Let’s start with the sports story the media just can’t seem to stop talking about. LeBron James, four-time recipient of the NBA Most Valuable player award, is changing grounds. He recently announced his move to join the Los Angeles Lakers.
Some have expressed their support; others, their skepticism. Here are a couple perspectives to think about.
“I think he should’ve stayed with the Cavs’. He has a better chance at getting a ring in Cleveland. In California, he’s going to have to deal with the Warriors, who are stacked up like hell and essentially are the basketball version of the Avengers at this point. The Lakers don't have the kind of star power to help him, unless they get Kawhi and other big names. If LeBron wants a ring, he should’ve stayed in Cleveland.” —@dtx.chaelin
“I don’t really know about sports but I do believe he should have stayed.” —@shut.up.julia
“LeBron James’ choice to change teams was a smart move for several reasons. It appears that this will give him the best chance for championship contention. The Cavs’ aging roster did not provide much reason for him to stay. Secondly, Los Angeles grants the player more opportunities in entertainment for his post-playing career, something which LeBron James is invested in. The move was the best option for the time being as well as for the long run.” —@adrian__king
“Have no idea. I don’t follow basketball, but I do know that it has upset many people. The Lakers already has Micheal Jordan, so maybe they needed another giant to bring their team to the forefront?” —@jacob.ortizbreiting
While we’re still talking sports, let’s touch on a story that’s been slowly unraveling this past week. At first, all we knew was that a boy’s soccer team and their coach were lost somewhere in Thailand. And then we saw the videos. And then an ex-Thai Navy SEAL died from a lack of oxygen during a rescue attempt. And then days ago, volunteer cave divers told us the rescue would happen that day, or the next. As of right now, eight out of twelve boys have been rescued, which means there are still five rescues left to make.
American billionaire Elon Musk has offered his help: he’s been talking with engineers both local and overseas to devise ways to get to the boys. Recently, he posted photos and videos of a kid-sized submarine to help rescue the team.
While some believe Musk is doing it out of pure intent, others remain skeptical—is it a publicity stunt? Will he be successful? What do you think? Here are some perspectives to take into consideration.
“I think it’s an act of good intent. It could be for publicity, but either way, as long as somebody is helping those boys get to safety, I’m pretty chill with it. I think he’ll be successful.” —@dtx.chaelin
“I think it’s purely publicity. Many of his employees have spoken out about his ignorance and lack of attention and action with racial and gender issues within the company. It seems convenient that he’s made this move. At least he’s helping people, though.” —@bruhbruhbruh_bruce
“I would say that while a side effect of this action is publicity, a large portion of his intent is pure. With his ability to help and his assistance in past relief efforts, it is likely that much of this stems from a genuine concern in the crisis. Eight of the 12 boys have been rescued. So far, it seems that the mission will be successful. It is possible that the submarine he sent to help might not even be necessary.” —@adrian__king
“I think that the work Elon Musk is doing is great, but I’m not an utter fanboy so much to praise everything he does, since we don’t know if it will really be all that important in the long-run. So, I do think that it’s a publicity stunt, as he knows the mission will be largely successful as many international organizations and governmental bodies will be pushing all of their resources to save the team whilst flooding is at it’s lowest.” —@jacob.ortizbreiting
But there’s more than one news story that people have been speculating on recently. On June 27, Associate Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court of the United Staes (SCOTUS), effective July 31. Justice Kennedy has been serving for 20 years and has authored the majority opinion of many landmark cases. When Justice Kennedy was nominated in 1988, he won unanimous confirmation from the US Senate.
Now in 2018, there’s unanimous wonder as to what will happen next. Justice Kennedy is famously the swing vote, which leads to a lot of questions about the future of the court. Will major cases be overturned? Who will replace the senior Associate Justice? Will the next Justice still be a swing vote?
“The whole SCOTUS thing has me pretty worried. SCOTUS has the power to overturn some of the biggest decisions in history: Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, anti-discrimination laws, etc. The fact that [President] Trump has the opportunity to input somebody can have lasting effects for years to come. I don’t want the ideologies of this administration in SCOTUS for the next 40-50+ years. I’m not sure who I want to replace [Justice] Kennedy, though.” —@dtx.chaelin
“[Justice] Kennedy, a swing-judge, was not necessarily reliable when it came to choosing liberal or conservative. Him stepping down created an even divide between Republicans and Democrats. Whoever is appointed will determine which party holds the SCOTUS majority. This could possibly cause changes in key issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, gun rights, and affirmative action. In terms of President Trump’s nominee, he the race for the position has been narrowed to four justices: Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Thomas Hardiman, and Raymond Kethledge. Amy Coney Barrett would be the only conservative female judge as well as the only one to not have graduated from an Ivy League law school. Regarding religious and social conservatism, she is the most reliable pick and I personally would prefer Barrett. However, Trump advisors said recently that Kavanaugh and Hardiman are the two favorites. Most likely, he will choose one of them.” —@adrian__king
“Since he was a Reagan-era elect, he was Republican. But he was [notably] moderate and probably saw many of [President] Trump’s edicts as extreme. Even though Justice Kennedy was economically right, he was more liberal with social rights. I think that now he’s gone, the Trump Administration will be able to fill in their own nominee and push the SCOTUS into a more [right-winged] direction. His replacement would likely be Brett Kavanaugh, as he is a well-decorated Republican in the high circles of politics. He and [President] Trump share many of the same views even if Kavanaugh may be more moderate on television. Of the likely candidates, my choice is Raymond Kethledge. He’s the lesser evil of all likely candidates; he is pro-immigration, and assists and participated in pro-bono works for criminal defendants and for low-income families trying to keep their home. He doesn’t believe in a religious-based government. However, it’s not all flowers; he kind of made a fool of himself regarding credit checks for hiring practices.” —@jacob.ortizbreiting
Last Thursday, the European Union (EU) voted against a highly controversial legislation. Known as the Copyright Directive, it was an attempt for the EU to modernize its copyright laws.
That notion may seem harmless, but the directive contained two highly contested articles. The first: Article 11, which intended to protect online platforms from the power of big internet companies like Google and FaceBook by not being able to use their material without payment. It was branded “the link tax,” because of the implication that companies would have to pay to hyperlink other articles.
The second contested article was Article 13. The article proposed a responsibility for the enforcement of copyright laws, which implied there must be a route to access and filter content on virtually any online platform. The article was not only controversial because of its implications to privacy, but also because it is known to be costly.
The Copyright Directive strikes a resemblance to Net Neutrality debates in the US. Both instances lead to a line of morally debatable questions. Was it the right move for the EU to strike down the Copyright Directive? Here are some opinions on the issue.
“I do agree that certain elements of the directive were highly valid. For instance, music artists were concerned that unauthorized usage of material was causing a loss in compensation and revenue. The intent of stopping online pirating was one that I support, but the vague wording of the articles concerning hyperlink/controversial articles was an issue. It was the right move to strike down the draft, not because of it’s content and intent, but rather so that it can be edited and reworded to be proposed in the future.” —@adrian__king
“Largely it was, as the internet is a free resource and largely has remained a free resource. If the hyperlink articles would go through, it would require them to be paid. Which means ads, or pushing the cost to the consumer (as the WSJ has done with a paywall) can limit many, many articles and wealths of information that the internet [currently] provides. Smaller, more niche websites would likely be most affected, thus pushing the larger, monolithic tech monopolies that are already in place. Not to mention the idea of censorship the tag ‘controversial articles’ carries with it.” —@jacob.ortizbreiting