Academic and Business Writing: Optional Pop-Up 4. Globalization: Our Friend or Our Foe?

photo edited by Laura Lai

 by Laura Lai/Comment

More than ever, globalization and international travel affect universities and companies. What are the benefits and problems caused by either globalization or internationalization? How has it affected your job, your school, or your home town?

Globalization is a process that refers to the constantly growing interconnection between states so that political, economical, and/or social events taking place in one country may have effects in the most remote areas on the globe (e.g. the global economic crisis, the COVID pandemic, etc.). The relationships between states and their economies are traditionally analyzed under three main paradigms: realism (that is centered on the state, its sovereignty, alliances, and diplomacy), liberalism (for which the state is not the main actor, but just a bureaucracy, the people are perfectible, but mainly in a democracy; it does not reject the concept of state sovereignty, but the balance of power between states is reached through interdependence between them), and the structural paradigm (which is the least influential of all and that focuses on classes rather than on states).

            Globalization is not a new paradigm. It remains a process that in its turn is analyzed from the perspective of the three main paradigms. From my point of view, globalization is not a process, but a step in a process that started long ago. And this can go as far back as the 18^th century when I. Kant wrote on the ‘perpetual peace’ expressing the observation that among democracies war is less possible. Furthermore, in the ‘60s and in the ‘70s there were political and economical scientists that spoke about ‘modernization’ and its different aspects. In this sense, we can come across concepts such as the ‘global village’ that addresses the Internet connectivity of all societies and this may imply the development of a more homogeneous society in which identities, time, and space diminish. Another concept is that of ‘global polity’ that has supporters who promote the idea of a transfer of sovereignty from state to transnational actors. 

As a step in an ongoing process or as the process itself, globalization has its defenders and its opponents. I suppose that measurements and analysis have been undertaken by specialists and those whose measurements resulted in qualitative and quantitative life improvement position themselves on the defenders’ side of globalization. Those whose measurements resulted in the negative impact of globalization position themselves as opponents of it. I have never come across such measurements, I have never read such analysis, and I do not position myself either as a defendant or an opponent of it.

            There are pundits who claim that the improvements were more qualitative than quantitative. Others argue that it destroys the local economy and identity. And there are also voices commenting that it is only about national companies trading globally – which, obviously,  it is true, too. In which concerns universities, most people argue that it affected them in a positive way. And they mainly refer to international travel that facilitated student exchanges, and multiculturalism in a class that has its benefits to learning about different cultures or the learn a point of view on a topic from a person raised and educated in a different culture. I cannot agree more that these are interesting, fascinating, and culturally enriching.

However, I do not see a strong link between international travel and universities, because when it was about education, people motivated by learning traveled from poor regions and countries by horse and carriage to get to cities that had a university (e.g. Berlin, Oxford, Paris, Vienna, etc.). Furthermore, if a university considers the potential of a candidate relevant for its team, it made that person part of its team with or without international travel, with or without globalization. I am doubtful that it is international travel or globalization that made a university competitive or less competitive.

But I think it is possible for globalization to negatively impact universities. It is about universities that are not competitive enough. And one of the main reasons they may not be competitive enough is not the technology that they can purchase at different prices – due to economic competition during globalization – but the staff they employ (letting aside that sometimes it is about nepotism and other forms of corruption). In the www-global era in which we are living, potential students can ‘search’, ‘find’, and ‘apply’ and some get accepted to competitive universities, while the least competitive get closed, meaning that staff gets unemployed. It is supporters of globalization that come with the solution: to make other courses and learn a new job. Competitive universities benefit culturally, academically, and financially from the increasing number of students. Globally speaking, we all benefit from having good and seriously educated people.

In which concerns private companies during globalization, there are many voices stressing the negative impact of them on people. Here, opponents of globalization speak about ‘exploitation’, ‘cheap labor’, ‘child labor’, and even ‘enslavement’ during modern times. Theoretically, it is about the argument that globalization is another phase or a late phase of capitalism in which private companies make the rules and the state is powerless.

            In this sense, I have seen a documentary on jeans manufacturing. It showed that one pair of jeans is sold for $100 dollars in the Western world and women working for them in Asian countries are paid $20 a month. I still have in my mind the image of one of the women, her disappointment, her tears that this money is not enough to live with. And she was showing the way she lived. Basically, a private company selling a certain good looks for cheap labor anywhere in the world to manufacture that product as cheaply as possible and sell it afterward as expensive as possible to maximize its profit.

            I understand that profit is essential for a business. The way it is made is debatable. I am doubtful that globalization is responsible because globalization – as a process – only allows private owners (with more or less human values) to search for cheap labor. To my mind, the state is more responsible for the situation than an abstract term called ‘globalization’. And I disagree that the state and the national governments are powerless in front of such private owners running only after profit and to whom the individual has no other value but to trade their skills for as little money as possible. But national governments are made of people. A significant ‘financial attention’ from a private company to government officials and the government will not regulate ‘exploitation’ or ‘child labor’.

            The recent trade agreement between the United States-Canada and Mexico (USMCA replacing NAFTA) signed into law by former US President Donald Trump stresses that in terms of car manufacturing, 75 percent of its parts must be done in these three countries with workers paid at least $16 an hour. Such a governmental agreement is beneficial, particularly for Mexican workers. It will be translated into the car's price but it is the evidence that it is not globalization that is stronger than states and governments. 

To summarize, globalization is not a new paradigm in which we are living. It is a process that refers to the constantly increasing political, economical, and/or social interconnection among people and states. To me, it is more like a phase in a process that started in the 18^th century and that was retaken in the ‘60s and the ‘70s. There are different opinions on globalization, some claiming its benefits and others claiming its negative consequences.

            In which concerns universities, the interconnection among people allows students to choose competitive universities and those less competitive get closed. I do not support the argument that international traffic favored universities, because people motivated by education use horse and carriage to get to universities in different countries. I also do not support the argument that globalization made some universities more competitive than others, but the staff it has and the orthodox way it was selected and employed. This process may have started long before the www-global times we are living.

In which concerns private companies, they are all interested in making a profit, and some of them make this profit by paying their remote employees so little that they themselves cannot live with that money. That is the reason why people speak of globalization as being about ‘modern enslavement.' My argument is that it is not about an abstract concept like ‘globalization’ that does that but concrete private owners, who do not value the life of people, but only the skills they have that they try to acquire at the lowest price possible to maximize profit. The argument that globalization is strong and state/national government is weak is not sustainable to me. The recent regional trade agreement between US, Canada, and Mexico that former US President Trump signed into law stresses that 75 percent of cars’ components, for example, to be manufactured in these three states by workers paid at least $16 an hour. Through such an initiative that is signed into law, these three governments proved stronger than some possible private owners using globalization to maximize their profits.

#cwp2x #globalization #writing #amblogging

Academic and Business Writing. Optional Pop-Up 3: Sciences vs. Humanities

photo edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/ Comment

Some people believe that people in technical fields do not need to work on writing or reading much. Other people believe that studying humanities is a waste of time. Still, others believe that we should learn outside our comfort zone: English majors should learn some computer coding skills, and engineers should read Shakespeare. What is your opinion?

In the above opposition between sciences and humanities, there are three opinion streams where the first is a supposition, the second is a market observation, and the third is more of an advice.

By ‘science’ I mean here ‘technical fields’, meaning that I mean computer sciences, engineers, doctors, and other fields working with data and with numbers. It is due to the fact that their activity is more in the field of precise data that it may be – wrongly, I would say – assumed that they do not need to work on writing or reading much. There are two reasons why I disagree. First, to be a programmer, an engineer, a doctor, or a scientist in general, is the specialization one has chosen after having passed some educational levels that generally require both science and writing. It is in those pre-university years that each individual realizes what s/he has a calling for sciences or humanities. Once the individual is a specialist in sciences, it focuses more on the realm of their choice, but it is a supposition to believe that they do not need to read or write much. For example, a doctor is a scientist that needs to constantly read and update itself. Second, I disagree, because sometimes the calling for writing and reading in a scientist can be greater – actually screaming! – than the beloved science choice it once made. Such an example is Anton Checkhov, who was admitted to the I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. He became a doctor, but his calling for reading and writing made him become one of the best playwrights and short storytellers ever. This is one example. One great example. And I am doubtful that this is the only example, especially since there are many scientists around the world, each of them with their character, personality, interests, hobbies, etc. A truly great variety of people among scientists!

The second opinion stream is based on the market observation that those having graduated from humanities wasted their time studying because jobs are scarce in this field. To be more specific, ‘humanities’ it is usually meant graduates mainly of literature, philosophy, and history (and related fields, such as political sciences). Those in this field play with words the way scientists play with numbers. I disagree with this market argument – otherwise a good argument – that because of this, youngsters should not waste their time and do something better, such as computer science that the market needs, that the future of the market requires, that you should study … or starve! J The main reason why I disagree is that I strongly believe that the progress of humanity so far relied on education. And by this, I mean education in general.

For many youngsters on this planet, education is more of a privilege than a right. But when the economical, social, or geographical barriers are broken and education becomes a possible reality, why should not let youngsters choose to study the questions that preoccupy them? Why should youngsters not be allowed to deepen a field that is appealing to them? Because the market says so? Education is a lifetime process, and the market is something flexible: each year demands something else, with programmers being a constant. But concepts like ‘market’, ‘market forecast’, and ‘computer programming’ are modern terms, and they appeared long after humanity studied grammar, philosophy, and scribes registered historical events. Therefore, humanities have never been a waste of time. It actually allowed the degree of evolution we are enjoying now. Why shall it be a waste of time from now on? ‘Because it is not a future job’ somebody would say. But many jobs have been lost doing a pandemic that nobody predicted. So, why not let people study what they are interested in, but truly – not superficially – study? And why does the market only tells? Can’t it also listen? J 

To my mind, there are jobs that require a precise background. There are science jobs that a candidate cannot learn in training for a few months. But there are other jobs – that the market needs – that can be learned after a short training. Many companies offer training at the beginning of employment to get acquainted with the staff and to the company. It goes from a company tour to a few weeks or months of training. Some employers start from the assumption that educated people are versatile. Therefore, I subscribe to the opinion stream that encourages education whatever makes people comfortable, because education, particularly grammar, philosophy, and history has been loooong beneficial for humanity.

The third opinion stream sounds more like a piece of advice. It encourages both scientists and humanists to leave their professional comfort zone in order for the scientist to read Shakespeare and for the humanists to learn some computer coding skills. I … agree with such a piece of advice for the fun of it, for some diversity in the daily activity routine, or to learn new skills, but, in general, I disagree with this third opinion stream, too.

            I think that the reason why I disagree relates to the way I understand the ‘comfort zone’. To my opinion, the comfort zone is not a place of honey and milk – as, sometimes, some misunderstand it and they ‘kindly’ and ‘eagerly’ recommend you to leave it. From a professional point of view, the comfort zone is the area in which a person is professional and can excel. Obviously, my puzzle is clearer now: why shall somebody leave an area in which it can be professional and excel in order to learn some skills in an area that is not appealing to it, in an area it cannot stand as a professional, in an area in which it may never excel and always stay mediocre? Unless is for some fun, for some diversity in their daily activities, etc. and this I can understand.

To sum up, I disagree with all three opinion streams. First, I disagree that those in technical fields do not read or write enough, because people are different and interests are different, and some may be part of book reading clubs, or others, like Anton Checkhov, be great writers, although a scientist. Second, I disagree that studying humanities is a ‘waste of time’, because I believe that people studied grammar, philosophy, and scribes registered historical events long before concepts like ‘job market forecast’ or ‘computer programmer’ appeared. I think that the deep study of the former allowed humanity’s progress. And, third, I disagree with the advice to leave the comfort zone – understood as the field of activity in which one excels – to acquire some skills that present no current or future professional utility, unless is for fun, for finding some answers, for some diversity in the daily routine… 

#cwp2x #writing #amblogging

Germany Criticizes the EU Commission – Vaccine’s Side-Effect?! (I)

by Laura Lai/Comment

 A few days ago, after the acquittal of the former US President, Donald Trump, by the Senate, I was trying to write something – I was thinking. While I was thinking, I almost got shocked by what my eyes were seeing and what my hears were hearing because some politicians from the German government have spoken – they criticized the European Commission, run by the German Ursula van der Leyen, on the European vaccination strategy and border closure to avoid the spread of the mutant virus. The European Union has vaccinated a bit more than three percent, while countries outside the European Union seem to champion the vaccination: Israel (over 60 percent), the United Arab Emirates (over 38 percent), the United Kingdom (over 16 percent), the United States (over 10) and Serbia (over 7 percent). [1]

            The European Commission considered a correct attitude ‘to act in solidarity (…) and help less wealthy or smaller European states to get the vaccine’ first [2] – Sometimes, I surprise myself that I humanly agree with the European Commission. J But how well did the smaller European states actually do? According to the source BBC used, Malta is at 7.2 percent, Denmark – 5.1 percent, Cyprus – 2.9 percent, Austria – 2.5 percent, Luxemburg 2.1 percent, Bulgaria – 0.8 percent. From this list of small countries the only one that is ‘less wealthy’ is Bulgaria. My surprise was short and my disappointment deep to see a ‘small and less wealthy’ country like Bulgaria at 0.8 percent. Even if the Commission would have only referred to Malta, my disappointment is still deep because 7.2 percent is very far from what Israel or the Arab United Emirates have achieved.

After an invitation to solidarity that the Commission understands better than I do, its President, Mrs. von der Leyen, is in the mood for more metaphors – I love metaphors! She said that “[a] country can be a speedboat, the EU is more like a tanker”. If I have to choose between the two metaphors, I think I prefer a speedboat with essence, rather than a stuck tanker without essence facing the COVID hurricane – Which one do you prefer?

            In this European tanker that masters so far the pandemic mainly through the lockdown, a mutant virus is spreading killing more and killing quickly – This situation is becoming a horror movie with a tanker.

            The Austrian region of Tyrol and the Czech Republic (both neighboring countries of Germany) have a high infection rate with the mutant virus. Therefore, Germany decided to close the borders only with these two countries starting on Sunday, February 14^th, just in order to stop or to slow down the spread of the mutant virus. But they did this without informing the European Commission – I hope it is not considered a tragedy by the Commission, especially since it was humanly intended to prevent tragic life loss. And even if it will be considered a tragedy by the European Commission, I hope Germany and the Germans will be forgiven – In the end, it is the Germans who, through their taxes, support the European Commission.

            Mrs. van der Leyen got upset with this decision of Germany and the German Interior Minister, Honst Seehofer, got puzzled and declared:

 “We are fighting the mutated virus on the border with the Czech Republic and Austria. The EU Commission should support us and not put spokes in our wheels with cheap advice.” [3]

Seehofer criticized the Commission for its ‘enough mistakes when ordering vaccines in the last few months’ – an opinion shared also by the German Finance Minister and vice-chancellor, Olaf Scholz, [4] who considers the European vaccine strategy ‘a shit’ and a ‘disgrace’ – most probably in comparison to the efficiency he is used in Germany. [5] (to be continued)

Germany Criticizes the EU Commission – Vaccine’s Side-Effect?! (II)

 

by Laura Lai/ Comment

It seems that the speedboat made in Germany collided with the European tanker. The European Commission will send a letter ‘to advise them against closing borders to stem the spread of coronavirus’. [6]

            It makes sense for the Commission to send a letter – it is what it usually does, it is part of its attributions, and it justifies their income. But it does not make any sense under these circumstances when its vaccination strategy against the SARS-COV-2 virus is at 3-4 percent and the virus is mutating itself into something worse.

            Second, it would have made some sense if this letter would have been accompanied by suggestions for alternative procedures. But it seems that during pandemics, there are not many options besides lockdowns, mask-wearing, and vaccines.

            Third, during pandemic times, a letter from some bureaucrats on … borders is less relevant than the recommendations of a doctor, particularly an epidemiologist. The last thing in the world epidemiologists recommends (during pandemics when we do not yet master vaccination) is free circulation. But I can agree that people who live in one country and work across the border in a neighboring one should be allowed to go to work if they prove to be healthy and they cannot work from home – Indeed, I would surprise myself agreeing with the European Commission if the Commission mentioned this category of people in its letter. No, I have not read the letter because I am afraid that my disappointment about the Commission would get deeper.

            Fourth, speaking of being in ‘solidarity with the small and the less wealthy’ I think we must include the doctors, too – We are all ‘small’ in comparison to the ‘high officials’ in Brussels. And definitely less wealthy! The government of New Zealand had announced at the beginning of this pandemic crisis that it was in solidarity with the society with a concrete 20 percent pay cut for the following six months. [7] This kind of solidarity is easier to understand for me than the European plea for solidarity with the ‘small and less wealthy’ countries that needed to get the vaccine first and we discover Bulgaria on the list with 0.8 percent. I remember doctors were promised by the Commission some financial bonuses that will come from European public money, meaning all citizens’ contributions. And I hope it is not only the government of Germany that receives letters but also the doctors will receive a letter announcing to them that they can pick up the money they were promised, the money they worked for, the money that some of them did not live to get.

            Fifth, many countries closed borders with everybody, not only with a region of Austria and with the neighboring Czech Republic. Israel, for example, closed its borders and was vaccinating its population. New Zealand closed borders with everybody. The European Commission suggests circulating freely when vaccines are scarce?! The free circulation of people and goods is a fundamental principle of the European Union, but at this vaccination rate and with this European vaccination strategy that has had poor results so far, there will be few or no people and goods to circulate after the pandemic. Let us make a beloved imagination exercise for the Commission and imagine the United Kingdom member of the European Union with its rate of new daily cases and with its daily death toll, but with the European vaccination rhythm. What would have been left of the United Kingdom today? – Is the free circulation principle more fundamental than life itself? I do not think so! 

            Enough with constructively criticizing the European Commission! – It will never change. Let us have a quick look at this speedboat clash with the European tanker from the member states’ point of view. The European Commission is purchasing the vaccines for all member states – It is supposed so because it was so decided in 2020. But the states were also given the liberty to strike deals with those suppliers with whom the Commission is not negotiating. [8] And from 27 member states, it is only Hungary that thought to use this privilege?! It was expected given its past experience during the 2015 migration crisis and the European inefficiency. Hungary thought to contact the suppliers of the Russian vaccines, Sputnik V – scientifically proved to have over 90 percent efficiency. Why is it that all the other 26 countries are waiting for the European Commission to do this job? Because it is its assigned task and all citizens pay for it? – Oh, please! The wise men used to say that ‘if you want something done well, you have to do it yourself!’

To sum up, I was surprised by the recent collision between the speedboat made in Germany and the European tanker that is stuck with no essence – metaphorical meaning for ‘vaccine’. J For a second, I thought that it might be a vaccine side-effect, but it can't be with the low vaccination rate in the European Union. Whatever the European reasons to have vaccinated 3-4 percent of the population might be, Israel vaccinated over 60 percent of its population – Therefore, who does not have a Benjamin, to borrow one! J In this collision between the speedboat and the tanker, I was not disappointed by the arguments – they were metaphorical, on both sides. J

I do not believe that doctors all over the world continuously pretend for almost a year that they are busy with an invisible deadly virus spreading, mutating, and killing around and that they somehow enjoy staying in hospitals more than staying home with their families. Many terrible diseases have been eradicated with vaccines and I do not understand where the idea that Bill Gates uses these vaccines to introduce a microchip into our bodies. But if I am wrong, I hope Bill Gates will choose the magical ‘healthy and prosperity microchip' for each of us. J Stay well and stay safe! (the end)

Other sources:

 World Health Organization

Trump vs. Twitter. Who Failed What?

by Laura Lai/ Comment

On January 7^th, 2021 the online social media platform Twitter announced that the account of the U.S. President Donald Trump was suspended. It was permanently suspended. The President’s over 88 million followers were also provided a reason for this decision: ‘instigation to violence’ – in reference to the riot on the Capitol in Washington D.C. This decision of the CEO of Twitter divided the public opinion into two: On the one side, those jubilating; and on the other side, those wondering if it is right for a CEO of a private company to close a president account. Or whether or not this action is censorship – both legitimate questions. 

Looking back, it is evident that the conflict between the president and the online platforms in general and Twitter, in particular, is longer – the account closure being the climax of this conflict. The conflict raised relevant issues regarding the professionalism of journalists (1), the objectivity of the journalists (2), and the confusing status of social media (3). Trust in the media decreased in the United States from 68 percent in 1972 (when Gallup first started to monitor it) to 41 percent in September 2019 (4). In May 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting Tool – an instrument to allow American citizens to report censorship online. Over 16,000 complaints were registered (5). The question here is whether or not they were all majoritarian Republican censorship complaints, because Jim Hanson (President of Security Studies Group who served in US Army Special Forces) said:

‘… Twitter has selectively targeted conservatives – most recently President Trump this week – and has either taken down their tweets or labeled them as misleading and added a fact check, as was the case with two of the president’s tweets dealing with problems with mail-in voting.’ (6)

And at his turn, he raises two other legitimate questions: ‘Will Twitter now fact-check every tweet by former Vice President Joe Biden and every Democratic elected official in the nation? Will it fact-check every tweet critical of President Trump?’ 

On January 7^th 2021, a group of rioters – said to be supporters of President Trump, although anybody can use such an opportunity to infiltrate and put the blame on one or the other side – engaged in a violent riot on the Capitol in D.C. Following this unfortunate event five people were killed and the account of the president on Twitter was permanently suspended. Can a CEO of a social media platform do that? asked some voices including some European ones. As a political scientist, not as a lawyer, I can think of two reasons.

            First, it is said that in a democracy there are four powers: executive, legislative, judicial, and the press. Therefore, it was a decision from the head of one power to the head of another. Indeed, the relationship between the press and the other powers is unbalanced without having a system of checks and balances. But can the online platform ‘press’ stand as the fourth power in a democracy? Well… it may not stand for ‘press’ but they stand for some powerful giants described in the Executive Order On Preventing Online Censorship of the Trump Administration as exercising a 'dangerous power. They [large, powerful social media companies] cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.’ This leads to the debatable question of whether social media companies should act as traditional publishers or should continue to benefit from section 230 of the Communication Decency Act that gives online platforms a privilege that traditional publishers do not have:

‘Here’s why that’s a big deal. For decades, social media companies have wanted to have it both ways. They wanted to be able to enjoy liability protections that traditional publishers don’t have while censoring opinions they don’t like and promoting those they do.’ (7)

            Second, the online platforms although considered ‘public square’ by the White House in the executive order, are usually somebody’s property. The properties have ‘house rules’ and if a guest does not respect the ‘house rules’ it agreed to when entering the property, they can be invited out by the owner or the administrator. People use Twitter to share views and to share their activities. Donald Trump was using it to share political ideas; I use it for writing: news about books, writing competitions, and courses. People share what they know and what they think in decent terms. Nobody is a president or a king, everybody is a follower.

            But President Trump was raising a great concern on the ‘house rules’ that changed in the meantime, without the client/followers to be aware of, which gives the online platform an advantage to kick out from the property whomever it wishes:

 'Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.’ (8)

According to the American political system, the Head of the American legislative is the same as the Head of the Executive one, meaning the President of the United States of America. He happens to be a successful businessman who can afford any lawyer he wishes. Still, he says that no recourse is possible. Wow! What chances does a simple citizen have then? Therefore, President Trump’s Twitter account is permanently suspended for ‘instigation to violence’ – meaning that he caused the events on the Capitol. This is what ‘instigation’ means. But what exactly did he say? Did he call for people to demolish the Congress building so that Trump Enterprises to build another one? Maybe it is not the time or the place for a joke…

            Anyway, whatever President Trump said must be worse than what a rapist does – or a group of rapists does – when they rape, tape, and put on social media to destroy that child or that woman physically and psychically. Usually, police intervene, and those responsible are held accountable and go to jail, but we never know if their accounts on social media are ‘permanently suspended.'

            Furthermore, whatever President Trump said must be worse than what any terrorist did. It is said that some used to post videos on social media about the way to make bombs. At some point, during the long ‘War on Terror’ terrorists were posting the way they killed people – most of them American citizens. And after a public massacre, the press discovers that terrorists planned it all on social media. Were their accounts also ‘permanently suspended’? Maybe they were and I do not know about it. It is said that 500 million tweets are posted a day and that it would be impossible to filter all of them. Is it truly anything still left impossible (like a ‘filter’) in this technological era?

One main question is still left unanswered: Was it or was it not censorship? President Trump was accusing Twitter of ‘selective censorship’ and he was arguing that:

‘Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people…. As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy….Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.’

The concept of ‘censorship’ opposes the concept of the ‘freedom of expression’ – no doubts and no comments about it. Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental pillars of democracy – no wonder that it is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And the term ‘censorship’ is defined by the ‘Encyclopedia Britannica’ as follows:

‘Censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good.’

The answer to the question is concentrated in ‘deemed subversive’. Even this ‘deemed subversive’ goes both ways somehow because ‘stolen elections’ through fraud (an accusation from the Republican side to the Democrats) can also be seen as ‘subversive’ to democracy. And the Democrats may consider what the president has done as ‘subversive’. Therefore, what exactly did President Donald Trump say? What were his exact words considered to have caused the riot?

 

To sum up, the conflict between U.S. President Donald Trump and online social media platforms is long – maybe as long as his presidency. It opens up several debatable issues and one question opens up another one. The surprising events in the Capitol were followed by the surprising suspension of the account of the President of the United States on Twitter.

All media, in general, failed to inform us what President Trump said that was considered ‘instigation’ to violence. The riot is presented to have been the cause of the account suspension, but, actually, the antecedent variable is what the president said that caused the riot. And those of us, from the rest of the world, we do not know what he said. Logically, it is what he said, that allegedly caused the riot, that had as consequence the account closure and the opening of the debate on whether or not it was censorship and to what extent a CEO can do that. But whatever he said must be worse than the words and acts of rapists or of terrorists whose accounts we do not know if they are deleted from social media.

            Twitter seems to have failed to stay neutral as an unbiased referee that offers its platform for political ideas and concerns (like fraud concerns) to be let known by each of the competitors in a political competition. Instead, it is accused of doing the political moderator, a public opinion shaper, and a political player. I would rather prefer to see online platforms as watchdogs of freedom of expression and of the free circulation of ideas and opinions as long as they are decently formulated without any violent appeal. I am not an expert, but I know that man was on the moon and it is going again. Therefore, I refuse to believe that humankind stumbles upon a filter that cannot be applicable to democrats and republicans alike, to presidents and terrorists alike.

            Whether President Donald Trump failed the presidency or the presidency failed him, history will tell.

I hope my comment will be considered an objective reflection and an unbiased contribution to the current debate on the above two questions. I also hope that my comment will be ‘deemed constructive’ because so was its purpose.

Trump vs. Biden. Comment on the Second Presidential Debate (I)

 

by Laura Lai/Comment

There were supposed to be three U.S. Presidential Debates in 2020. After the Debate Commission cancelled the second debate, scheduled for October 15^th, the third one became the second and last debate before the elections. It took place on October 22^nd, as scheduled. And it brought in front of the American voters the current U.S. President, Donald J. Trump, running for a second mandate, and the Democrats’ nominee, the former U.S. Vice-President, Joe Biden.

The overall tone and atmosphere of this second debate was different and improved in comparison to the first debate. The moderator, Kristen Welker, did handle it remarkably well! The debate covered six topics: fight against the coronavirus, national security, family/health, immigration, race and environment.

            On the fight against the coronovirus, Donald Trump had an effective 2-minute response: he stressed the external source of this plague, that the mortality rate is decreasing, the spikes in Florida, Texas, Arizona are gone, the vaccine is coming and that this plague is a world-wide problem. Effective was also the three-time repetition of ‘it’s gone’: ‘the spike in Florida – it’s gone!’, ‘the spike in Arizona – it’s gone!’ Very effective, I would say, in settling an encouraging tone.

            On the same matter, Joe Biden encourages people to wear masks, stressed the importance of mass testing, and kept things in general: ‘I’ll shut down the virus’, ‘I’ll take care of this’. Obviously, nobody has a solution to the coronovirus and everybody is waiting for the vaccine on which there are many unknowns: nobody knows, for example, how long we will stay immune. But specialists know now more things than at the beginning when everybody was confused. Biden reminded lots of Trump’s mistakes from that beginning and confusing period.

            The topic on the national security was a kind of accusation ping-pong. Trump mentioned all Biden’s family taking money from different foreign governments, while Biden accused Trump that he is advertising his businesses, which thrived during his mandate. A concrete example of Trump business in a particular place that got from that percentage to that percentage would have been more convincing. On the other side, I have heard of a news that one of Trump’s hotels in Canada got closed because clients – opponents of Trump – avoided the hotel. That is an example of the way being president affected his business.

            Similarly to the first debate on the issue of health insurance for American families, Joe Biden stressed that health insurance is a right not a privilege and he had presented his plan: first, the ‘Obama Care’ will pass with a public option and it will be called ‘Biden Care’; second, the premiums and drug prices will be reduced; third, the private insurance will be kept as he is a supporter of it; and, fourth, those with pre-exiting conditions will be protected. Two of the four-point plan, are also mentioned by Trump. His Administration will protect those with a pre-exiting condition and would focus on keeping down the drugs’ price and premiums. (to be continued)

Trump vs. Biden. Comment on the Second Presidential Debate (II)

 

by Laura Lai/Comment 

Until the topic on race, both candidates competed in convincing who a better executive would be. It is on the topic of race, that Trump showed that he can also be a leader:

‘Yes, I do [understand why Black parents fear for their children]. He [referring to Joe Biden] was in government for 47 years. He didn’t do anything except the 1994 when he did such a harm to the Black community (…). Nobody has done more for the Black community than Donald Trump (…). Nobody had done what I’ve done. Criminal Justice Reform – Obama and Joe didn’t do it; they might have wanted it, but if you would see the arms I’ve got twisted to get that done, it was not a pretty picture. And everybody knows, including some liberals that cried in my office – they cried in the Oval Office (…).’

During this debate, Trump talked to both the moderator and Biden, and he also looked straight to the camera. Joe Biden played again well with the camera, pointing to the viewers – many of them potential American voters – and made several emotional appeals: ‘we should be talking about your families, but this is the last thing he [Trump] wants to talk about’, because of the coronavirus, many families have an empty chair in the kitchen, the family table pops-up again in his speech, his daughter works as a social worker, there are 5000 children that were separated from their families and there are difficulites to reunite them, etc. – this contrasts with Trump’s pragmatism. On this matter, Joe Biden got a spontaneous crtitique from Donald Trump:

‘Typical politician! China… and then he looks at the family round the table… Typical politician! I’m not a typical politician. That’s why I got elected.’

All along the debate, Biden was ‘Joe’ for Trump, while Trump was several time ‘this guy’ for Biden. Anyway, there is lot of improvement in comparison to the first debate, when words like ‘liar’, ‘irresponsable’, ‘clown’ were more frequent in Biden’s discourse. What stayed constant, thought, was the elegance of the current First Lady and the wife of Joe Biden.

            And speaking of elegance, the Debate Commission on Presidential Elections decided to cut the microphone to all speakers that exceed their time. When one hears the two candidates talking particularly referring to past different policies and decisions on those issues, one can easily understand that there is a lot of history between them – in the sense that they can long argue. The cutting of the microphone of two people that have a lot to say, the cutting of microphone at this high level of politics that the entire world is watching may easily degenerate in a half sound political movie and half mute. I was, actually, fearing that I would see each speaker mumbling something important, but without microphone and that we all must lip read! ‘October 22^nd Night Show’ is what I was thinking. But no! I was wrong. The cutting of the microphone issue was dealt elegantly and speaker’s reaction to being cut was elegant, too. In the end, it was an ‘October 22^nd, Presidential Debate Night’.

To sum up, this last U.S. Presidential Debate brought together two people with a different character, different stand on political issues and two different approaches to political issues, but one goal – that of becoming the President of the United States. Donald Trump and Joe Biden have different career backgrounds – which was a reason for Trump to remind Biden that he had 47 years time to implement all the ideas he had that evening, and eight recent years as vice-president. Donald Trump was more precise – and quicker – in exposing his arguments and in providing answers, while Joe Biden sometimes looks for his words, needs to remember what he wanted to say – only during this debate he corrected himself two or three times and resumed with ‘excuse-me’. Of course, it is excusable from a human point of view! Just that this was a presidential debate for the highest position on the planet. Despite many voices saying that it was a draw and that there was no winner of this debate, there was a winner. There is a winner of this debate, even if they both got an ‘A’. The fact that one got an ‘A+’ and the other one an ‘A-‘ we still have a winner of this last debate!

You may also want to watch the Saturday Night Show – a political satire of these two presidential debates with Alec Baldwin (Donald Trump) and Jim Carrey (Joe Biden):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wsije1KetVw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozGr4IsTUng

Trump vs. Biden. Comments on the First Presidential Debate (I)

 

photo edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/Comment

The first of the Presidential debates series took place on September 30^th, 2020. It brought in front of the American voters the current U.S. President Donald J. Trump, running for a second mandate, and the Democrats nominee, former U.S. Vice-President, Joe Biden. [1] The candidates were invited to answer a series of questions prepared by moderator Chris Wallace on American policies that are of great interest for the American voters.

Not everybody watching this debate is American citizen or an eligible voter in the up-coming Presidential elections. And I am one of those people. The general interest of those non-eligible to vote is for the American economy to boom and to avoid any crisis, so that the all the other world’s economies not to get in a recession in this inter-connected economic world. The reasons why a non-eligible voter would watch the American Presidential debate are different, but, generally, they are a treat for any political scientist. Besides, I love ideas and I love debates.

Chris Wallace – who btw accomplished his moderator task fantastically well and with lots of professionalism without raising his voice not even when he had to talk over the candidates talking over each other – was disappointed by the outcome of this debate. He said afterword: ‘I baked this beautiful, delicious cake and then frankly the President put his foot in it.’ [2]

As a political scientist who loves ideas and loves debates but without any right to vote in the American elections, I want to make some objective comments about the language of both candidates. Obviously, both candidates used English language! J

            The way Chris Wallace was disappointed by the President, I was disappointed by Joe Biden’s discourse. Many of his answers include a judgment of Trump: ‘irresponsible’, ‘liar’, ‘billionaire’, ‘clown’, ‘he has no plan’, ‘he doesn’t know how to do that’, etc. Arguments to suggest that the opponent is ‘irresponsible’, ‘liar’, etc. would have been better, as the voters can understand what lack of qualities is referred to through arguments. Trump seemed, to me, dragged into this and spontaneously reminding that Biden was not the first in his class, ‘I think I’m debating you [the moderator] not him’, ‘good luck! [with answering a question] – so, he did not call him ‘stupid’, but put the argument first and left the voter understand what he implies – and he also referred to some corruption allegations implying the son of Joe Biden. Generally, he mainly referred to achievements so far (alone or in comparison to the Obama Administration in which Joe Biden was Vice-President).

            Furthermore, Donald Trump, at his turn, was arrogant with Joe Biden through words: ‘you’re second’, ‘for 47 years [of Biden’s political career] you didn’t do nothing’, but I am not sure how to interpret the frequent laughter of Joe Biden to Trump’s arguments either, if not as arrogance-related. Joe Biden developed at length on the answer of health – as in the Administration he served, there was an intensive work and debate on ‘Obama Care’ – and on environment, that the Democrats have at heart more than the Republicans proved to so far. The point is that despite the fact that Joe Biden developed at length these issues frequent in his speeches as politician, he seems to pull himself together and retake his answer when interrupted with some difficulty. In my opinion, Donald Trump did not come to this debate to create chaos as it was afterword argued, or to ‘put his foot in a beautifully baked cake’. My interpretation of the frequent interruptions is that the current President is quick-minded, used to take decisions quickly, eventually risk everything or to win everything – and this is about his probably 47 years in business. A career politician instead is a field in which things are discussed over and over, decisions are changed over and over, time is lost over and over … on public money.

            Let us take the recent example of the U.S. Southern Border. It took months that in terms of sufferance feel like ages, centuries even, since the moment the U.S. President Donald Trump declared a national emergency situation and required the Congress for a $4 billion financial support in humanitarian aid, to the moment the Democrats approved it. During this pandemics, I read that the President wanted to provide ‘right-away’ the American people with some financial support for housing during this pandemic, but the Democrat politicians made things difficult.

Trump vs. Biden. Comments on the First Presidential Debate (II)

 

photo edited by Laura Lai

by Laura Lai/Comment

During the debate, Donald Trump talked to the moderator and to Biden. But Joe Biden talked to the moderator, very little to Trump and more with the viewers. Joe Biden was probably advised by his campaign staff to look straight at the camera, point with his finger and address himself directly to the voters either by asking them something or by saying ‘he has no intention to make it better for you all at home.’ He does that several times during the debate. It is part of the campaign technique to be more convincing that a candidate fights for the voters, while Donald Trump did not do that not even once.

            Yes, I think he should do that, too, because each of them wants to be President in the best interest of the American people, each of them the way he understands it. For example, Trump tried to condemn ‘white supremacy’ saying ‘boys stand back’, as Biden condemned ‘violence’ when invited to say ‘law and order’. Not all Republican voters are rejecting science on environmental issues, and the Administration seemed to have realized that and made some steps on the environment direction. The mask has become a state-policy during this pandemic, it is a winning point that Trump brought it with him and showed that he wears it, when necessary. Obviously, the recent news on the President and the First Lady being infected with the new virus COVID-19, showed that he did not wear it as necessary as he should have, but the fact that he had it with him as an electoral effect was a good idea. It reminded me of Boris Johnson campaigning to be the UK Prime Minister, who brought a fish with him to support his argument against the European Union and the Common Fishery Policy. The issue of taxes brought up by Joe Biden could not be worked out during the debate – this is understandable. But there are two more debates to come, on the 15^th and on the 22^nd of October 2020.

Almost simultaneous with the Presidential debate in the United States, New Zealand organized in Auckland the debate between Jacinda Ardern, the current (socialist) Prime-Minister running for a second mandate and Judith Collins, the representative of the National Party. [3] New Zealand is holding on October 17^th the elections scheduled for September and postponed afterword to avoid the spreading of the new virus. Elections are held for the position of Prime-Minister, because as in the case of many countries former colonies of the British Empire and current members of the Commonwealth, the position of head of state is still symbolically conferred to the Queen. It is the case of Canada, for example, but not of the United States – both former colonies of the British Empire.

            The debate in New Zealand was also organized on policies of interest for the New Zealanders voters, and it got positive echoes in the international press [4] as an example clashing over policies and arguing for them, as well as for the mutual complements and laughter. Jacinda Ardern is known to have declared that politics should be ‘something fun’ rather than a ‘blood sport’.

            The debate’s atmosphere in New Zealand was different than the one in the United States. No doubt! I would not rush to call it a difference of culture or difference of mentality. What was it then? To me, it was first and foremost, two men competing on the one side, and two women competing on the other side. It means that there are automatically a different stand and a different behavior. If Jacinda and Judith complemented each other is because the moderator, Patrick Gower, invited them to do so. I particularly found original the invitation of Patrick Gower that each of the candidate to identify themselves with … a tree. On this occasion, Ardern mentioned the Pohutukawa (a tree with red flowers) and Collins mentioned the Kowhai (a tree with yellow flowers). That is what I was saying: two women, who chose flowers… two trees with flowers. Would men choose a tree with flowers? In a formal discussion, most of them probably would. In practice, after drinks, some choose the bushes.

All in all, in any debate the essence is the argument. The constant interruptions of Joe Biden by Donald Trump show that the current President lost sight of the fact that he is in a formal and live broadcasted debate. In an informal discussion, in which he had to discuss with his business collaborators to react first and to acquire first a certain product on the market, interruptions only prove that one deals with prepared collaborators that can answer quickly any question. Similarly, in a class, when a student is cross-examined by two teachers, the student must be quick, reply quickly and interruptions welcome and they are part of the conversation that otherwise is very appreciated and the student gets a high grade – yes, I speak from my experience. In formal debates though, the constant interruptions may disturb the viewers, but I would not call it a ‘chaos’ either. It was an ‘interesting’ debate, as Chris Wallace said it at the end, in which the different stand on different policies between the Republican and the Democrat sides were clear.