Friday, December 16th concluded Putin's two-day trip to Japan in which he met with Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe. The two met to talk about a territorial dispute between four islands north of Japan, but it seemed that the meetings only bore shallow business plans between Japan and Russia and, in the end, Abe walked home empty handed with still no real solution to the dispute he had hoped to resolve.
Known to Russia as the southern Kurile islands and to Japan as the Northern Territories, these islands have created tension between the two countries for over 70 years. Captured by the Soviet Union just days before World War 2's end, ownership now lies between two countries that both claim the islands as their own, and this dispute has prevented them from ever signing a peace treaty.
From these meetings, Abe, as well as many hopeful Japanese, hoped to find a solution to the dispute, or at least take a step towards a solution, but expectations fell very short. From the beginning, Putin seemed to show what his motives for a solution were as he arrived in Japan two hours late on Thursday, as well as being one hour late to his meeting on Friday, something quite serious to the Japanese who are very keen on punctuality. "It would be naive to think we can solve this problem in an hour," said Putin during a news conference, "but there is no doubt we need to look for a solution." However, the solution Putin and Abe worked towards Thursday and Friday seemed to be the opposite of what Putin was referencing. Both sides reportedly signed a total of 80 documents, many of which dealt with economic ties and commercial matters, including a one billion dollar joint investment fund to promote economic corporation between Japan and Russia.
Recently, Putin has been interested in investing into Russia's seemingly undeveloped far east, and that is exactly what he got during his two-day meeting. "For me, the most important thing is to sign a peace agreement because that would create the conditions for long term co-operation." Putin said. Yet he seemed to have no problem creating co-operation between Russia and Japan with no closer step to signing a peace treaty. Putin denies claims that he was only interested in acquiring economic benefits from Japan.
Whether Putin truly puts a peace treaty first, or he just knew how to play his cards with Abe, there is no doubt that Russia has no plans of easily giving up. Both sides claim sovereignty over the islands, and if an agreement is to be made, Putin and Abe can't be friends, which is the opposite of what Abe seems to have been portraying, referring to Putin by his first name, an odd and sometimes rude gesture in Japans formal society. If current situations continue, Abe risks losing his supporters and possibly his country.
Thursday, president-elect Donald Trump nominated Andy Puzder as secretary of labor. Puzder, CEO of CKE, the company that owns Carls Jr. and Hardees, is perhaps best known for his strong opposition towards an increase to the minimum wage, as well as ostensibly being in support of replacing human workers with machines. These viewpoints make him a villain in the eyes of low-income workers and advocates of an increased worker pay, but does that make him a villain to America as a whole? I believe not.
As new secretary of labor, it is obvious that Puzder will not allow the 15$ minimum wage to pass, and I think that is rightly so. "I'm not opposed to raising the minimum wage rationally;" said Puzder, "I'm opposed to raising it to the point where lower-skilled workers, working-class Americans, young people, minorities, are losing the jobs they need to get on the ladder of success." Sure, raising the minimum wage to 15$ will put more money into your pocket, but at the expense of the people and businesses that need it the most. With a minimum wage increase this extreme, why would businesses feel the need to hire entry-level employees to do unskilled labor at that high of a cost? Like Puzder said, these are jobs needed to get on the ladder of success, meaning they are at the bottom. These jobs were never intended to support a family off of, but rather be an entry into the workforce, a stepping stone for something better. In which, to use Puzder's words, you then use to start climbing the ladder into higher paying, more skilled jobs. "I started out scooping ice cream at Baskin-Robins at a dollar an hour," Puzder stated in an interview, "but there is no way in the world that scooping ice cream is worth 15$ an hour...Those jobs just don't produce that kind of value like a construction job or a manufacturing job does."
In an interview with Business Insider, Puzder said machines are "always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show up late, there's never a slip-and-fall or an age, sex, race discrimination case." This has drawn fire towards him, giving people even more reason to suggest that Puzder doesn't care for the people, but only the business. But what many people overlook is that Puzder may be in favor of some forms of automation, but he still supports his workers. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed article, he said, "having access to a person is important to assure smooth experiences for everyone." And, in reference to how his employees make the food, he also says, "None of these tasks can be effectively automated, and we wouldn't want them to be." Another thing that many people overlook, or choose not to look at, is that before becoming CEO of CKE, he was the general counsel and saved the company from bankruptcy, CKE restaurants now employ over 75,000 workers in the US, and nearly 100,000 workers worldwide. A high number for someone who is described as "a man whose business record is defined by fighting against working people."
As people seem to become more and more upset over Trump's victory as new president, so do the reasons why we need to revise our voting system. One of those that many seem to support is the removal of the electoral college, with various reasons behind it such as it being unfair to the people that vote and it going against our democratic principles. Can we really make these claims, however? Say that the electoral college really is something not good and to be gotten rid of, is it still justifiable to say so because it goes against democracy?
Many people argue about what type of government we have. Some people saying we have a representative democracy, and some saying we don't have a democracy at all, but rather a republic. Whichever may be more right, it is still true however that under the pure definition of a democracy, our country is not 100% that. Therefore, to state that the electoral college needs to be removed because it goes against core democratic principles would be misleading, for our country was never founded on "core" democratic principles, but either way, is the electoral college so in need of removal?
Under the electoral college, smaller, less influential states are given the power to have a larger voice in the presidential decision than their population shows for. If this were removed, these states would essentially disappear, as presidential candidates would no longer have a need to campaign in such states. Meaning that only densely populated areas such as Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, etc. would become the main focus. Many people see this as a good thing, saying that if the people of a country are deciding their president, then the areas with the most population should matter the most. This proposal isn't inherently bad, yet some flaws do oppose. Most notably is the fact that it completely ignores the notion that, as a democracy, we would be a united people. In a democracy, where the people decide, shouldn't everyone matter? What this proposal brings is essentially the segregation of people into two groups: Important and non-important. Also not to mention that the needs and wants of largely populated cities are very different to those of, say small farming cities. So only caring for cities that "mattered'' the most would also essentially be created a society built only for those people. Therefore leaving the other people in the background.
If liberals really want to remove the electoral college for the sake of democracy, then they should also fight for the removal of everything else in our government that goes against those principles: judicial review, the Bill of Rights, the administrative state, etc, but until then their pleas only sound like a faulty excuse to get what they want, and are only for the sake of themselves, not for the country as a whole. As said by writer John Yoo, "They are..only arguing to benefit themselves now, not to defend principle."
