Politics' Wake Up Call

School. Depending on your age, it can have two completely different connotations. Either it can be a soul-crushing, homework-loading, un-fun machine to suck the life out of you, or it can be a carefree, nostalgic, back-in-my-day memory. See? Very different. Regardless of how you view school, there are three “stages” of being a student that you can easily recognize. 1 - Elementary School. These were the days where school was 75% naps and homework consisted of coloring pages. There were rules, and you, being the diligent student you were, obeyed. You raised your hand to speak and stowed away your lunch in the cubby - there was no fuss. Then you headed over to middle school. More freedom, but you were eager to bend the rules. Middle school was characterized by slipping notes to your best friends in social studies, and pretending to look for your lunch in your backpack for 20 minutes while you actually were texting. Fast forward to high school. You’re blatantly photo-copying homework assignments 2 minutes before its due and teachers are used to seeing phones in class.

Politics is the same way. Elementary school is representative of what politics should be. It should be clean; there are rules, and to be honest, you have no desire to break them. You don’t question the parameters that are set up, and everyone’s friends. Middle school is what politics is in actuality. Politics is secret deals, mysterious strategies, and secrecies under the table, while putting up a facade for the rest of the world. Everyone knows about the mischievous antics, but we still try to pretend that we’re really still our innocent selves for the yard duty lady. And high school? It’s Donald Trump’s first day.

Earlier this month, Trump accepted a historic phone call with Taiwan’s leader, who was congratulating him on his recent election victory. The chat marks the first publicly reported call between a US President and the leader of Taiwan since Washington established diplomatic relations with Beijing.

Over the years, Taiwan has bounced between Japanese and Chinese rule, and after World War II, was put under martial law by the Chinese mainland. Taiwan had been a one-party authoritarian state until it came to an official end in 2000 with the election of an opposition party candidate as president. Of course, there’s a major discrepancy as to what Taiwan really is. China feels there's a "one country, two systems" structure in place at the moment and that Taiwan will eventually be folded back into China entirely, while Taiwan maintains it should have its own government and become its own country. For years, the U.S. has sided with China’s policy, and refused to have diplomatic ties with Taiwan since 1979, when it recognized only “one China.”

As a result of the phone call, which was apparently “friendly talk,” global powers pounced on Trump. China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi was deeply upset by the symbolic meaning of the phone call and lodged a complaint against the U.S. over the breach in protocol. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Democratic National Committee claimed that the phone call threatened national security.

His acceptance of the phone call was part of what Trump had promised during the campaign - that he would take a tougher stand with China, and supporting Taiwan was part of his rough approach to Beijing. By siding with Taiwan, Trump places the U.S. at a leverage point to pressure China. As they say, “An enemy’s enemy is a friend.” While pushing this delicate envelope could push Beijing off the edge, this could also start a re-set in relations with one of the U.S.’ major trading partners.

Though it’s too early in the game to call anything, what were the motives behind Trump accepting the call? Was it a rookie mistake or does this freshman know what he’s up to? Has his rebellious attitude with this call or refusing to release his tax returns mean he’s found his place in high school, or does his recent announcement of dissolving the Trump foundation to untangle himself with conflicts of interest mean he’s playing by the middle school rules? Decide for yourself.

Analyzing Hillary's Loss + A Peek into Trump's Presidency

No matter which side of the political aisle you stem from, Donald Trump becoming the President-Elect of the United States of America in the wee hours of Wednesday morning was a surprise, and something that was unexpected, looking at the polls leading up to the election. So, what caused Hillary Clinton to lose the Electoral College? Let's take a look:

1. Economy

President Barack Obama helped rescue the US from the financial crash, and used "the economy" as a tool to help him gain the edge in the election. Unfortunately for Clinton, many Americans felt that Trump would do a better job at "fixing" the economy than Clinton. Trump successfully convinced them to believe stagnant wages and increasing inequality was caused by bad trade deals and a rigged economy. Though Clinton pushed a feminist agenda, advocating for equal pay, something her candidate failed to clearly address, the bottom line was that Clinton simply failed to articulate a convincing defense of modern American capitalism.

2. Lack of Trust

A lack of trust clouded the Clinton campaign. Though her email servers had caused much skepticism throughout the election, the impeccable timing of the re-opening of the FBI investigation may have led to a change in heart of many voters.The FBI was investigating the Democratic candidate until just two days before voting with a view to bring possible criminal charges for her flouting of data security laws, even though the investigation proved to be fruitless. Nonetheless, the timing of such an event may have been the last straw for voters.

3. Misleading Polls

Several national pollsters, who showed Clinton clinging to a comfortable three- or four-point lead, downgraded expectations of a Trump win to less than 30% on the eve of polling. So what happened? The polls underestimated what turnout would be among demographic groups (such as white voters) who disproportionately supported Trump. It has also been proven that many people who said they were undecided or would vote for Hillary were actually committed to Trump. Societal pressures may have kept them from declaring their true intention. When surrounded by a perceived majority that favored Clinton, declaring that they too would vote for the majority candidate seemed the easiest thing to do, leading to a bad read on polls. In the privacy of a voting booth however, free from outside judgement, one can vote however they want, and it is clear that Trump won the silent, or in this case, lying, majority. Perhaps the polls led to Clinton's campaign team perhaps overestimating her support and getting complacent. For example, it was clear that Clinton lost Wisconsin in the primary to Bernie Sanders, but failed to make a single visit to the state following the primary. However, Trump went back to Wisconsin at least six times to gain support, and ended up winning their votes.

4. Too Much Political Background?

Having experience proved to be a double-edged sword. With Hillary Clinton perhaps too involved in the past decades, Americans found more reasons to disagree than to agree with her. From being the First Lady to a Senator to the Secretary of State, her presence in the political sphere proved to work against her. There were simply more holes and more opportunities for Trump and his supporters to point out that occurred during the time she was in charge. This did not seem to be a problem for Trump, seeing as his campaign took on the message that Trump would go into Congress to cleanse the corruption that people like Clinton supposedly were a part of, drawing a parallel to the creation and rise of the Aam Aadmi Party in India.

5. A Global Shift to Populism

During the last two decades, parties led by populist authoritarian leaders have surged in popularity in many nations, gaining legislative seats, reaching office, and holding government power. Recently, we've seen rises for parties like the Swiss People's Party, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Swedish Democrats, and the Danish People's Party. In Hungary, the success of the neo-fascist Jobbik party led its government to build a wall against the waves of migrants flooding across Europe. We've seen similar parallels in Latin America as well, with leaders like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia. Over recent decades, the World Values Survey shows that Western societies have been gradually more liberal on many social issues, especially among the younger generation and well-educated middle class. This long-term generational shift threatens many traditionalists' cultural values. Less educated and older citizens fear becoming marginalized and left behind in their own countries, hence, a vote for Trump, who promises to Make America Great Again for people who felt like they've been "forgotten."

So what now? What does a Trump Administration look like?

1. Obamacare

Trump has repeatedly promised to "immediately repeal and replace" Obamacare, to start. That is something congressional Republicans have been eager to accomplish, but unable to without a Republican president. But even with Trump in office, repealing and crafting a replacement for the law will be an arduous task in Congress, where Senate Democrats will fight the slim Republican majority's efforts.

2. Immigration

Even as Trump has unrelentingly promised at his rallies to build a wall on the US southern border with Mexico, his plan does not yet appear to have the backing of Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who repeatedly dodged a question on whether he supports the wall. He has also vowed to deport all undocumented immigrants. In the latest iteration of that policy, he focused on the deportation of criminal undocumented immigrants, but he has not forsaken his pledge to deport all estimated 11 million who currently reside here illegally.

3. Terrorism

Trump will also seek to rethink how the US combats terrorists, tossing aside the attempts by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama to bring Muslim-Americans and other Muslim countries into the fold, rather than risk alienating them. His rhetoric on the campaign trail and policy proposals on that matter could prove a roadblock to those efforts of increased cooperation with Muslim majority countries. During his presidential bid, Trump called for the creation of a national database to register all Muslims living in the US, called for targeted surveillance of US mosques.

4. Economic Policy

Trump's economic proposals have focused on tearing down government regulations he views as overly burdensome on US businesses -- which would include undoing environmental protections erected under the Obama administration -- and reforming the US tax code. But a cloud of uncertainty hangs over how the tax cuts he has promised will affect the US deficit. While he has promised to keep the proposals revenue-neutral, tax policy experts have said Trump's proposals could add billions, if not trillions, of dollars to the US debt.

5. Climate Change

Trump plans to cancel billions of dollars in payments to the United Nations climate change programs, alarming environmentalists world-over. He has said he would redirect the funds to pay for infrastructure projects in the U.S.

As excited or frustrated you are about Trump becoming the President-Elect, we are all on the same side now, and we all hope he succeeds whether we like it or not. The best thing we can hope for is that both sides of the aisle can check and balance the other and prove the durability of the American system which has come into question throughout the election.

The International Community's Monday Morning

“Beep! Beep! Beep!” As my incredibly early 5:45 AM alarm goes off, I somehow manage to arise from my I-could-sleep-through-a-Beyoncé-concert-and-still-not-wake-up sleep, and rub as much sleep out of my eyes. The usual battle with my alarm clock ensues, as I beg it to give me 10 more minutes of my precious siesta, only to realize I’m late again. I rush to the bathroom to wash my face and brush my teeth, as I race downstairs for breakfast.

This scene is typical for me, and probably many people, every Monday morning as we hustle and bustle our ways out the door. But fast forward to the end of that day, and you’ll meet a much more I-actually-kinda-have-my-act-together type of person. I didn’t have time to brush my hair this morning but can I still help you with that English project due tomorrow? Sure. I ate the second half of my breakfast today in class but will I still be super excited for the rally next week? You know it. And that’s usually because no matter what side of the bed we wake up on, most of us try not to let that influence the rest of our days.

The Monday morning struggles that we go through have little effect on us eight hours later, and to draw a parallel, even though you might have started on the wrong foot with someone, you can always rectify that and move on to build a stronger relationship, even though it may take some time. The connection with the international community? I’m talking about India and the U.S. Even though some misunderstandings and disagreements may have posed initial hurdles, both leading countries are well on their way to ending their “day” right. The single most distinct issue that pushed away and brought together these two powerful countries was India’s debatable nuclear program, so allow me to back you up on the facts with a brief history.

In the 1950s, the United States helped India develop nuclear energy under the Atoms for Peace program, by building a nuclear reactor for India, and even providing nuclear fuel for a while. All was going well until we hit 1968. In 1968, the global community drafted the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or commonly known as the NPT, with the goal of preventing the rapid spread of nuclear weapons and promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Under the preface of the treaty being biased, India, along with additional states, refused to sign the NPT. Skip ahead to 1974, India tested its first nuclear bomb, demonstrating its capacity to develop nuclear weapons with technology transferred for peaceful purposes. Four years later, the Carter administration enacts the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act, which requires countries not included in the NPT (inclusive of India) to allow inspections of nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). India refuses, and Washington ends all nuclear assistance to Delhi. Unnerved, India continues to develop its nuclear capabilities, and completes a series of underground nuclear tests close to the border with Pakistan, raising fears that these tests could prompt a regional nuclear arms race.With the tests frowned upon by the world at large, the Clinton regime imposes economic sanctions on India.

However, Clinton’s 2000 visit to India marks the beginning of thawing the icy relationship between the two powers in regards to India’s nuclear tests. As India’s economy starts to develop rapidly, the visit indicates a significant shift in U.S.’ Cold War mentality of allying with Pakistan. A year later, the Bush administration lifts the sanctions that were imposed on India.

With relations notably warming between the two states, they reach a landmark nuclear deal, inking the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative in 2005. This decade-long defense framework lifts a 30-year embargo on nuclear trade with India, and, under the agreement, India agrees to place all its civil resources under IAEA safeguards. In return, the U.S. would work toward full civil nuclear cooperation with India, and the two states work closely together in during the next 10 years.

Today marks the first-day-of-issue ceremony as the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) will commemorate the Hindu festival of Diwali with a stunning Forever stamp. Diwali, the festival of lights, celebrates the triumph of good over evil, and spans five days each fall. Though not a direct gesture towards India, the issuing of this stamp comes after meeting long pending demands of the Indian-American community, strengthening ties. Even on the official Diwali Stamp website, it lists reasons as to why the stamp should be issued, claiming it enhances U.S. - India relations as the festival was officially recognized in 2007, and President Obama was the first president to light the diya in 2009. These positive relations, of course, stem from the removal of tensions regarding India’s nuclear progress.

A partnership between India and the U.S. can prove to be incredibly beneficial to both parties, as they take final steps to waive the uneasiness of their Cold War front as well as the initial nuclear tests. There is an urgent need for both the United States and India to deepen their security relationship: to contain China. While Washington is visibly concerned about growing Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea, India is equally anxious with Chinese territorial aggression in its land borders. From the U.S. perspective, to have India as a trusted partner and ally is advantageous to its overall grand strategy. According to The Diplomat, “India, with a population of 1.2 billion, living within a democratic set up, is politically structured to resonate with American values of democracy, individual liberty, and freedom. Henceforth, if America hopes to see a world with democratic values spreading, having India as a partner is definitely a force multiplier.”

These reasons, in combination with other shared interests such as combatting terrorism, developing their economies, investing in renewables, and civilian positive relations has set the two countries up for an impactful alliance. With the wounds from the Cold War and disputed nuclear tests well on their way to a full recovery, let’s hope that the Diwali stamp can light the way for a powerful partnership.

The Elephant vs. The Dragon: A Plank Contest

“...and that’s the minute-30 mark!” Bodies quivering, adrenaline surging, and pressure building, I’d like to welcome you to a scene from my 8th grade year. Eye to eye with my biggest competitor at the time, we glared at each other with a look that meant we weren’t giving up any time soon. We competed for everything - we were both  participating at every spelling bee, both finalizing at the speech contest, both sprinting the last lap of the mile to outrun each other; every time I wanted to get rid of her, she wanted to get rid of me. We were too similar and too competitive to let go. So, being the incredibly smart and mature 8th graders we were, we decided to settle it by means of a plank contest. The first 45 seconds were a piece of cake, but as time went on, our noodle arms began to feel the pressure, while the chants of 30 other students around us cheered either one of us on.

Though you might’ve missed our competition, you can see a live reenactment by reading the news - the two biggest competitors having a plank contest right now? China and India. Striving to be the best and outdo each other, China and India have both been feeling the animosity for years through countless conflicts. Cranking up the heat through disputes on Kashmir, Tibet, religion, visa applications, etc., I’ll touch upon the biggest two disagreements in recent history: Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) membership, and the verdict on the South China Sea.

Let’s begin with China’s blockade of India’s NSG membership bid in June. The NSG is essentially a group of currently 48 nuclear supplier countries that seek to prevent nuclear proliferation by meeting to discuss controls over exports of materials, equipment, and technology. After eight long years of lobbying for a seat at the NSG, India’s candidacy for membership was denied. A seat at the NSG is crucial for India because this exclusive group controls the global trade in nuclear technology, and the membership would have helped India assert itself as a legitimate nuclear state. Although countries with large influence like the U.S., U.K., France, and Russia backed India’s membership, opposition came from several countries, notably China, who was the most vocal opponent. The grounds for rejecting the application were based on the fact that India had yet to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty. China’s opposition, however, most likely originates from the fact that granting India a seat at the NSG would mean allowing a rival to be at par with them in this prestigious club. In an effort to rally support from the global community for their NSG Application, India’s Prime Minister went to visit China’s President in a strategic move to secure their affirmative vote. This, however, did not stop President Xi from reassuring his Pakistani counterpart Xi’s government would persist with criteria-based approach for the NSG membership even before the meeting took place.

Moving on to the South China Sea conflict: the disputes involve both island and maritime claims among several sovereign states within the region, namely Brunei, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Philippines, and Vietnam. Earlier this year, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) rejected China’s ownership claims to 80% of the of the South China Sea. This ruling was the first time that the basis of China’s “historical claims,” notably, the “nine-dash line,” was ruled to be invalid under international law. Occurring right after China’s successful blocking of India’s bid to gain entry into the NSG, India could not resist but rejoice after hearing the verdict, formulating a snarky and timely response: “India supports freedom of navigation and over-flight, and unimpeded commerce, based on the principles of international law, as reflected notably in the UNCLOS.” As was expected, an enraged China dismissed the PCA’s verdict, declaring it null and void. This response proved to be a sharp contrast with India’s mature acceptance of a similar arbitration with Bangladesh, with a verdict against India’s favor. On the eve of the verdict, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia called on China to follow India’s example by accepting the ruling of the PCA, adding fuel to the fire.

But back to my plank contest: toughing it out for as long as we could, my arch nemesis and I discovered a new respect for each other. Stopping only because the yard duty told us to and herded the cheering crowd elsewhere, both of us just looked at each other and smiled for not only pulling off a plank much longer than each of us had expected, but also because we realized how trivial our previous conflicts had been. From then on, we became really good friends, working together for group projects, spending lunches together, representing our school at our district’s board meeting, and even sitting next to each other at the “Valedictorian Row” at our graduation.

Ending tonight, the G20 Summit provides a chance for a similar and much needed reset for the Sino-Indian relationship, allowing them to set aside differences and focus on common goals like helping the poor, reducing the gap between developed and developing countries, and combating climate change, to name a few. Instead of waiting for a higher power to end the competition, it’s time for India and China to stop spending energy on new ways to antagonize the other, and redirect it to solving issues domestically as well as globally.

You Think You Know Me

You think you know me,

When you shoot daggers with your eyes,

When you spread those poisonous lies.

You think you know me,

When you laugh, snicker, and sneer,

But things look much different if you dare to come near.

You think you know me,

When you instantly categorize: weak, stupid, geek, fat, 

I used to think I was better than that.

You think you know me,

When you speculate on the spot,

Where I got these scars, and where this was bought.

You think you know me,

But you don't.

I am fighting a battle much bigger than you will ever know about,

And I'm living a story much sadder than you will ever read about.

I'm not weak,

I'm strong enough to keep it inside.

I'm not dumb, 

I'm smart enough to not let your words ruin my life.

So you should know that I'm above all your games,

And you should know that I'm not after the fame.

My life is one continuous war,

And you - you - are just one villain.

And the worst part is,

When all has been said and done,

You'll still think you know me.

But you don't. 

Because my story isn't over.

And it never will be.

Pull the Trigger on Guns

It’s a beautiful weekend morning, with the rays of sunlight dawning into your room as you wake up from a good night’s rest. You give your legs one last stretch and prop up your pillow as you gently shake off your tiredness and yawn. Reaching over the bedside table, you unplug your phone and scroll through your notifications, expecting to start your day off with a funny cat video and replying to those mass “Good Morning” Snapchats. Instead, what you see is shocking. 27 urgent texts from your friends, 43 worried missed calls from your relatives, and 82 Facebook post notifications that end with #WeStandWithPulse or #PrayForDallas or #StopTheBleeding. Your hometown, your tight-knit community, is no longer a safe space for hopscotch after school. It’s become known as a bloodbath on headlines across the world. It seems like it’s a terrible nightmare, a hoax, an illusion, a surreal situation, but for Americans, this is the reality we’ve had to deal with for too long. Gun violence is sweeping the nation, and incidents like Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, the Pulse Nightclub and the most recent Dallas Shooting have become the norm. It’s high time that we open our eyes to gun violence and impose harsher gun control laws.

Ever since I was young, I was appalled by the fact that people were allowed to have guns. In my mind, why would people even want to have something that's sole purpose was to cause harm? My 8-year-old self silently vowed that when she would become President, she would ban all guns everywhere, so no one could cause harm to one another. As I got older (and more mature), I realized that my proposal was impractical, but I still hold onto the core principles of my belief: not everyone should own a gun.

Whenever I bring up the topic of imposing stricter gun control laws, people immediately pounce on me by stating something like this: “It's in our Constitution." "Our founding fathers put it in there for a reason." "The Second Amendment lets me own guns." "You're not a real American." Whoa, cowboy, slow down. To me, being American is following your dreams and having enviable liberties. However, no liberty is absolute. Rules and laws based on absolutes never do too well in any society. Sure, we have Freedom of Speech, but that doesn't cover you in court when you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Similarly, while I am not in favor of an outright ban of guns, I am in favor of very strict gun control laws. In fact, as recent as a month ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right to carry concealed guns, and the California law actually requires applicants to demonstrate a “good cause” to carry a weapon, such as working in a job with a security threat.

Still, many gun rights advocates reason, “Guns are needed for self-defense, so by taking them away, you’re basically leaving people helpless.” This is highly misleading; guns are rarely used for self-defense, and the numbers will surprise you. According to the Bureau of Justice, of all the violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, not even a mere 1% of people protected themselves with the threat or use of a gun. To further my point, the threat or use of guns are least employed method of protection. Simply put, guns are used more often to cause violent crimes rather than save someone from it.

Gun proponents then fire their last argument in their arsenal: “It doesn’t matter if people can’t use it for self-defense. What if a gunman was to commit a mass shooting right here, right now? By allowing normal people like me to carry arms, forget about self-defense - I could save all of us!” *sigh* Once again, completely false. This type of thinking is only practical in a perfect Utopian world, where unicorns exist and everyone is greeted with glitter bombs. According to the non-profit Mother Jones, NONE of the mass shootings between 1982 and 2012 was stopped by an armed civilian. That’s 62 mass shootings in 30 years and too many lives lost to count - and not one armed civilian stopped it. If that’s not bad enough, armed civilians are actually more likely to make dangerous situations more deadly. Jeffrey Voccola, Assistant Professor of Writing at Kutztown University, notes, "The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation."

So what now? Hopefully, I’ve convinced you that guns are harmful for everyone, and if you still want to sleep with your firearm under your pillow, to each their own. But just like many Americans, I know that the path to better Saturday mornings (where you really can start your day off with a funny cat video) will only come with stricter gun control laws. So pull the trigger on guns.