DOMESTIC
Homeless encampments are a feature of the cityscape in Minneapolis. However, another fatal shooting outside an encampment on the night of Sunday, Oct. 27, has reinvigorated a policy debate surrounding the safety and potential closure of these tent-house communities sprouting up throughout the state’s urban center. According to Minneapolis Chief of Police, Brian O’Hara, “13 percent of all crime, 19 percent of all gun crime and almost one-fourth of all shooting incidents…happen within 500 feet of a homeless encampment.” These conditions, in the opinions of some city council members, hardly exhibit “compassion” towards either the city’s homeless or its more prosperous residents. Furthermore, the prevalence of such encampments highlights deeper issues of poverty, drug use and mental health ailments that Minnesota state legislators must begin to address more intentionally. Experts debate where the most prominent cause of homelessness in Minneapolis lies; arguments persist over a lack of resources, unmanageably high rent and even the role of a thriving fentanyl-dealing network. Within the city’s government, council members and executive officials squabble over which branch must take the blame for the rise of these encampments and the plague of homelessness behind their creation. Ultimately, Sunday’s shooting—in which two men were killed and one woman critically injured—has served as a catalyst to an already volatile controversy in the realm of Minnesota civic policy. The night of Monday, Oct. 28, police officers in the neighboring “twin” city of St. Paul shot a man deemed to be a suspect in the encampment shooting as well as multiple other recent homicides that occurred within Minneapolis. Officers were unaware of his status as a suspect upon their encounter with him. Currently, the man, Earl Bennett, who is 40 years of age and lacks a permanent address, is receiving treatment at a local hospital. The shooting on Sunday and the future of Minneapolis’ homeless encampments both remain in heated debate.
The Pacific Northwest states of Washington and Oregon have both been impacted by recent arson crimes attempting to interfere with the process of this year’s elections. On Monday, Oct. 28, in Portland, Ore., and Vancouver, Wash., ballot boxes already containing drop-in votes were set ablaze by an unknown suspect. While uncertain of the criminal responsible, authorities believe that one vehicle—a dark-colored Volvo S-60 with a missing front plate and unknown rear license—is tied to both of the day’s incidents. Photos of this car are available to the public. Regardless of the arsonist’s motives, their dramatic actions have yielded a powerful response from these northwest states’ politicians. Governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, condemned the fires as a “violent attack on democracy.” Similarly, Washington House Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, one of the candidates vying for re-election, has rallied her state’s citizens to not “yield to intimidation” and “continue to stand up against unpatriotic acts.” Across both states, the condemnation has stemmed equally from both sides of the political spectrum, accompanied by a heightened awareness of the “targeted and intentional” nature of such crimes and the importance of keeping the “election system strong and secure.” The fire in Washington destroyed hundreds of voters’ ballots, while the fire suppression system in Portland saved all but three of the already-cast ballots. Voters affected will be offered the chance to re-submit their votes. Throughout the nation, communities are responding by increasing security around polling locations. Experts encourage voters to continue to “turn out,” even to early voting and refuse to allow such “cowardly acts of terrorism” to deter their participation in the politics and representation of their nation.
INTERNATIONAL
When Russia and North Korea signed a defense treaty back in June, the world turned with uneasy eyes to the escalating scene in Eastern Europe. Both sides pledged to the other the support of military aid and assistance in the face of an armed invasion. Now, over four months later, North Korean troops have appeared on Russian land—seemingly prepared to engage in battle with Ukrainian forces. The effects of this next step in collaboration remain to be discovered. While North Korea does boast one of the world’s largest militaries, these 10,000 soldiers arriving on Russia’s border are likely malnourished, underequipped and underprepared for the advances of modern warfare. According to North Korean escapee Hyun-Seung Lee, who formerly trained with North Korea’s special forces, these soldiers now entering Russia are “victims of a ruthless deal between Kim Jong-un and Putin.” Although highly trained with unique, specialized skills, most of the soldiers within this deported group have never encountered battle or even seen the “outside world.” Thus, arriving in Russia will pose a multitude of challenges in both adapting to contemporary warfare and witnessing an entirely different culture. In more ways than one, these soldiers are rightfully “terrified.” Nevertheless, the partnership between Putin and Kim continues to deepen, with Kim pledging “full support” for Putin’s ongoing fight. This decision by Kim to directly engage North Korean troops remains unorthodox in terms of the nation’s history; rarely, if ever, has North Korea meddled in foreign wars. Thus, the West may express concern regarding the potential future impact of this escalation in Ukraine.
Environmentalists and real-estate developers have been fighting a non-violent war over one special park in Japan’s capital, Tokyo. Just this past Monday, workers began to tear down trees for a development project: building multiple skyscrapers and a new stadium. The reaction, though, has largely been quite negative, particularly from Japanese activists who see historical and ecological value in the preservation of the park’s “greenness” and beloved landmarks. As the most populated city in the world, Tokyo stands as a beacon of urbanization—crowded, bustling and lacking in nature-based spaces. The Jingu Gaien park district is not the first park to face the wrath of developers’ chainsaws. Environmentalists of the city have finally reached their limit. In a nation and world of rising commercial interests, where profit, industry and efficiency are too often overvalued, these passionate protestors are fighting for a change in mindset. Their efforts raise awareness for more than just one park; they call attention to the overall importance of preserving the earth’s simplistic inherent beauty.
