashioned way doesn’t work anymore. We have to adapt.

But it’s up to us exactly how to adapt. Do we line up to fork out more than $999 for the new iPhone? Do we text someone across the room or keep our phone on the table during dinner? Do we opt to interact with other humans as little as possible and rely on technology as the go-between?

Ultimately, that’s what the YONDR pouches represent: choice. Perhaps agency won’t lead to a different narrative, but it could offer my students a workaround. If they are going to implant smartphones in their bodies, I hope they do so not because it’s the path of least resistance but because they thought about it and truly want it. And if they power down their phones, I hope it’s not (always) because a professor asked them to.

Source: US Government Class

DNC bars Fox News from hosting presidential primary debates; network urges party to reconsider

FoxNews -The Democratic National Committee has barred Fox News from hosting its presidential primary debates, prompting the network to urge the party to reconsider.

“We hope the DNC will reconsider its decision to bar Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, all of whom embody the ultimate journalistic integrity and professionalism, from moderating a Democratic presidential debate. They’re the best debate team in the business and they offer candidates an important opportunity to make their case to the largest TV news audience in America, which includes many persuadable voters,” Fox News Senior Vice President Bill Sammon said in a statement.

CNN ACCUSED OF STACKING AUDIENCE VS. BERNIE SANDERS IN TOWN HALL EVENT

Earlier in the day, DNC Chairman Tom Perez announced the party would not allow Fox News to host primary debates, claiming they would not be “fair and neutral” forums for the candidates.

“I believe that a key pathway to victory is to continue to expand our electorate and reach all voters,” Perez said in a statement to The Washington Post that cited a critical article in The New Yorker. “That is why I have made it a priority to talk to a broad array of potential media partners, including Fox News. Recent reporting in the New Yorker on the inappropriate relationship between President Trump, his administration and Fox News has led me to conclude that the network is not in a position to host a fair and neutral debate for our candidates. Therefore, Fox News will not serve as a media partner for the 2020 Democratic primary debates.”

While some Fox News Channel opinion hosts have come under fire for ties to the Trump administration, Wallace, Baier and MacCallum are anchors from the news division who have been praised for their handling of past debates. In 2016, Wallace moderated a presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

FOX NEWS DOMINATES MSNBC, CNN ACROSS THE BOARD DURING FEBRUARY

Reacting to the DNC’s decision, Baier tweeted Wednesday, “That’s really a shame. When it comes to fairness – our news product speaks for itself. We will continue to cover this 2020 race fairly & will continue to invite Democrats- Republicans & Independents on to talk about key issues & substance with our very large viewing audience.”

The DNC announced last month that NBC News will host the first Democratic primary debate of the 2020 election cycle in June. Back in 2016, the Republican National Committee famously pulled out of a planned NBC News Republican primary debate after a similar event on CNBC was criticized for allegedly unfair questions.

Source: US Government Class

Trade Deficit Soars to Record Level

New York Times – WASHINGTON — The United States trade deficit in goods ballooned to its largest level in history, reaching $891.3 billion in 2018, despite President Trump’s repeated promise to reduce that figure.

The gap between the goods that the United States sells to China and what China sells to America rose to a record $419 billion, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. That gap has been a particular source of ire for Mr. Trump, who has imposed steep tariffs on Chinese goods to try and slow imports into America.

In December, the overall goods and services deficit rose to $59.8 billion, up 19 percent from the previous month. It was the highest monthly trade deficit in a decade.

The trade deficit, or the gap between value of goods and services imported into the country and exported out of it, expanded mainly because of the strong American economy, which allowed Americans to purchase more from abroad. A strong dollar, which weighed on American exports, and a continued shortfall in American savings also helped to buoy the metric.

The trade deficit in goods with China grew in part because of a stronger American dollar and a weaker Chinese yuan, which offset some of the impact last year of Mr. Trump’s tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese exports.

But the value of the Chinese yuan, which is determined partly by the market and partly by the government, started rising again in the fall, as Chinese President Xi Jinping met Mr. Trump in Argentina in November to begin hammering out a trade pact, said Brad Setser, a senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“China certainly allowed the market to push the value of the yuan down against the dollar over the summer,” Mr. Setser said.

Mr. Trump views the trade deficit as a scorecard for America’s trading relationships, pointing to deficits with trading partners like China and the European Union as evidence that America is on the losing end. Most economists disagree with this perspective, saying that the deficits are more closely linked with macroeconomic factors like investment flows, fluctuations in the value of currency, and relative growth rates.

In recent trade talks with the Chinese, Mr. Trump’s advisers have pressed Beijing to commit to a specific target for reducing the bilateral trade imbalance between the countries. But while the Chinese have offered large purchases of American products, they have resisted setting a specific dollar target for the trade balance, arguing that such a metric is largely beyond their control.

Mr. Trump’s focus on the trade deficit has resulted in a particular irony: By his own metric, the president is failing to right America’s global trading relationships. Yet many of the president’s harshest critics don’t blame him for this, saying that fluctuations in the trade deficit are largely beyond his control.

Mr. Trump’s $1.5 trillion tax cut also helped widen the trade deficit. To pay for the tax cuts, the government needed to borrow more dollars, some of which came from foreign investors. Foreigners got those dollars by selling more goods and services to Americans, which will widen the trade gap.

On Tuesday, Treasury Department figures showed the budget deficit is also widening, and is on track to top $1 trillion this year.

Source: US Government Class