Volume 55, Issue 5 January 15, 2021 advocate-online.net
FOR THE STUDENTS BY THE STUDENTS
Justin Hwang reflects on 2020 election PAGE 2
Overrun of the Capitol PAGE 3
JUSTICE BARRETT'S ACCOMPLISHMENTS PAGE 4
Jan 6: An historical day to be remembered 4
PAGE 3
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA!
2019 FIRST PLACE
General Excellence
Pacific Northwest Assoc. of Journalism Educators
NEWS
A D V O C AT E-O N L I N E.N E T
JUSTIN HWANG REFLECTS ON HIS NARROW SENATE DEFEAT IN DISTRICT 25 Brad Le
The Advocate In one of the more competitive local contests recently in East Multnomah County and following the retirement of incumbent state Sen. Laurie Monnes Anderson, a Democrat, former state Rep. Chris Gorsek (D) edged Justin Hwang (R) in the Nov. 3 election by only about 2,300 votes out of nearly 58,000 votes cast for Anderson’s District 25 seat. The 52% to 48% result came in a district that encompasses most cities east of Portland including Fairview, Troutdale, Gresham, and Wood Village, and includes the main MHCC campus. Hwang, an entrepreneur and owner of the Joy Teriyaki and Joy Poke restaurants, expressed an optimistic view of his narrow loss. While falling short of victory, he said, “Our district has 13% more Democrats (registered to vote) and the fact that we were able to overcome 10% (margin of defeat) is a victory to me.” Indeed, Hwang said he’s undeterred and believes that District 25, despite being an area that has a robust population of Democrats, ultimately remains an area not heavily swayed by partisan politics but instead is looking for something new. “People want to have a change – someone who is a moderate and isn’t a partyline politician,” he said. Hwang said the narrow result contributes to his belief that he was successful in bringing the campaign message that he wasn’t someone who came from the political world but rather as someone who approached as a community member and business owner. In a time of sharp political polarization, he approached the race in what is a breath of fresh air, coming across as a moderate in times where even the slightest deviation from party beliefs can trigger harsh criticism. Hwang has been explicit that the primary reason he ran as the Republican candidate is that his beliefs align in economic outlook,
Photo by Tyrnan Mcgivney|The Advocate
“I HAVE SPENT MORE TIME WITH MY MANAGERS THAN MY WIFE.” -Justin Hwang being supportive of trying to lower taxes for Oregonians and also believing that there are too many obstacles to open a small business, which only discourages entrepreneurship. In spite of these conservative views, he has not been shy in his liberal opinions, including that there is a problem with police brutality and as an immigrant himself, he is very sympathetic towards DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), a federal policy
that eases immigration enforcement against undocumented individuals brought into America as children. In accordance with the majority of Americans, he believes, Hwang also holds opinions that come with a caveat. He has been openly supportive of the protests following the death of George Floyd and has been supportive of BLM (Black Lives Matter), saying, “As long as the principle in the
for the students by the students Co Editors-in-Chief Daniella Young Brad Le Arts & Entertainment Editors [Positions Open] Assistant Opinion Editor Omar Carrillo News Editor Brad Le
PA G E 2
Graphic Design Editor Stephanie DeBruin
Broadcast A.D. [Position Open]
Copy Editor Chris Barney
Broadcast Hosts [Positions Open]
Web Editor Daniella Young
Photo Team [Positions Open]
Broadcast Producer Naethaniel Lile
Ad Manager [Position Open]
Broadcast Tech Director [Position Open]
Staff Writers Ash Espinoza Carson Koch Brianne Burgess Marin Thorsen Tyrnan Mcgivney
@mhccadvocate
Social Media Manager [Position Open] Distribution Specialist [Position Open] Advisers Dan Ernst Howard Buck
message is held.” But in alignment with the caveat, Hwang also believes that the message of BLM has been “hijacked” for political gain where it has transformed into an issue between Republicans and Democrats, when its true message was between “the people vs. the government,” he said. Hwang is currently trying to minimize the problem of dealing with the struggles of managing his business in the COVID-19 pandemic crisis and during high political tension, stating in one of his campaign videos that one of his employees was beaten by protesters. He also has countered anonymous accusations that he sought public office only for self-gain and was primarily trying to promote the financial success of his businesses by winning a senate position. “I have spent more time with my (restaurant) managers than my wife,” he responded. “If I had won the election to become senator, I would have to be more hands-off, and l’m lucky that I trust my managers.. I only have so much time in a day and I am not running for self-benefit.” Hwang congratulates Gorsek on his victory and said that he wishes him the best of luck. He hopes that in the short term, Gorsek will help address and improve conditions for commercial renters and permanent residents. While Hwang said he is saddened by his narrow loss, he has shrugged it off, saying, “Sometimes good and bad things happen to you.” Despite suffering a second defeat by Gorsek – Hwang lost the District 49 state House contest in 2018, 51% to 45% – he says he is still determined to help others and that he will still try to be a part of the community. A key part of that is his position on the MHCC Foundation board of directors. “The MHCC Foundation is one of my top priorities and I am trying to help students get their fair share and good skills to pursue their dreams they have,” he said. He adds that if another opportunity to run for office comes, he is determined to run again.
@theadvocateonline
@mhccadvocate
FOLLOW US ON SPOTIFY SCAN FOR PLAYLIST
OPINION | COLUMN
JANUARY 15, 2021
ATTACK ON CAPITOL HILL: TIME FOR A CHANGE Ashaura Espinoza The Advocate
On Wednesday, Jan. 6, we watched in horror as the United States Capitol was stormed by rioters who were summoned from all over in support of President Donald Trump in an attempt to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election. For several hours that day my family and I watched as they waved flags that showed their support for Trump and other racially suggestive topics, brought out a noose hung upon a podium, screamed out hate speech, among other things, and broke inside the Capitol and turned it into a playground. Those who made it in took pride in the fear that they put the senators and representatives through – as those members of Congress were rushed into safe places to hide – while the rioters stormed through having what we would call a “field day.” They took videos, pictures/ selfies, and even stole items from the Capitol. They took pride in what they did as they talked to reporters and sat in members’ offices because they felt they would suffer no repercussions. They carried zip ties and planned on taking hostages and it’s said they wanted to do fatal harm to Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. As a young person of color, at first I felt anger because I saw the difference in how they were treated versus how the Black Lives Matter protesters were treated. I know people don’t wanna hear this, but it needs to be said and reiterated: If that was a BLM group that had done that, the incident would have been handled drastically different. And though some people, at first,
AP Photo | Jose Luis Magana
wanted to say it wasn’t racial, tunes have seemed to change. It all feels like a blur now, what happened – but reading and rereading articles and watching news snippets or channels replaying what I saw in order to make sure I give an accurate description of what went down, it just feels more real that this day was the day our nation took a fall, and we witnessed it. I never thought I would see something like this happen again, the last time being Sept. 11, 2001. I was 6 months old when that attack occurred, so I don’t really remember anything, but I know there are people that do, that remember seeing it all take place and wondering, How? How could this have happened? That’s how I feel now and I know I’m not the only one that feels like this. What happened last week was a monstrosity that didn’t have
to happen and should not have happened, but it did and we cannot change it. For now, we can only look at the facts and try to make sure this doesn’t happen again. With five deaths – one a being a U.S Capitol Police officer, the others protesters (in honor of Officer Brian D. Sicknick, official flags have been flown at half-staff) – and rioters being identified and arrested and even losing their jobs, the dust seems to be settling on this wildfire. Still, why did it have to come to this? For years, this has been something that has been pushed into the dark and ignored but now has been brought to light. The fact is that it’s time for a change. This has gone on far too long, having undercover racists as politicians, teachers, priests, police officers, even your next door neighbor(!),
being able to blend in and hide while we are none the wiser. And as an African-American youth, I don’t want to feel like I need to live in fear, never knowing who is truly a friend to me and who has something against me for something I can’t control – the color of my skin. With everything that has taken place, Pelosi and the House will proceed today, Jan. 13, with the impeachment of President Trump, calling him “a threat to democracy” after the assault on the Capitol. This is an extremely vulnerable time for our country. Make no mistake, I fear there are countries that have seen that we are in a weak position and may try to act upon this; they may or may not. I don’t know and I can’t call those shots, but this is surely not a time that I can say I’m proud of. Let this be a lesson that we all learn from and remember and see
Cover by: Web Photo-Washington Free Beacon
that a change is made now, not sometime in the future, because my generation can’t do this alone. We can’t fix a broken system and a damaged economy that will be handed to us when our parents and grandparents pass on, because that is what will happen if this keeps up. If, instead, we start making a change now we can make a perhaps not perfect, but a better, more united nation that will stand together stronger, and maybe we can one day look back on this day in history and see how we have progressed. I feel a sense of curiosity and a sense of hopefulness that this episode can bring on an era of good, that all of this might finally bring change, one that we as a nation can be proud of.
GET TO KNOW THE ADVOCATE
On the cover: U.S Capitol on January 6
Stephanie DeBruin Graphic Design
Contact us! E-mail: advocatt@mhcc.edu Website: advocate-online.net Mt. Hood Community College Room 1369 26000 SE Stark Street Gresham OR 97030
The Advocate encourages readers to share their opinion by letters to the editor and guest columns for publication. All submissions must be typed and include the writer’s name and contact information. Contact information will not be printed unless requested. Original copies will not be returned to the author. The Advocate will not print any unsigned submission. Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words and guest columns should not exceed 600. The decision to publish is at the discretion of the editorial board. The Advocate reserves the right to edit for style, punctuation, grammar and length. Please bring submissions to The Advocate in Room 1369, or e-mail them to advocatt@mhcc.edu. Submissions must be received by 5 p.m. Monday the week of publication to be considered for print. Opinions expressed in columns, letters to the editor or advertisements are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Advocate or MHCC.
Stephanie DeBruin, The Advocate’s graphic designer, is a second-year student in Mt. Hood’s Graphic Design program. In her free time, she likes to read, make art, and play video games. As the world continues to be under lockdown, she tries her best to navigate this new virtual world.
PA G E 3
NEWS
A D V O C AT E-O N L I N E.N E T
WHO IS AMY CONEY BARRETT, AND WHAT WILL SHE BRING TO THE SUPREME COURT? Marin Thorsen The Advocate
On Oct. 27, 2020, Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, capping a process that proved more partisan than any in recent history. Barrett’s seating marked the first time in
administration, that a president shouldn’t appoint a new justices during an election year. But just six-and-half weeks ahead of the Nov. 3 election this time, Republicans seemingly reversed their position when they argued that it is the Senate’s duty to confirm nominations – be it an election year, or not. This evident change in was generally labeled as hypocritical by
with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia was of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., in a hearing during 2016 declaring, “I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.” Despite this statement,
Associate Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the fifth woman to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.
150 years that a Supreme Court nominee was confirmed with unanimous opposition from the Senate minority party. The third justice appointed by President Donald Trump, she filled the vacancy left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had served in the Court since the Clinton administration. The debate over her confirmation was notably tense and partisan in character. Though similar to the debate over the confirmation of Trump’s most recent prior Court appointee, Brett Kavanaugh, the Republicans’ firm hold on the Senate made opposition to her appointment largely symbolic. The vast majority of Senate Republicans who cast votes had initially held in February 2016, entering the final year of the Obama
PA G E 4
Senate Democrats, who argued that the Republicans set a precedent in 2016 that they were not honoring. Some others labeled it as a simple power grab, a means to secure a solid 6-3 conservative majority in the Court before Democrats could again control the White House and/or Senate. One clip that went viral online shortly after the Supreme Court vacancy arose
Web Photo.
Graham was quick to support Barrett’s confirmation in late 2020. He defended his support of Trump’s speedy nomination in a Tweet made the day after Ginsburg died: https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/ status/1307381862504042497?s=20 The Senate voted to confirm Barrett’s appointment on Oct. 25, with 54 votes for, 48 against, and 1 member absent (Kamala
BARRETT’S SEATING MARKED THE FIRST TIME IN 150 YEARS THAT A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE WAS CONFIRMED WITH UNANIMOUS OPPOSITION FROM THE SENATE MINORITY PARTY.
Harris, D-Calif.). Only one Republican voted against Barrett, Susan Collins of Maine. This is largely believed to be due to Collins’ Democrat competitor being within striking distance of defeating the incumbent, with Maine’s population generally opposing the confirmation. Prior to her Supreme Court nomination, Barrett was a professor of law at the Notre Dame Law School, from 2014-17, before Trump appointed her to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. She was considered among one of the mostly likely candidates for him to choose for his next Supreme Court appointment, an honor that went to Kavanaugh, instead. She has been known for her consistently conservative record on ruling in cases when she served in the 7th Circuit Court, 201720, in Indiana. One particular concern that dissenting voices have is her anti-abortion stance and her openness to the reversal of Roe v. Wade, a case which she does not consider a legal super-precedent. With the strong conservative tilt in the Supreme Court, the possibility for Roe v. Wade’s reversal appears to be at an all-time high. Barrett subscribes to a school of constitutional interpretation called originalism. Originalism is the belief that the meaning of the Constitution is based on the intentions of the designers of the Constitution (this also includes the writers of the Amendments), rather than being a living document. Though some liberals have been known to be originalists, this school of interpretation is largely favored by conservatives. This is often contrasted with judicial activism, in which judges interpret laws in the context of what implications a court ruling would have for present-day society, rather than rely chiefly on the original meaning. Since her elevation to the Supreme Court, Barrett has voted in one highprofile case. In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020), Barrett joined the majority in favor of the Diocese of Brooklyn, with an outcome of 5-4. New York Gov. Andrew Chris Cuomo had earlier issued an executive order placing a 25-person occupancy limit on religious services, in an attempt to diminish the spread of COVID-19. The Court ruled on Nov. 25, striking down Cuomo’s order. By some observers, she is speculated to have had a major role in writing the majority opinion, based on its writing style allegedly resembling her own.