Author: Cameron G. Koch

It seems like every President has a scandal at some point during their time in office. Some, like Nixon’s Watergate and Trump’s January 6th Insurrection, are more severe than others, but all scandals are still noteworthy nonetheless! In this case, the issue presides with classified documents being found in President Joe Biden’s places of residence on multiple occasions (albeit the fact that these documents date back to Biden’s term as Vice President under Barack Obama). Funnily enough, every President since Nixon has had a special Prosecutor investigating them, with the sole exception being President Obama, who served from 2008-2016.

In terms of these prosecutors, the most recent before Biden was Robert S. Mueller III, who was appointed to investigate the Trump campaigns ties with Russia. Upon receiving the news, Trump notably exclaimed, “Oh, my God, this is terrible. This is the end of my presidency.” However, this wasn’t a public proclamation of guilt – instead, he knew how intrusive the special prosecutor’s methods were, and how they could absolutely derail Presidential proceedings from taking place. Additionally, the unwanted media attention into both your personal and professional life adds a lot of undue stress to a job that is already takes quite a toll on your mental health.

This whole ordeal started back in early November, when personal attorneys unexpectedly discovered Obama-Biden administration records at Washington D.C.’s Penn Biden Center. From there, this small notice has slowly evolved into a full-fledged investigation, with both the Department of Justice and Attorney General Merrick Garland taking actions to search further Biden-affiliated locations in the attempt to secure the private proceedings of the U.S. government and national security as a whole.

Over the past few months, additional classified documents have been uncovered, including Wilmington, and locations that the investigatory team refuses to disclose. Regardless of how many more documents are found, the issue remains ever-present. Is this due to ignorance on Biden’s part? Simply forgetting with time and age? Perhaps a combination of both? Earlier, I mentioned how essentially every President in the past fifty years has run into trouble at some point. Also, it is an interesting coincidence that both Trump and Biden have now run into problems with classified documents in the past year (with Trump’s Mar-A-Lago FBI raid, if you recall).

What are your thoughts on this topic? Does this issue change the way you view President Biden? Will this issue become a defining part of Biden’s legacy? Or will this blow over in the coming months, as more important issues head to the forefront of America’s sociopolitical atmosphere?

 

During Winter Break, I couldn’t escape the national headline of the House Speaker vote. It was on the TV, in the news, on social media, and most importantly, (for me at least), in my beloved Planet Fitness treadmill stations. As someone who regrettably doesn’t know as much political logistics as I should, I had no clue anything regarding this vote. In fact, when I initially saw the count, I assumed Hakeem Jeffries was going to win because he held the majority of the House votes. What I didn’t (but should’ve) known, is that the Republicans, who held the ‘House majority’, were in a tight deadlock amidst their faction.

You see, in the current U.S. political atmosphere, there is a clear divide among the Republican Party. The majority of Republicans are more moderate, but there are quite a few radically-minded supporters (around 21 or so) that hold enough power to turn the House vote into a stalemate if they so choose – that’s exactly what happened with the fifteen speaker elections that ended up being the longest since the 1850s.

Republican Kevin McCarthy of California was always the favorite to get elected, but he knew he had a long road ahead of him when the first ballot saw a 212-203 split in favor of Jeffries, with 19 Republicans voting other candidates, and a handful voting present – more on that concept here. Don’t let that initial vote count fool you (like it did to me) – because the Republicans hold the House majority, they weren’t in any real danger of losing the speaker vote to the Democrats. No Republican would ever willingly vote Democrat, and vice versa. However, this DID mean that the radical Republicans, who were the ones responsible for those ‘Other’ and ‘Present’ votes, were able to hold out in order to bargain concessions with McCarthy. Clearly, you can see that this radical faction gained a lot in return, as every single one of those fifteen ballots was a grueling process that had some question the voting system as a whole.

However, like the title suggests, all of this has come to a conclusion, and now the 435 voting members of the House of Representatives are able to contribute to the mechanisms that hold our nation together – at least until the next vote in 2025. Let’s hope that one goes a little quicker than this one did! If any of you are interested in learning more about U.S. politics and how the various elections / terms work, like I was, I found this website to be extremely informational.

 

Happy MLK Day! I’m sure everyone reading this blog post understands the basics of MLK day – whether it be due to the fact we have a day off of classes for it, the lessons taught during our years of standardized education, or perhaps due to the message Team Snapchat sent us all this morning. However, I wanted to take a deeper dive into the history behind the day, and felt that my research would make for an interesting read with my Civics Blog entries. Enjoy!

Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968, but MLK Day as we know it, wasn’t established until 15 years later during the Reagan administration in 1983, and wasn’t officially observed until 1986. Even then, all fifty states only started celebrating MLK Day in the year 2000. So why the hold-up? As we all know, the latter half of the 20th century brought a load of controversy upon the American people, with events like the Cold War and the Civil Rights Movement taking multiple decades to conclude. There were calls for Dr. King to have a national holiday immediately after his assassination, but it took a valiant fight in Congress for the day to be established – some of the major fighters in this movement included Dr. King’s Wife, Coretta Scott King, the Congressional Black Caucus, and Michigan Representative John Conyers Jr. Here’s an interesting fact: this day – January 16th, 2023 – is the first time in university history that Penn State has officially celebrated MLK Day. While some may look at the negatives that this implicates, you can alway say that it’s never too late to do the right thing. Various organizations around campus found different ways to give back, so it’s nice to see that making the holiday official led to tangible positive change for the community as a whole.

MLK Day seeks to remind the American people of Dr. King’s legacy, whilst also attempting to inspire us to continue to advocate for positive change in all aspects of living. In fact, a lot of the things that Martin Luther King Jr. fought for during his lifetime are still issues that modern-day governments are struggling to completely rectify. These issues, which includes racial justice, affordable housing, and labor rights, seem to possess a constant presence in today’s media. Therefore, on MLK Day, you can go ahead and enjoy your day off, but also be cognizant of some of the things MLK advocated to change.

If you wish to make a difference, there are a plethora of ways you could decide to celebrate MLK Day, including volunteering at your local soup kitchen, becoming more educated about various issues at both a local and national level, and more! In fact, AllState offers a $2,000 ‘Strength Through Service’ scholarship for those interested in diving deeper into acts of volunteerism.

By now, I’m sure everyone reading this article has heard about some form of cryptocurrency. Whether it be BitCoin, DogeCoin, NFTs, and so on, these alternative methods of payment and financial investment dominated the global scene over the past few years. The main draw of these currencies was their extreme volatility that made them an intriguing gamble for businessman, college students, and everyone in-between. For example, a singular tweet by Elon Musk announcing that Tesla would no longer accept Bitcoin payments due to environmental concerns singlehandedly

tanked Bitcoin’s value by nearly $10,000 over the span of a few hours. These tweets by Musk and other Twitter influencers became commonplace, as they attempted to influence the market in their interest. These aforementioned fluctuations also caught the eye of federal prosecutors, who could view these tweets and other actions as clear-cut attempts at market manipulation in some instances.

Take FTX as an example of what could happen when Crypto goes wrong – currently, founder Sam Bankman-Fried is under investigation of a market manipulation inquiry related to the now-bankrupt crypto exchange known as FTX. FTX, a hedge fund whose initials were short for ‘Futures Exchange’, was a market titan. At its peak in July 2021, it had over one million active users, and statistically was the third-largest crypto exchange by volume. The company also held an increasing presence in American society –  they signed a 10 year, $135 million dollar deal to obtain the naming rights for the Miami Heat basketball stadium, held multiple sponsorships with MLB, F1, and TSM, and were actively engaged in sponsorship talks with esteemed singer-songwriter Taylor Swift.

Despite all of this, the company filed for bankruptcy on November 11th, 2022. The company’s well-documented collapse essentially occurred over a ten-day period in which a news report by cryptocurrency news outlet CoinDesk reported that Alameda Research, another one of Bankman-Fried’s companies, held a $5 billion position in the native trading token of FTX. Due to the following market concerns regarding FTX’s leverage and solvency, a plethora of companies pulled out of FTX’s open-trade forum, leading to a collapse that has been compared as crypto’s ‘Lehman Brother’s’ moment in terms of market impact.

Shortly after these findings, Bankman-Fried was arrested and eventually extradited from the Bahamas to the United States, where he was later released on a record-setting $250 million bond. The investigation is still currently in an early development, where prosecutors are determining if there’s any wrongdoing on Bankman-Fried’s part regarding the potential misappropriation of billions of dollars in customer funds.

Regardless of what happens in the coming months / years as this investigation transpires, the very nature of FTX’s collapse has had a detrimental impact on the cryptocurrency market as a whole. Investors have lost trust and confidence with the non-fiat currency, and it could take decades for the market to recover (if at all). This also ties in with Elon Musk’s purchase of social media giant Twitter on October 27th, 2022. Musk was one of the most prominent crypto supporters, but has suffered a substantial decrease in his credibility and overall reputation due to his actions revolving around the purchase – this is reflected in Tesla’s recent stock declines as well (which is another Musk-led corporation).

What are your thoughts regarding these recent developments? Have you or someone you know ever invested into cryptocurrency – if so, what were the results of said investments? I’d love to hear everyone’s comments on this unorthodox issue.

Recently, I read an article suggesting that affirmative action could be coming to a close, almost sixty years after its implementation. In cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court is expected to completely overturn, or significantly diminish at the very least, affirmative action in college admissions decisions. Such a decision could have a widespread effect nationwide, leading to less diverse classes,

the reduction of special programs meant to foster inclusion, and other negatives. The ruling, expected by June of this year, would be detrimental to historically disadvantaged and marginalized groups – during the October 2022 hearing, universities tried to argue that diversity is critical for learning, but to no avail.

In layman’s terms, this decision would completely eliminate race in college admissions. The race you input into your user profile would be used for admissions data, but nothing more. Currently, depending on what you list, you may receive a handicap or setback. The cases, first filed in 2014 by Students for Fair Admissions, argues that universities actively discriminate against White and Asian applicants by giving preference to Black, Native American, and Hispanic students. The institutions most likely to be affected by this decision are those considered to be ‘selective institutions’ (colleges with a 50% or lower acceptance rate), comprise of around 200 colleges and universities nationwide.

This potential decision follows the COVID-era policy changes regarding standardized testing, where a vast majority of schools have made the SAT and ACT completely optional. On one hand, this benefits students who cannot afford proper tutoring and resources to excel on these lengthy examinations. However, the other side argues that standardized testing was one of the only ways to help intelligent students escape unfortunate situations, where their GPA may reflect a poor curriculum or personal life rather than their academic aptitude.

In my opinion, there are definitely valid arguments on both sides of the situation. I think everyone can agree that all students deserve an equal opportunity to succeed in the college admissions process. However, the two schools of thought behind this statement are completely different. Should colleges execute this by giving a boost to those with historically disadvantaged ethnicities, regardless of their current academic or economic standing? Or should they implement a race-blind admissions process, where students will solely be judged off of their statistics and essays?

As someone who is severely financially disadvantaged, but White, I will say I believe financial need should be factored into admissions more than it is, regardless of race. Very few schools are need-blind, not taking a student’s financial situation into account during admissions. However, the majority of private institutions WILL look at need, and admit those who they can safely assume will be able to afford to pay all four (or more) years’ worth of tuition. The majority of need-based scholarships are reserved for students of certain ethnicities, which puts poorer Whites and Asians at a severe disadvantage. Regardless of what happens with the upcoming Supreme Court decision, poor (and middle class!) students deserve a fighting chance when it comes to college admissions and student debt as well.

Ever since we were young, we have been taught not to lie or be dishonest when it comes to school or work-related documents. I have heard this countless times, whether it be not to plagiarize in English class, use accurate financial information on the FAFSA, or when listing activities and statistics on a résumé.

Therefore, as a regular reader of the New York Times, I found it absolutely APPALLING when I discovered an article that suggested his campaign image – his stories, credentials, etc. could be entirely falsified. After checking numerous other sources, like one should do when reviewing political information or other general news (as every source contains at least a speck of bias), the picture only became clearer. George Santos, a newly-elected House of Representatives official from New York’s third district, lied or falsified essentially every possible aspect of his campaign. From the fact that he stated he was Jewish, an aspect that even the NY GOP decided was a lie and therefore called on him should resign, to other things like his former places of work and educational degrees. It’s never a good sign when your own political party calls on you to resign, but I appreciate that both of the dominant United States factions agree that general dishonesty doesn’t belong in a political atmosphere.

Furthermore, numerous politicians on both sides of the equation have added their respective commentary – in particular, I found Paul Ryan’s call for resignation to be powerful. Ryan, the 54th speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and noted Republican, comes from a position of great political knowledge and authority. If even he is calling for resignation, then it’s clear that Santos’ claim to his elected position is something that should be questioned, and not blindly accepted (like current Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy seems to believe).

As someone who agrees with certain ideas of both political parties (and doesn’t hold a firmly-planted bias with either side), I think the solution to this problem is obvious. Remove Santos from his position, completely ban him from ever running for future positions, and perhaps sentence him to punishment if the law calls for it. If we as a people decide to allow this proven liar to remain in a place of power, what does it say about our governing ideals and Democracy as a whole? This story is a current development, with additional pieces of information being brought to light by the hour. In the coming weeks, we can only hope to receive good news about this topic. Regardless of whether you are Republican, Democrat, or an Independent, I’m interested to hear about your opinions on this matter in the comment forum below – should Santos be forced to resign? If he does, what’s the best alternative to restore political integrity for future elections? Also, what should happen with Santos’ seat if he is removed?