Serena Williams’ Setbacks This Year In every life’s journey, there will be a few setbacks or disappointments along the way, but that is no sign that one should quit or give up.This year has been a tough one for the 36-year-old tennis player, Serena Williams, who has won 23 Slam titles, and is currently ranked as the 22nd best player in the world by the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA). During the 2018 French Open Tournament, Williams was prohibited from wearing her “Wakanda-inspired catsuit” from the iconic Marvel Comics films “Black Panther”. Apart from the suit being fashionable, the outfit was designed to protect against blood clots after several doctors in the United States found a hematoma -a swelling of clotted blood within the tissues- in her body after the birth of her daughter, Olympia.The tragedy do not just end with the ban and the champion almost losing her life after childbirth. At the US Open Women’s final, Williams was given a code violation from the Chair Umpire, Carlos Ramos, for illegal coaching during the first the set of the competition. She then told Ramos “ I don’t cheat to win, I’d rather lose. I’m just letting you know.” Minutes after receiving a game penalty for verbal abuse against the Chair Umpire, Williams lost to her opponent, Naomi Osaka. Despite all these, the tennis champion has made it clear that she has grown most not from victories, but from setbacks. However, I believe when people try to bring you down, they know how high you are willing to climb. As an individual aspiring to be someone great in life, you will encounter a lot of difficulties because we live in a world where people are ready to judge what we do, what we say, what we wear and who we represent. To attain our goals, we need to be determined and brave, which Williams has proved times without numbers that the sky is not the limit, and that the only limit is you. AuteurSylvia O.
0 Commentaires
Voter suppression and other strategies : dark money Now that’s a gloomy title. You are probably imagining (as did I when I first encountered the term in my research) scenes that look like gangster movies clips, with rotten politicians given a case full of banknotes in an aerodrome or a warehouse for them to agree unconditionally on the disputable terms of a very rich villain. Sadly, this is not far away enough from the truth. In January 2012, the Republican majority of the Supreme Court thoroughly reformed the financial laws concerning election campaigns, as part of Citizens United vs FEC. As a result, rich individuals, or corporations, can give an unlimited amount of money to support a political campaign, through the formation of Super PACs, and publically support or oppose a candidate (which, with the amounts involved, can unofficially turn into a designation of the candidate who will represent their interest better). The funding of political campaigns was a matter for debate, as far back as 1867, as those laws have been either rewritten, amended or straight up suppressed depending on which majority was in the Supreme Court. This also means that, as well as the other strategies presented in this series, ‘corruption’ is legal. In the Oxford English dictionary “corruption” designs a “dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.” and whereas such blatant misconducts are punishable by law, Mr. Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21 (a nonprofit organization dedicated to campaign reform) declares in the New York Times that it exists nonetheless, in a darker and more subtle form : “The corruption in the U.S. does not stem from officeholders putting money in their pocket. This is systemic corruption of the process itself. When you are dealing with billions and billions of dollars, much of that focused on buying influence, it overwhelms the system, and it is much harder to defend against and maintain representation for ordinary Americans.”. It is completely illegal to bribe voters, but it does not mean they can’t be otherwise. Any billionaire, in order to protect their interest, can join and fund the American Legislative Exchange Council (which is an organization bringing conservative legislators and private sectors representative together) and pressure legislators to draft bills that modify even more Voting Right Acts amendments or any other legislation, to their liking, and all that, without having the FEC batting an eye. For example, ALEC has authored the model law "Voting ID Act", that has been used to enact several local ID-checks laws, which as we saw in the second article of this series, is a very effective way to rig elections. So much for legislative independence. The NRA (National Rifle Association), which is a founding and active member of ALEC has funded the campaign of several candidates in 2016. As it turns out, their financial "help" has paid off: six out of seven candidates for presidential and Senate won. Well-funded campaigns are also usually more successful : they simply have more visibility. Mailed or distributed pamphlets can be massively produced and distributed by paid people, enormous billboards can be rented, TV and radio spots can be broadcast, you can be called directly on your phone to encourage to vote one candidate, and more recently, communication teams can invade social media. In France, the CSA has a strict control of the amount of time allowed to a politician to express themselves on the TV or the radio. The duration of their speaking time must be strictly equal, for “little” or “big” candidates, or be at the risk of paying a major fine. This does not exist in the same extent in the USA : the ‘Zapple Doctrine’ that was founded in 1972 by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) had approximately the same goal as french CSA, but is rarely ever applied nowadays, deemed “too unconstitutional”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsXjeWldTow To find out more about Super PACs and the legislation. To end this series, there is an article by The Guardian that can show you a glimpse of the horror stories lived by average American citizens the day they vote. The Guardian called out its reader on social media to share their misadventures on the 2014 midterms with the #TurnedAway hashtag. Several people promptly responded : In Ohio, a black man who had lived at the same address for 30+ years in Cleveland, owned an ID and always voted, has simply vanished from the local lists. “Surprisingly” his name was in the list of the Board of Election. In Georgia, a parent wanted to introduce his four and six-year-old children to democracy ended up driving over 30 km during rush hour because of unfair gerrymandering. Several more tweets and stories will give you a clear idea of the human consequences of voter suppression. AuteurSouad Takhtoukh In 2015, the Paris Agreement aimed to keep global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius this century. However, on October 8, a report by the United Nations was issued on the damaging effect global warming could have if the planet temperature were to reach 1.5 degrees Celsius in the next decade. 91 experts from 40 countries worked on the report, analyzing 6,000 studies to prove the consequences global warming could have on a short-term scale. To have a slight idea of the situation, one must imagine that a child born today will suffer the effects of global warming before he or she turns 23. If the planet temperature does reach 1.5 degrees Celsius, 31 to 60 million people will be hit by flooding. Hot waves will affect 14% of the population and 350 million people would be affected by extreme drought. Though the report focuses on environmental issues, there will also be a huge impact on economy. If, indeed, the temperatures rise above 1.5 degrees Celsius, not only will natural disasters become a common matter, but the costs to rebuild damaged areas will be more and more important as years go by. Countries that are most likely to be affected will have to invest important sums of money into infrastructures preventing natural disasters from wrecking everything on their way. Yet, several politicians are still reluctant to show their full support to the facts highlighted by the report. If Donald Trump has already shown how skeptical he is about climate change in the past, more recently it is Australia’s Environmental Minister, Melissa Price, who is being doubtful about the report. Criticized by several Australian experts for “blocking her ears” and ignoring the problem, she claimed that it is difficult to reduce the use of coal. During an interview she gave to ABC, an Australian radio, she asserted that she did not read the full report. Instead of answered the journalist’s questions, she focused on the Paris Agreement saying that she is confident about achieving their goal by 2020. President Trump remained quiet on the matter, only saying that he would look at the report. The United States was the only country worldwide to withdraw from the Paris agreement. US scientists are quite worried about Trump’s silence. Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist, even declared: “I don’t think the administration cares about this at all. They just want to figure out how to ignore it all. It’s really disappointing.” AuteurPauline Perrier-Drezen Donald J Trump ran on the campaign promise that he knows the best people to run the country , but what message does that send, when most of those same people have either been fired or resigned? The following graph compares the turnover rate of past administration. What is striking is the contrast between the first year of the Trump administration and his last 5 predecessors. With the resignation of Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the UN. A national discussion over the turnover of the Trump Administration is once again dominating the news cycle. This debate has been a recurring theme since the start of the Trump presidency. As an outsider looking in, you might wonder what is causing this much turnover. So, let’s break down all the reasons this might be happening.
AuteurMehdi Ferras A Race for Texas : Beto O'Rourke vs. Ted Cruz In the hundreds of races happening in the US at the moment, few really appeal to the public. The Senate election for Texas is undoubtedly one of them. Republican and current Senator Ted Cruz was elected back in 2013 and thus became the first Hispanic American U.S Senator for Texas. His name probably looks familiar to you, and indeed, he became quite known back in 2016 when he almost won the Republican Party's presidential nomination. However, he is said to not be “likable” enough to win –or at least to easily win- against the Democratic Party according to Mick Mulvaney, the Office of Management and Budget chief. He is considered as rather conservative as he is anti-abortion, a gun-right supporter, believes that homosexuality is “a choice” and opposes same sex marriage etc. Elected to the House of Representatives in 2012, Democrat Beto O’Rourke is the nominee of his party to run against Ted Cruz. Texas being a fiercely Red State –no democrats have been elected to statewide office since 1994- the task seems rather daunting. However, the man has gained quite the followers thanks to his « compassionate » campaign. He wish to ban assault rifles, the legalization of marijuana, an access for everyone to medical care, an increase of the federal minimum wage etc. As in every campaign, controversies were highlighted in the past weeks. Mostly from Cruz’s side to belittle Rourke’s image. Cruz and his associates are putting Rourke under attack for using a hispanic-sounding nickname, his real name being Robert, and thus using it to win supports. He defended himself by saying that “Beto” is a childhood nickname, while his supporters are bringing attention to the fact that Ted Cruz is himself using one instead of his real name “Rafael”. They also point out that Beto O’Rourke wished for a debate in Spanish, being fluent himself, to what Ted Cruz –himself a Second Generation Immigrant from a Cuban father- refused, not being efficient enough in the language. As polls show Cruz as leading with a small 6 on average, even if O’Rourke doesn’t win, his strong opposition will most likely stay in Texas’ history, some even put the state in the toss-up category, an unexpected turn of events in such a traditional Red State. AuteurMina Haki You may be looking forward to the year 2020 and its Presidential election in the United States, but the bank J.P.Morgan Chase warns that a new financial crisis could be happening this same year. Since the 2008 crisis, severe rules in the financial sector have been applied to get the stability back. It implied a low purchasing power for the American population. However, in May, the House of Representatives has passed a law to loosen regulations on the access to mortgage and student loans. It encourages Americans to buy on credit or to take on a debt to be able to study in a prestigious University. The Federal Reserve Bank (FED) of New York has stated in its last report, that the American household debt has exceeded 13 trillion dollars in September 2018. The real estate debt represents 9 trillion dollars against 1.13 trillion for the automobile and 1.53 trillion for the study loans debt. The risk of these bubbles bursting is currently quite low. However, any recession could reverse the trend. J.P.Morgan Chase also states that the rise of the US interest rate could create a large disinterest of the investors for financial stock and would trigger a crisis. The protectionist policy of President Trump increases the atmosphere of uncertainty. It creates commercial tensions between different countries, such as China, has consequences on the accessibility and the price of the products. The food security could be threatened, which would challenge the access to enough healthy food to live an active life for a part of the population of the United States. For the founder of Bridgewater Associates Ray Dalio, the current measures may not be sufficient to avoid a financial crash as severe as the 1929 one. It would imply a period of recession and could have economic, but also political and societal repercussions all around the world. Franklin D. Roosevelt once said « there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments, so that there will be an end to speculation with other people's money; and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency. » but it seems like his words have long since been forgotten. AuteurCécile Frenoy |