Why Do They Hate Us?

The Coronavirus pandemic has completely shut down the world. Way too many lives have been lost globally, yet here in the United States we have a narcissistic president that refuses to own up to his own failures and take responsibility for allowing thousands of Americans to die despite warning after warning. Loved ones are not allowed to say their last goodbyes and people are dying alone in hospitals and being placed in body bags just to be stacked in makeshift coolers. This can’t be how life goes from here on out, or is it?

Recent reports show that Black and Brown people are contracting the virus at a much higher rate, which has ultimately led to higher death rates in their communities as well. Yet again, you have the president of the US (that seeks to be the next dictator) pushing for all states to open up without regards to what medical professionals have suggested, which is for states to not remove their “stay-at-home” orders.

Trump initially stated he wanted to open the country up for Easter but that was walked down by Dr. Anthony Fauci. Then weeks later the report came out about Black and Brown people. Immediately, thereafter the president re-engaged the topic of opening up the economy. My thoughts are, the second the report was released, he saw the opportunity to allow this pandemic to kill off as many Black and Brown people as possible. How ironic knowing that the majority of Black people will vote against him in the upcoming election which could help lead to his demise. He’s gone as far as fueling his base to protest Governors to open up their perspective states, totally disregarding stay-at-home restrictions and social distancing guidelines. His supporters even argue that they allegedly aren’t affected by the virus so the state should be up and running. How is this going to help heal the world and bring people together? It won’t!

To add insult to injury, social media and actual news coverage is reporting that Black people are being banned and denied access into multiple establishments in China. They are saying and believing that Black people are the cause for this virus. How obtuse is that? Especially when all signs have pointed to the Wuhan science lab as the sole bearer of this horrible pandemic. That is baffling to me. This leads to my question of why do they hate us so much… even in a time of crisis?

I Don’t Believe In Voting Blue No Matter Who

The first time I heard the phrase “vote for the lesser of two evils,” was when Hillary Clinton was chosen as the Democratic Nominee for the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. I’m sure we all remember that enthusiasm for Hillary was low. She was widely disliked and many people were devastated at having to choose between her and Trump, but criticisms of her were immediately shut down by people claiming “she’s the lesser of two evils.” Basically, no matter how many valid reasons people had for rejecting Hillary, they had no choice but to shut up and vote for her because her evil was easier to swallow than Trump’s. Fast forward to 2020, and I’m hearing the same arguments all over again. Joe Biden is the Democratic frontrunner and his so-called supporters are out in full force, silencing any and all criticisms. They’re saying to “vote blue no matter who” regardless of his many faults because anyone’s better than Trump. I disagree entirely and I’m honestly sick and tired of hearing these arguments. There are many problems with this kind of mindset and I think it’s both harmful and unproductive to promote it, so here are the reasons why I don’t believe in “voting blue no matter who/voting for the lesser of two evils.” 

One reason I’m not okay with these phrases is because they encourage people to settle for candidates that we *know* are unfit to lead us. We deserve better and should demand better from our elected officials, instead of just throwing our hands in the air and accepting a candidate who is proven to be unworthy in every way, shape and form. Progress is what I seek, and I know that settling for the status quo will get us nowhere.

I can’t accept “vote for the lesser of two evils” because in terms of Biden vs Trump, this phrase suggests that Joe Biden is somehow less evil than Donald Trump, which is a lie. In fact, I believe that Trump and Biden are the exact same brand of evil, the only difference being that Biden wears a blue MAGA hat while Trump wears a red one. There are too many similarities between the two, one being that Trump and Biden are both racist. Trump has labeled Mexicans as criminals and rapists, was sued by the U.S. Department of Justice for housing discrimination against Black people, proposed a ban against Muslims, and referred to African countries as “shithole countries” (these examples hardly scratch the surface of his history of racism). Biden was good friends with white supremacist James Eastland and gave a eulogy at the funeral of segregationist Strom Thurmond. He opposed desegregating schools because in his own words, he didn’t want his kids going to school in a “racial jungle.” He called Barack Obama “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean,” said that “poor kids are just as bright and talented as White kids” during an Iowa town hall, and helped write the 1994 Crime Bill that expanded mass incarceration in the U.S. 

Other similarities between Trump and Biden? They’ve both been accused of sexual assault/harassment/uncomfortable physical contact by numerous women. Trump has accusations from 20+ women, while Biden has eight, (and has also been seen on video inappropriately touching underaged girls and smelling their hair). Both have disappointing track records on LGBTQ+ rights, both have credible accusations that they’re mentally unfit to be president, both have worked for administrations that put kids in cages, and both are warmongers. Now that I’ve laid out all the reasons why Biden and Trump are horrible in pretty much all the same ways, how exactly is one better than the other? Swapping out one bigot in chief for another is not a win, giving me no reason to rally behind either candidate. I’m a marginalized person and my marginalized community will be harmed by both Trump AND Biden, which is why I cannot just sit down and “vote blue no matter who”—and anyone who tries to bully others into doing so is blatantly choosing their party affiliation over their morals.

It’s time to kill the idea that we should choose a lesser evil over another, and that we have to vote blue no matter who. I need people to realize that politicians work for us, not the other way around, so we shouldn’t give up our power by accepting less than what we deserve and by being afraid to demand what we need from them. I also need people to realize that Donald Trump is not the sole reason for all the evil in this country and that replacing him with Biden will not put an end to it. In reality, Trump is a product of the evil in the U.S. and in order to make real change in this country, we must dismantle the systems that allow him to thrive, not just focus 100% of our energy on him. Since people will always do what they want regardless, I’m not going to end this article by telling anyone who to vote for. But I will tell you not to allow the direction of the 2020 election to make you feel hopeless, because regardless of who’s in office—whether it’s a Democrat or Republican, whether you love them or hate them, there is work that needs to be done. We must stay aware, stay involved, and look out for our fellow community members, because in the words of my good friend and one of the smartest, most passionate activists I know, Brooke Solomon…

“No president is going to save my community.”

While electing a president is important, it is not the only way to create change. The power lies within us. Real change exists outside of electoral politics, and we need to be the ones to create it.

Similar Read: The Coronavirus Pandemic Should Be the Jumpstart to a Revolution?

1 Star 6 clapsLoading...

COVID-19 And Trump, A Modern Day Nero?

An email was sent to my employer’s special-interest lists the other day: “Does anyone know where I can find some N95 masks? All of the local stores are sold out.” I was stunned. My company is staffed by some of the most logical, reasonable, critically-thinking people I’ve ever known. People at my own company were panicking about the novel Coronavirus, also called COVID-19. Why?

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has been a reliable source of unbiased, evidence-based public health information for decades. But, they have been oddly inconsistent in their messaging concerning the coronavirus outbreak – which has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on Wednesday (3/11/20), and President Trump is largely responsible.

When the virus first entered the country, the White House squabbled over whether to even share what it knew, and what plans, if any, were being made to keep Americans safe. Meanwhile, experts at the CDC were prevented from communicating with state agencies and providing information to the public. So, state and local governments, airlines, and other companies worked to devise their own plans. Conferences were canceled, airlines put new sanitation policies into play, companies began plans for allowing employees to work from home and to provide financial support to hourly workers. We were standing by until February 25th, as President Trump was preparing to return from New Delhi when he was forced into the reality of the situation. Only then did he signal any intent to address the issue.

Americans look to the president to lead them through crises with a calm demeanor, determination, and decisiveness. Trump did not deliver. Instead, he chose to turn every opportunity to provide assurances into a platform for vilifying the media, blaming the democrats, and aggrandizing himself. What vague reassurances he offered were not intended to calm the public as much as to avoid ruffling the stock market’s feathers. It didn’t work. Trump’s refusal to acknowledge the threat until late in the game may have actually caused the panic on Wall Street. The business-as-usual attitude may have intended to calm fears, but when the rest of the world is rushing to contain and mitigate the spread of the virus, some might see it as sticking one’s head in the sand, waiting for the threat to pass. Not exactly a model of decisive action.

Not surprisingly, Trump’s view of what we’re facing is out of sync with reality. While Democrats worked toward pushing through an emergency economic package to help those forced to stay away from their paying jobs, Trump pushed for a payroll tax break. Not at all useful, because you have to be paid – which means you have to work – in order to get the benefit. He explained his rationale to Republican senators, “… so taxes don’t go back up before voters decide whether to return him to office.” said, President Trump. The stimulus package that the White House is putting together is reportedly going to cost around $700 billion – on par with the Wall Street bailout of 2008 and the Recovery Act of 2009. This package is aimed at corporations, including the hotel industry, which considering that he still profits from his hotels, creates more evidence of his conflict of interest.

The Trump Administration’s anti-science stance is also reflected in its response to the COVID-19 threat. Over the last 3 years, Trump Republicans have gone out of their way to discredit evidence-based science. Budgets for research and public education were slashed, seriously hobbling the CDC in its efforts to create accurate tests and effective solutions. His willful ignorance of how science works was laid out for all to see at his visit to the CDC on Friday. He failed to grasp the simple concept that drugs cannot be created overnight. Getting medicine from the lab to the drug cabinet takes painstaking research, experimentation with consistent results, and clinical trials. All of which require money… money that Trump took away back in 2017.

Exemplified by ​his own tweet​, Trump is fiddling, while all around him the flames get higher.

Similar Read: The Coronavirus Pandemic Should Be the Jumpstart to a Revolution?

What Does It Mean To Have Two Old White Men Running For The Democratic Primary In 2020?

The 2016 election was historic. Hillary Clinton became the first woman ever to secure the Democratic Party’s nomination for president. While her run for president was historic, unfortunately, she did not win against Donald Trump. 

However, after her run, unprecedented drives of women – more than ever before – began stepping up to run for office across the country and at every level. So, it was no surprise that the 2020 election for president would see a historic level of women running. Major Democratic ticket contenders included NY Senator Kristin Gillibrand, MN Senator Amy Klobuchar, CA Senator Kamala Harris, Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, author Marianne Williamson, and MA Senator Elizabeth Warren. Of these six women, Gabbard remains in the race, but her campaign is not viable.  Warren was the last serious candidate to drop out, falling hard after Super Tuesday where she had a poor showing. 

So what does this mean for a primary that has seen upwards of fifteen-plus candidates enter and leave the race? 

Some Americans are saying this country is ready for a woman president; however, their actions are not matching their words. Arguably, Warren was the Democratic Party’s best chance for a woman candidate, but she did not win a single state during the four early primary contests (IA, NH, NV & SC) and she fell flat during the 14-state Super Tuesday contest. She didn’t even win her home state which is a bad indication of support. 

Even more than her loosing and ultimately dropping out, we now face a primary that is likely to showcase a contested convention with two old White men. Our moderate candidate being former Vice President Joe Biden and our liberal candidate being Bernie Sanders. 

As a self-proclaimed woman advocate, it’s extremely hard to look at a contest that seemed so promising with a diverse field of candidates running from age, gender, race and sexual orientation to dwindle right back down to what we’ve been used to in this country – old white men. 

While Gabbard remains in the race, clearly unviable, Warren dropping out sends a strong signal that what this country preaches it clearly doesn’t practice. We already have a president who has proven himself to show clear bigotry and sexism towards women. What we should be running toward are more women who can represent the more than majority voting population of this country – women. 

While I believe we will have a woman president within the next decade, I can’t help but wonder what message we are continuously sending by advancing old White men.

Debate Takeaways From An Unaffiliated Voter

Warren’s continuous attacks on Bloomberg seem to be excessive. Now, he may be all the slimeball a person can possibly be and if he is then he shouldn’t be running. I have zero tolerance for a slimeball presidential candidate. However, without knowing the details behind the attacks it just seems like a cheap shot because people are not going to look into it.

Sanders is consistent; not always right but he is consistent. If he wins, the debates with Trump will be nearly impossible to watch. Two advanced aged people stuck in their ways. Trump will win and people will be trying to get rid of the electoral college… again.

(Selfishly) Biden should’ve run in 2016. I think he’s losing his ability to make his points, and he needs to stop talking about how he wrote all the bills.

Steyer is good but he needs to drop out and endorse someone. Clearly, he doesn’t like Bernie. He’d be better off boosting Klobuchar or Pete.

Klobuchar is likely the best candidate but she’ll be out after Super Tuesday. I wish I could say more. I really like her.

Bloomberg looks annoyed with the process, his jokes are bad and he needs to get Warren to sign an NDA. ??‍♂️ He nearly said, “I bought the”… rather than “I donated to” the Democrats in the house.

Pete is gifted, but feels like he’s memorized talking points to court people of color. He seems very composed and I think he’ll be the best person to take on Trump attacks.

Gabbard (#NotPresent #PunIntended) will be the 3rd party candidate. Why else is she still running when she hasn’t been on a debate stage on 3 months?

Debate Winner: Trump. This debate was a mess due to the awful moderating by CBS.

Losers: CBS Moderators, clarity of points and the filibuster.

Look, I get that people want to get rid of the filibuster and go to a simple majority vote in the Senate. Put it this way, think about all of the laws that would’ve passed in the first 2 years of the Trump presidency if he only needed 50 votes. I would much rather have a rule law that states all bills passed in either chamber have to be voted on within 60 days. It’s time to put our elected officials on the record. If that doesn’t make you happy then reduce the super-majority to 57 votes, but don’t get rid of it altogether. I agree something has to change, but change can’t be as easy as getting a simple majority in both chambers.

Still don’t know who I’m voting for.

Similar Read: Warren and Pete Showed Up… Bloomberg Hit, Amy Flustered

Amira’s Nevada Debate 2020 Summary

Warren was the clear winner. ?

I feel like Sanders needs to do a better job explaining how his plans won’t cost Americans more money in taxes. For instance, when he brought up the Green New Deal and he mentions “job creation” – all I think of is that taxes will be raised to fund all of these federally guaranteed government jobs. ? If you’re a Sanders supporter maybe you can explain this in the comments. I understand taxes will go up for M4A. Sanders is clear about that. I feel like it’s time for Sanders to say MORE about his policies during the debates to make more people feel confident in him as a leader. I’m not a fan of Sanders but if it’s between him and Bloomberg in NY, Sanders will have my vote. I’ll vote for anyone opposing Bloomberg.

Klobuchar might not have the most perfect record BUT she responds very well, isn’t evasive which is a pretty unheard of for a politician, and she seems to learn from her mistakes. I honestly like her more after each debate. I understand why her polling numbers go up with each debate.

Bloomberg IS evasive (he never answered the question regarding allegations) and doesn’t learn from his mistakes.

Besides his rambling ?, I was really disappointed with Biden’s comments about Bloomberg’s Stop & Frisk ramp up. I was expecting him to say that Bloomberg cut back after the policy was deemed unconstitutional.

Mind you, Stop & Frisk is just one of several things showing how regressive and, as Pete describes, polarizing Bloomberg is. Choosing him as the nom would give us a loss similar to 2016. He’s a bad candidate just like Clinton was.

Bloomberg likes to say he’s not taking any money. That’s not a good thing. Yes, we want corporate donors out of the equation. Receiving support from the average American; however, is a GOOD thing. It means you want to work for OUR interests instead of corporations’. Bloomberg self-funding means that he’s doing this for his own interests. He’s beholden to himself. It’s a power move. The fact that he wants to throw a ton of money behind whoever the nominee is another power move. He wants to be able to pull the strings no matter what.

Buttigieg was his typical self. He’s condescending and continues to sound manufactured. I can understand why people who miss politicians who act and sound like politicians favor him. I, personally, really don’t like him – but Bloomberg makes him look better. Oh, Pete really lost me when he attacked Amy for nonsense and NOT Bloomberg. Warren ended up swooping in and came out the victor.

1. Warren ?
2. Klobuchar (confident, clear)
3. Sanders (needs to get more specific)
4. Buttigieg (childish and got facts wrong)
5. Biden (rambled and got facts wrong)
6. Bloomberg (was ill-prepared for the expected attacks, won’t own up to his faults unless he feels he’ll benefit)

In terms of who I feel is most genuine, here’s my ranking:

1. Sanders and Warren
2. Klobuchar and Biden
3. Buttigieg and Bloomberg

EDITED TO ADD comments I’ve seen in my feed:

“It might have been just been on my stream from MSNBC, but there were multiple ads against Medicare For All (and any other options). The healthcare and pharmaceutical industries are at work trying to keep their large profits by confusing voters. The interests of big business many times doesn’t align with that of the people.” – Anonymous (not a public post)

“Let’s say it comes down to Trump and Bloomberg. Sexual assaults/harassment of women no longer matters. (especially if you can afford to get away with it.)

Singling out minorities through stop and frisk laws is ok (Bloomberg) and opposing it is divisive. (Trump)

New Muslims won’t be admitted (Trump) and those here can expect to be spied on. (Bloomberg)”

Similar Read: Amira’s Debate Summaries 

Bloomberg’s Move to Clear the Field

(Roughly a year ago I suggested Bloomberg would probably run, and here we are…) 

Former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg fired the first shot over the bow this week in the Democratic Presidential Primary with his record $1.8Bn gift to Johns Hopkins – a gift designed to ensure that future JH students can be considered for admission with no regard for ability to pay.

In doing so, Bloomberg seals his legacy of philanthropy around education, gun violence, and equal opportunity, takes “first-mover advantage” and makes clear to other primary challengers that he’s backing this with his own money and all in.  That’s a single step of  “clearing the field” if I ever saw it. 

For those who would say a NY billionaire who switched parties and is rife with complicated financial dealings would be unelectable, may I direct your attention to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I have my own serious issues with Bloomberg, but at least by “checkmark” his issues and point on the spectrum are very closely aligned with most Americans. In many ways, he mirrors many of the issues President Trump highlights as his own qualities while being the anti-Trump in many others. Meanwhile, his history for being cantankerous and outright impetuous are at least reduced by comparison, and his all-out war with the NRA may be OK in an environment where the President has mostly locked up the heartland anyhow.

I dunno guys… he’s maybe not the one you’d thought would be the one to beat, but just from what I’ve seen watching the US Senate sessions these last couple years, he’s not a bad option.

This article was originally published on 20 November 2018.

Similar Read: What the 2019 Election Results Say About 2020

Democrat Minorities Deserve Better, When Will the Party Learn?

Last year, we saw a record number of Democrats declare their candidacy to be the front runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. There was really no unity early on for what was going to be a long and grueling fight to become the 2020 nominee to face off against Donald J. Trump, our nations 45th President. 

A total of 28 candidates threw their hats in the ring. Yes, you read that right, 28! Of that 28, 22 were male and 6 were women. Of those 22 males, 5 identified as a minority (3 Black male candidates: Corey Booker – Senator from New Jersey, Deval Patrick – former governor of Massachusetts, and Wayne Messaum – former Mayor of Miramar, Florida; 1 Asian candidate: Andrew Yang – Entrepreneur, and 1 Hispanic candidate: Julian Castro – Congressman from Texas.). Of the 6 women, only 1 identified as a minority: Senator Kamala Harris from California. 

Today, only 1 minority top candidate remains, Andrew Yang. He is popular among millennial males and seems to care more about the next generations (millennials and xennials) more than any of his peers still in the race. There are 11 top candidates left, of whom 7 are White males with 3 are White females. Does anyone see a problem here? When you have a country that has one of the fastest-growing populations in the world of a single group of people (Hispanic men and women) growing at a rate of 60 million people in 2018 (Pew Research Center, 2019), you really must wonder if the Democratic candidates see what everyone else sees. Are they representative of the people?

Just a few weeks ago, Julian Castro, the only Hispanic candidate in the race dropped out and immediately put his support behind Elizabeth Warren. A noble effort maybe to position himself as her running mate should she be nominated or some other notable position in her cabinet should she win, time will tell why he decided to go this route.

Here we go again with another group of people vying for the highest office in the land that doesn’t look like the majority they represent. The mere fact that they still use the state of Iowa as the first voting poll to see what the rest of the country is going to do is outdated as well. At some point, the Democratic party needs to wake up and see that the methods that they’ve always used just aren’t cutting it anymore. With an impeachment going on, a man in office that could really care less about the pageantry that is the Presidency of the United States of America, and his supporters that hang on his every move (including Republican congressmen), you have to wonder what if anything the Democrats can do to regain control and push this country back in the direction of fair and balanced.

It is not too late to do any of that, but the old bait and switch routine of saying they care about minorities and then not supporting minority representation in the party is not only wrong but has to stop. The people who are tired of the wool being pulled over their eyes need to make up their mind and hold the candidates accountable.

The late Fannie Lou Hamer said it best, “I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.” 

Similar Read: The Demise of Kamala Harris, the Good, the Bad, and What’s Next

My Summary of the 7th Democratic Debate

My debate summary:

Sanders started out the strongest but started to fall back when it came to health care.

Biden started out the weakest but picked up when discussing foreign policy. He had an OK night.

While I’ve never been a fan of hers, Klobuchar had a solid night.

Buttigieg didn’t stand out at all and I still see him as manufactured, smug, and condescending. 

Warren made great points throughout but she lost it for me when the beef with Sanders came up. It made me think her camp concocted the Sanders smear so that she could go on stage to make her case on why women can win a presidential election. I didn’t like that. In previous debates, Warren acted as though she and Sanders were friends. Now she’s suddenly bringing up a supposedly old conversation? NOW she’s upset? I don’t get it and it feels disingenuous.

I don’t dislike Steyer.

If I had to choose the winner for this debate I’d say Klobuchar. Sanders and Warren follow in a tie for second place. Biden would be third and Buttigieg last. Buttigieg represents what I think a lot of people don’t like in politicians. On the other hand, some people love that he seems very “politician-y.” I’m torn on where to place Steyer. I could place him in first with Klobuchar or I could place him last with Buttigieg. Go figure.

I don’t think this debate will move any needles but then again, who knows! Maybe Buttigieg will drop? Maybe Steyer will get a boost? ??‍♀️ What happens on the ground is most important.

I don’t think the Warren-Sanders spat will do anything. From what I’ve seen, Sanders supporters feel Warren is lying and Warren supporters think Warren made a slam dunk on stage with her well-planned performance regarding their beef.

Although he gets the least bit of speaking time, Yang was definitely missed. Plus if you follow me you know he’s my #1 in this race.

I agree with Van Jones when he said this post-debate:

“Democrats have to do better than what we saw tonight. There was nothing I saw tonight that would be able to take Donald Trump out. And I want to see a Democrat in the White House as soon as possible… I came away feeling worried for the Democratic Party. It felt like a big bowl of cold oatmeal, and I got to say this: I missed Andrew Yang tonight.”  

When Brave Words Turn to Foolish Tragic Actions

We all started this new year with the perception that this decade would bring about change. For some, that change would be professional; for others, that change would be in the form of personal growth. For the world, many of us hoped that change would come from men and women who would be less trigger happy and more eager to have an open dialogue.

Unfortunately, we were not paying attention. Our first wakeup call came on January 3rd with the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. The Iran and U.S. divide spans decades, and to try and explain the entire conflict would be exhausting and possibly passionately rebuked from not just both sides of the aisle here, but also on a global scale. 

As I was once told long ago, truth is a matter of perception.

To sum up the current events in a neat bow, and bring you, the reader up to speed on what has taken place in the past three years, here is my take on the current battleground between Iran and the United States. 

Summary of  tensions:  

Since President Trump decided to pull out of the Iran deal in 2017, tensions have been mounting between the two nations, and it took on a more aggressive tone when Trump decided to impose severe sanctions against Iran. 

Since these sanctions were in place, both nations have taken political, and at times physical swipes at each other. One could call it, testing the “waters,” so to speak. 

From capturing an ally oil tanker to shooting down a probing U.S. drone, both nations have been continually pushing one another to a boiling point. 

That boiling point came to a head in Iraq. Right after Christmas, on December 27th, 2019. An American contractor was killed among other Iraqi military personnel by an Iranian backed militia group, Kataib Hezbollah, which the group denied any involvement with the attack. 

The U.S. then responded by attacking Iranian backed militias within the region, which resulted in Iraqi citizens storming and attacking the U.S. embassy in Iraq, breaching and damaging the outer perimeter. Though the Iraqi military stepped in to break up the protests, the damage was done, and unfortunately, a set of options were brought to Trump’s table. 

These options provide the president with a set of responses ranging from the extreme to the more reasonable appropriate actions that a wise leader would take.

The option that Trump picked was the extreme option, and that was assassinating Qasem Soleimani. 

Who is Qasem Soleimani?

Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian Major General and leader of the Quds forces of Iran. From his start in the military in 1988 to his death in 2020, Soleimani rose among the ranks in the Iranian army and ended up leading and controlling the extraterritorial military and clandestine operations in service to Iran. Towards the latter part of his life, Soleimani was considered the second most powerful individual in Iran, second only to Ayatollah Khamenei, and also being the Ayatollah’s right-hand man.  

To some, especially in the west, Soleimani was the leader of a shadowy organization that ran multiple militia groups in Syria and Iraq and was behind the deaths of many American troops. To others in Iran and its allies, Soleimani was considered a hero and legend. Someone that provided Iran with a barrier against all its enemies and a role model for all that knew him or served under him. 

Perception, to one group he was a monster that needed to be removed from the game board; to another group he was more than just a military general. 

Soleimani was a symbol. 

When the Pentagon learned that Soleimani would be in Iraq, a decision was made to kill him. On January 3rd, A U.S. sanctioned drone strike attacked Soleimanis’ vehicle and his entourage just outside the Baghdad International Airport, Killing Soleimani, and other essential figures within his group. 

This attack brought the U.S. and Iran dangerously close to World War 3. After the attack, Iran vowed for revenge, and for days, the world held it’s breath on what steps Iran would take to exact that revenge. 

On January 8th, the world had its answer when Iran attacked two Iraqi bases that held U.S. troops within its walls. Strategically missing everyone and only causing minimal damage to the stations. 

This attack was a way for Iran to save face and also send a clear message to Trump not to push their buttons. Unfortunately, as with any conflict, innocents end up paying the price for being caught in the middle. 

A Ukrainian civilian aircraft that flew too close to one of the Iranian military bases in the early hours of January 8th, was shot down by an officer who mistook the civilian aircraft for a U.S. military response. 

This tragedy was a shock to the world and to the nations that had its civilians on the airliner. For days, speculations were thrown as to how and what downed the airliner, until Iranian officials admitted to mistakenly shooting down the plane with missiles.

Looking at this new conflict at the dawn of a new decade, led me to contemplate how many countless issues similar to this current one also escalated to catastrophic levels… over impulsive decisions, brave words, and cries for bloody revenge. 

How much time have we had to put aside our differences? Whether those differences deride from religious beliefs or the pigment of one’s skin tone? How much time have we been given to know better? 

How much time have we been given to learn from our forefather’s mistakes and our past? When will we individually hold ourselves and those we elect to represent us on a global scale accountable? When does it end? The divide we set amongst ourselves that only hinders our evolution and deconstructs all the hard work our species has done thus far to advance us collectively?

2020 is a big year. A year that I hope none of us can hide behind falsehoods and half-truths anymore. 

A year where we will be held accountable for our actions, and if there is any justice in this universe, a year that Trump will exit his role as president and pave the way for someone else to stand center stage. 

Someone who values life over ego.