A Conundrum in Kansas City

By: Brady Noble

Kansas City is a sprawling metropolis of half a million people, located roughly in the center of the United States. The city is known for barbeque, jazz and giving us the 33rd President of the United States Harry S. Truman. However, the city is extremely vulnerable to the effects of  climate change. With two major rivers running through the city, Kansas City is highly susceptible to drought. Additionally, rising sea levels affect inland ports, such as Kansas City, as most rivers are inter-connected with the oceans. Kansas City has already seen some of the effects of climate change. Since the 1970s, the average temperature has continued to rise about one degree every thirty years. Additionally, rainfall has been increasing by roughly half an inch every ten years. However, the worst is yet to come. Scientists predict that the temperature will increase a further four degrees by the year 2060.

Given the current and impending problems with climate change, and the city’s vulnerable geography, Mayor Quinton Lucas (D) has made environmental policy a priority. Last night the Mayor’s Office commissioned several of the greatest minds in environmental policy to assist the city. Each group was given one hour to come up with a policy solution to the problem. 

Almost every group recognized the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels and emphasize renewable energy. However, each delegation proposed their own unique solution to the problem. The delegation from Gull Lake High School proposed the expansion of public transit systems. They contended that public transit uses less fossil fuel on a per-person basis. Further, they emphasized that the city works to build electric car chargers around the city. On the other hand, the delegation from Columbia High School highlighted water consumption in their proposal. They proposed that grass in public parks be removed, and replaced with artificial grass, noting the amount of water that would be saved. Most all delegations proposed that funding for their projects come from either non-profits, non-governmental associations or the State of Missouri.

Malicious Medicine

By: Brady Noble

In early 2020, panic grew with the rapid spread of COVID-19. Panic can cause many ordinarily thoughtful people to make impulsive, sometimes irresponsible purchases out of the desire for safety and security. At the beginning of the pandemic, this phenomenon manifested itself in the excessive purchase of nominal things like toilet paper and Lysol wipes.

However, people have recently been seeking out medical supplies to protect themselves. As a result, many have taken advantage of this new demand to sell substandard medical equipment, particularly personal protective equipment. The worldwide marketplace has been flooded with low-quality masks, shields, and gowns, as well as falsified medicine. Out of desperation, many have turned to phony medicine and PPE. Given the high-profit margins, organized crime groups are making quite a bit of money with these schemes. 

Many delegations represented in UNDOC have a vested interest in solving this problem. In almost every nation represented, citizens are falling prey to these scams. Within the committee, there are several factions forming regarding how to respond. There are three current blocks working on formatting papers. A few of the delegations propose widespread education campaigns to convince the public as to which products are legitimate. Other nations propose a regulatory board that will give stamps of approval to legitimate products. One plan carries a “three-pronged approach” to the problem. As the delegation of Cuba put it, “our goal is three-fold, to educate the public, put in harsh punishments and reduce drug prices so that people will have a reason to purchase legitimate products.”  As of now, the debate is ongoing. 

A Valiant Effort

By: Brady Noble

It was 10:37 EST when the announcement came, a Disney cruise with between several hundred to a thousand people on board was commandeered by hijackers 50 miles off the coast of the island of Barbados. They were heading southeast, yet motives and intentions remained unclear. They were armed with ex-soviet assault rifles, and took control over the vessel by swarming it with small boats. Their demands were extreme: five billion US dollars as well as complete control over the state of Hawaii. 

A glimmer of hope appeared when it became apparent that there were United States authorities within close proximity of the ship. The Pentagon’s Response Team believed that this could be used to the advantage of the hostages, reducing response time. There was however a consensus that more backup would be needed in the event of either a hostage negotiation or a raid of the ship. The idea of using either satellite data or helicopters/drones was proposed, and it became clear that the latter would be far too risky. 

Another opportunity came when the Response Team was able to connect directly with one of the hostages. A female passenger by the name of Maria was reporting to the team that one of her fellow passengers had suffered a heart attack, with no medical personnel on board. She was instructed by the Pentagon staff in performing CPR on the patient, who was breathing and still had a pulse. When asked by the team for useful information regarding the hijackers, the line went dead. With another barrier in place, it was established that direct contact with the hijackers must be made.

A note from the hijackers then came in. They announced that they had reduced their demands from five billion to two billion, while still requesting Hawaii. A potential solution was proposed, giving the hijackers counterfeit currency, in the hope that they would release some of the hostages. However, the majority believed that the team should not negotiate, as that was policy. Other solutions included jamming the radar with ships and having snipers shoot the hijackers. Most on the committee were apprehensive to this plan, feeling that the hijackers may or may not resort to murdering the hostages. Instead, acting against policy, they made an offer to the hijackers: five hundred million dollars as well as the island of Maui. They had no intention of actually giving this away, they just wanted to see if the hijackers were negotiable. However, before that offer could be sent, the hijackers sent another offer: one-hundred fifty million dollars as well as Hawaii. 

After a few minutes of debate, the hijackers sent one last offer with an ultimatum: one-billion dollars as well as complete amnesty by the US government. They additionally stated that for every five minutes that the deal was not accepted, a civilian would be executed. 

With mounting pressure, the team made a final decision, the deal would be accepted, while a simultaneous raid on the ship would be conducted. 

At the end of it all, approximately half of the hostages were killed, as well as half of the hijackers. The rest of the hijackers fled to Columbia. Most on the team viewed the operation as a success. There were dissenters however, including one who screamed “congratulations, you just killed a hundred civillians!” Despite this, the President has deemed the operation a success, and praises the team for their work.

Bipartisan Restlessness

By: Brady Noble

The wheels of American democracy began flowing this morning with bipartisan legislation regarding the use of federal money in disaster prevention, and post-disaster support for victims. There were several possible solutions discussed, including one spearheaded by GOP congressman Sam Graves (MO-06). Graves noted that forests should be cleared out to prevent the spread of wildfires. This was met with some pushback from the Democrats, who believed that this would lead to the destruction of several ecosystems and overall do more harm than good. Nevertheless, solutions were being proposed, and Representatives were working reaching across the aisle to come to a compromise. With newly found bipartisanship, Republican representative Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01) noted that “it is inspiring to see Republicans and Democrats working together, too bad it's not the same in the real world”. This optimism was short lived, and it was not long before partisan bickering came to the forefront. Rep. Frank Lucas (OK-3) made a statement, “I hope that the democrats are quick ensuring flood insurance and pre-disaster mitigation. The Republicans have done their job, it is time for the Democrats to step up.

After a few party caucuses, another solution came to fruition. Rep. John Louis (GA-5) challenged Rep. Ayanna Pressley (MA-7) for her seat as Speaker of the House. When asked why he would make a better speaker than Pressley, he cited his work in creating support for bipartisan legislation. “Some of my legislation almost passed both chambers,'' he noted. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes (NY-14) soon followed in challenging Pressley’s seat. Ocasio-Cortes stunned the chamber when she stated that she regretted her previous work with Pressley. Finally, Steny Hoyer (MD-5) jumped on, challenging Pressley. The voting began and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes was subsequently named Speaker of The House. 

Continuing with the theme, Republican Thomas Massie (KY-4) challenged incumbent House Minority Leader, Kelly Armstrong (R-ND At-large). Massie believed that he would better because, Armstrong “succumbed to the wishes of the Democrats”. He continued to state that he will consider more perspectives from both sides of the aisle.

Mitch McConnell Gets Sacked!

By: Brady Noble

The United States Senate is clearly divided over the issue of climate change. There is a wide spectrum of perspectives, from anti-climate change sentiments  to others who see it as a top priority. As the substantive debate occurred , it became clear that Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been involved in misconduct. Eventually, both sides came to a consensus that , that he should be removed as Senate Majority Leader. Senators Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Mike Lee (R-UT) spoke in favor of the removal. On the opposing side, Senator McConnell represented himself on the Senate floor. In addition, he was supported by Senator Shelley Capito (R-WV), who spoke on his behalf. Eventually, the former prevailed, and Mitch McConnell was removed as Senate Majority Leader. 

With McConnell’s removal established, it was then time to consider nominations for a new Senate Majority Leader. Republican Senators were asked to nominate who they wanted to be McConnell’s successor. Eventually, 4 nominations were made: Mike Lee, Richard Shelby (R-AL), Johnny Isakson and Pat Roberts (R-KS). Three out of the four senators gained the 1/5th vote needed to continue into voting. Richard Shelby did not attain this quota, and thus was dropped from consideration. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders (D-VT) was elected Senate Minority Leader, and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was named to be the Senate Minority Whip.

After the voting ended, debate continued on the issue of climate change, where the partisanship was more evident than ever.

A Tale of Two Ukraines

By: Brady Noble

The Ukraine is in turmoil at the moment. Protests have erupted regarding the president, Viktor Yanukovych. Due to his plan to make the Ukraine closer to western influences. However, under his administration, his plans fell apart. Corruption became common in the Ukraine, and his policies tended to shift pro-Russian instead of pro-western democracy. As a result of these policy shifts, Ukranian people began to protest during the later months of 2013. The protesters demanded that Yanukovych revert back to his policies and that he resign. In late 2013, Yanukovych eventually fled the Ukraine. Soon after, Crimea voted to succeed to Russia. When the Ukraine deemed the vote invalid, Russia struck back by sending forces to the Ukranian border. 

Within the crisis, there are two main factions: the Kiev Government and the Separatists. The Kiev Government is looking to handle the conflicts on the border, try and heal the division, and as well as attempting to solve internal problems such as the national debt. The Separatists are also attempting to create a new government. Their highest priority is to gain support, unity, and recognition around the nation. In the Government committee, several directives have been proposed, including the “Law Enforcement” directive, by Stepan Kubiv and Viktor Kryvenko. This directive looked at the possibility of supporting border protection across the Ukraine/Russia border as well as securing funds for a stronger police force. The funds for the police would be achieved by levying a 2.5% tax on all businesses in Kiev. In addition, the Kiev Government was interested in pursuing a two-week ceasefire. 

On the Separatist side, there was a mutual agreement to a two-week ceasefire. There appeared to be both unity and division within that room. There was a consensus that it was important to figure out how much aid the Kiev Government was receiving from western democracies. In order to do this, the majority opinion was to send spies into the Kiev Government to understand how much aid was received. However, there seemed to be some division among how this was to be executed.