Here is this week’s Current Events Write-Up. It is a little earlier this week than usual because I will not be able to write it on Friday evening this week.
I asked last week why progressives are not supporting President Trump’s renegotiated NAFTA, with its minimum wage and collective bargaining provisions. This article offers a progressive critique of NAFTA 2.0. According to this article, those provisions are voluntary rather than binding. The article also contends that the renegotiated NAFTA allows for pharmaceutical price-gouging and will undermine the newly-elected Mexican President’s ability to effect reforms before he even takes office.
I remember a few years after 9/11. I attended a liberal church. Someone mentioned President Bush’s statement that “Whoever is not for us is against us.” A lady then remarked, “Then he turns around and makes an agreement with Pakistan.” I heard such an argument from the Left frequently: if the Bush Administration is so serious about combating terrorism, why does it give Pakistan a free pass? Well, rightly or wrongly, the Trump Administration seems to be acting according to this argument.
Two Opposite Conservative Perspectives on Trump’s Decision to Cut Subsidies to Palestine: “Will Getting Rid of UNRWA Fix the Palestinian Problem?”, by Mike Konrad (Con) vs. “Here’s What You Need To Know About Trump’s Decision To Cut Subsidies To Palestine,” by Michael Pometantz (Con).
According to de Rugy, the Export-Import Bank is starting to support small businesses rather than big businesses, and, for some reason, Democrats are fighting this.
“DeVos’s openness to the idea of arming teachers is rooted in her department’s broader goal of allowing states to pursue their own educational priorities. After all, there are 172 school districts in Texas that allow teachers and staff to carry guns on school property, and DeVos wants to respect the decision of these elected school boards…The education secretary cannot be blamed for providing clarity on a program she neither came up with nor wanted to fund, and her critics are wrong to condemn her without the full context.”
And, of course, they get criticized. I wonder if they would have been criticized had they not attended.
How Trump can do this, without federal interference in the Internet.
And this conservative author is sad about this. I understand, as one who likes to read alternative media.