Trump's SOTU: An Even Bigger Budget Deficit And National Debt Are On The Way

As everyone already knows (if you did the homework), last night Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union Address to Congress, calling on Congress to act upon his policy agenda. A majority of Trump’s speech centered around nationalism, veterans, immigration, foreign threats, and more veterans. However Trump’s new proposals geared towards the aforementioned topics call into question how the funding will be appropriated and reallocated, seeing that we are already in debt nationally

Firstly, Trump would cut funding directed towards Medicare and other mandatory spending entitlement programs, reversing the universal healthcare that Obama had strenuously worked to implement. An infrastructure deficit would be caused by the additional spending geared towards improving our roads, airports, bridges, etc. using AMERICAN workers,which he stresses repeatedly throughout his entire 80 minute speech. Of course, as most Republican presidents do, he wants to build and strengthen the military and border security by building a nuclear arsenal, increasing border patrol and security, keeping Guantanamo Bay open for detention, building a wall (that is reported to cost around $25 billion), refining detainment processes, and overall amending the structure and size of the military. Alongside, domestic programs including law enforcement and hurricane relief programs would be allocated money. However, he surprisingly fails to mentions mandatory spending reductions which must have been a huge shocker for his fellow Republicans. Regardless of the hefty budget reorganization Trump adheres to, he also never once addresses the national debt, budget deficits, and spending cuts. While he excessively praises himself for creating a tax cut bill that would cut taxes for both the American citizens and corporations, he leaves out a crucial piece of information: in a few years (when we will have to start paying taxes), the taxes will increase again for families, but businesses will continue to pay reduced taxes (30% to 21%)

Forbes analysts reviewed the speech and made the three following conclusions:

1. “If the program Trump laid out in his address is enacted, the annual budget deficit will be closer to $1.5 trillion than the $1.0 trillion many are projecting every year through at least the next 10 years.
2. Legislated deficit reductions of any kind, including mandatory spending, are not at all likely before the 2018 election.
3. Trump, who likes to refer to himself and his administration with superlatives, is very likely to be the biggest deficit- and debt-increasing president of all time.”

Opinion: By the tone of the summary, it is quite obvious where I stand on his speech, and to say it was disappointing is an understatement. Trump says he wants to make prescription drugs and medication readily available to ill people, but then goes on to cut funding for healthcare. It is already known that the military receives the most funding, and now he plans to make it bigger along with a 25 billion dollar wall.  Guantanamo Bay is also notorious for being overtly inhumane and racist, polarizing against Muslims and Middle Easterns. Also the tax cuts he has proposed would only benefit corporate companies, as if they don’t have enough money. In a few years the tax cuts for citizens will increase again, and as a recent graduate of college, my debts would already be piling up, so I really am excited to have a tax increase too.

Questions:

1. Do you think that more funding should be directed towards military and border security? Are there other programs that should be prioritized instead?
2. What effect will using American workers for infrastructure projects have on immigrant families and their economic contributions?
3. What does Trump’s budget plan mean for the national debt?

Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Team Up to Try to Disrupt Health Care

Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase have announced that they are collaborating to create an independent health care company for their US employees that could possibly expand to all Americans in the future, especially if other businesses follow their health care plans. Right now it’s unclear how the companies are expecting to do this (will they help find local doctors? negotiate lower prices for medicines?) or how it will affect taxes, but they do plan that this company will have no “profit-making incentives.” Right now, about 151 million people receive health insurance from an employer and many people are concerned about the high cost and uncertainty of the Affordable Care Act. Through this initiative, the companies’ executives aim to reduce health care’s economic burden and create a model for successful health care.

I like the idea of having cheaper and more easily accessible health care, but I don’t know how successful this plan will actually be in practice. In class we learned about how private corporations can work faster than the bureaucracy because their power is more centralized and they have more access to resources. So in theory, I do think Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase can find a solution to the US’s health care problem faster than agencies and Congress. However, their plan is still pretty new and vague, and even companies as powerful as these might not have much influence in the pharmacy area. I don’t think that these companies' health care will cost less than the current plan, but I hope I’m wrong.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think this initiative can/will be successful? Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JPMorgan Chase only plan to offer this to their employees, but do you think they will be able to expand to more of the public in the future and sustain a smaller cost?

Sources:

NY Times

Reuters

Democratic Women at State of Union Address Honor Rape Victim

Article - NBC News

Summary

During the State of the Union Address tonight many of the democratic female attending and all of the women in the Congressional Black Caucus will be wearing a red pin with the name Recy on it, in memory of Recy Taylor.

Recy Taylor, who recently died in December, was African-American woman from Abbeville, Alabama who had been sexually assaulted in 1944 when she was kidnapped by six white men. She was threatened to stay quiet about it but she told her family immediately and the news of the assault became national news. Since then she had been advocating for sexual assault victims. People were reminded of her when Oprah Winfrey mentioned her in her speech during the Golden Globes.

The idea of wearing Recy's red pins came from New Jersey Democrat Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, who had a couple hundred of the pins made for the occasion. I addition Alabama Democrat Rep. Terri Sewell brought a relative of Recy Taylor to the address.

Opinion

I think this is a great gesture for the democratic women to do with the women of the Black Caucus, it helps remind people to not forget women like Recy Taylor and that the cause she advocated for shouldn't be forgotten and people need to fight to help women like Recy Taylor.

Question

Do you think that this demonstration will overall help bring attention to the overwhelming amount of sexual assault allegations that have been brought to light recently?

Trump hits Jay-Z on black employment following CNN interview

In a recent interview on CNN’s “The Van Jones Show,” singer Jay-Z expressed some of his views on the current president. This included a response to Trump’s remarks that regarded certain African countries, in which Jay-Z called them “hurtful” and Trump “misinformed.” The day after, Trump took to twitter replying "Somebody please inform Jay-Z that because of my policies, Black Unemployment has just been reported to be at the LOWEST RATE EVER RECORDED!" However, in the interview with Van Jones, Jay-Z had already discussed how the decreased unemployment rates do not represent everything, saying, “It’s not about money at the end of the day. Money doesn’t equate to happiness. It doesn’t. That’s missing the whole point. You treat people like human beings. That’s the main point.”

While it is true that African American unemployment rates have reached a low — from 16.4 percent in 2011 to 6.8 percent past December — there are reports that the rate is the result of a cumulative downward trend over the past several years, which occurred under the Obama administration, and not just during Trump’s term in office or because of his policies. Additionally, compared to other racial groups, at 6.8 percent, the unemployment rate for African Americans is almost twice the unemployment rate for white people, which is at 3.7 percent. However, Trump can also be accredited for maintaining the downward black unemployment trend, not reversing it, and possibly accelerating it as well.

I see Trump’s ability to accelerate or at least maintain the downward trend of black unemployment rate trend as a positive aspect of his presidency. However, the several comments that he has made about other African countries and African Americans is unacceptable and can’t just be reconciled with his contribution to the decrease of black unemployment. I like and agree with what Jay-Z said about money and numbers being insignificant, especially if there’s a lack of respect present.

What do you think of Trump’s response to Jay-Z’s comments? Do you think Trump should be taking credit for the “lowest rate ever recorded?” Whose viewpoint do you agree with?

Sources:
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

FBI Deputy Director Steps Down because of Trump

Article - New York Times

Article - BBC News

Summary

On January 29 the deputy FBI director who had taken over James Comey after Trump fired him just stepped down from the position due to persistent criticism from President Trump.

Mr. McCabe had been planning on retiring around mid March so he could retire with his pension and all his benefits, but since late December President Trump has been criticizing him and pushing him out with threats of firing him and many negative tweets about him by counting down the days until he was supposed to retire to tweeting about what is wrong with him being in charge.

A big part of this criticism also came from the fact that Mr. McCabe’s wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, ran for a senate position in Virginia as a Democrat while in addition getting large amounts of funding for her campaign from a committee that was aligned with Hillary Clinton, who he called “Clinton Puppets”. He has questioned him about this along with asking him who he voted for in the 2016 election.

Opinion

I think Trump got what he wanted when Mr. McCabe quit, he doesn't want people to work for him because they are qualified but because they are just loyal to him only. I think that is why Mr. McCabe's wife being a democrat made Trump go after him and his job relentlessly and also why Mr. McCabe was so quick to leave.

Questions

What do you think will happen now that the FBI Deputy Director quit?

Do you think there was a conflict of interest with Mr. McCabe's wife receiving funding for her campaign from someone connected to the Clinton's?

Sanders Lies About Polls On America's Perception of Trump's Connection with Russia

Article Link

Summary:

Ms. Sanders said today that the polls show that no one cares about the issues surrounding the Trump/Russia investigation. However, as a quick google search would show, this statement is clearly false. Sanders is just trying to tell the public to stop worrying about this issue and instead focus on issues that directly impact our country. Unfortunately, this tact is probably going to work because Trump's campain is based on convincing Americans lies like these. The article mentions the problem with our journalists in the room is that they can't just tell her she is lying because then they will never be invited back. A reliable poll that the author of the article found stated that in reality, 49% of Americans care about this issue.

Opinion:

I can't believe blantant lies are allowed. Let's make some law or something to prevent it. It's too bad that there are a lot of people in America that believe this crap. We as a country need to find a way to fix our media system so this kind of deception isn't spread. I think one possible solution would be o create a governmental media service that won't report lies.

Questions:

What do you think is a solution to this problem of unchecked lies in our government?

What are your opinions on Ms. Sanders.

‘El Chapo’ promises not to kill any jurors from upcoming federal trial

According to his lawyer, Notorious drug cartel kingpin Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán has promised not to kill any of the jurors from his upcoming New York trial. This response comes after El Chapo's prosecutors wanted to impanel an "anonymous" and "partially sequestered jury." They also asked for the jury to be protected by armed guards, citing El Chapo's history of using violence and other threats trying to silence witnesses in the past. El Chapo's lawyer has requested not to keep the jury anonymous and protected, saying that this would "create the extremely unfair impression that he is a dangerous person from whom the jury must be protected.”

Opinion:
If the jurors were not kept anonymous and I was on that jury, I'd be doing anything to get off. El Chapo said he wouldn't kill the jurors, but what about the jurors' families, friends, and other loved ones? I'd say something like, "out of fear for my life, I will vote not guilty no matter the facts presented to me."

How harsh should El Chapo's sentence be? Do you think he will eventually walk free?

http://www.newsweek.com/el-chapo-promises-not-kill-any-jurors-upcoming-federal-trial-lawyer-says-791716

Trump Rescinds Agreement to Help Pay for Rail Line Renovation

Article Link
Image Link

Summary:
Under the Obama Administration, an agreement was reached that the government would help with the essential renovation and expansion of the Northeast Corridor Rail Line that runs between Newark, New Jersey, and New York City, New York. This was decided because the railway was damaged during hurricane Sandy and it is also not a very efficient system. Renovating it could prevent system failures that could result in an entire system shutdown which would completely destroy the New England economy in addition to forcing tons of people to not go to work until the rail line is fixed. The problem now is that Trump took away the agreement to help with the funding of the project and now the funding is going to have to be found elsewhere which will greatly extend the projected finish date for the construction.

Although this issue might not seem important to us living on the west coast, the damaged rail line has the potential to cause an economic disaster in New York and New Jersey. This would, in turn, impact our nation as a whole.

Questions:
The money set aside for this agreement is probably going to be used to compensate for the recent tax cut. Do you think it was worth it?

To me, it seems unfair that Obama can promise something that Trump just says no to. Do you think it should be a law that later presidents need to adhere to previous presidents' agreements?

U.S. soldiers are revealing sensitive and dangerous information by jogging

Last November, GPS tracking company Strava posted a Global Heat Map containing data on the locations and movements of its 27 million users, many who own fitness trackers such as Fitbits. Recently it was discovered that this map also includes information about the location and activity of soldiers at US military bases who wear fitness trackers.

In 2003, the Pentagon, hoping to battle obesity, encouraged soldiers to use Fitbits. However, this clearly has done more harm than good. Anyone who wants to attack US troops can simply look at the activity patterns to find out where military bases are, and more specifically, where huge groups of soldiers are likely to be. Strava apps and devices have an option to turn off the data transmission service, but the US military obviously neglected this, a mistake that leaves them vulnerable. Right now, the US is looking into implications this map will have, but they haven’t responded to what the current regulations on fitness-tracking apps are.

I am shocked that this oversight happened. Even if the data transmission is turned off, I don’t believe that the soldiers should continue using Fitbits. It is not clear how secure Strava is, or how this information is kept private. Moreover, logging data on amount of exercise is not worth the risk of some enemy hacking into the activity patterns of the soldiers. Technology’s role continues to increase in the world, and if something as insignificant as a Fitbit can cause so much danger, the US military needs to be more considerate of the consequences of using some equipment/technology.

Should soldiers continue using fitness trackers, even if the tracking function is off? Do you think that the supervisor, or whoever encouraged the use of Fitbits, should be punished? (very broad, but) How do you think the US military should respond to this event?

sources:

Washington Post

Chicago Tribune

Supreme Court Will Decide on Trump’s Travel Ban

On Friday, the United States Supreme Court approved to hear Trump vs. Hawaii in April, evaluating the constitutionality of Donald Trump’s Travel Ban that banned individuals from mostly Muslim nations including Syria, North Korea, Chad, Iran, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia from immigrating to the United States.

Shortly after inauguration, Trump exercised his executive powers with the first version of the Travel Ban, receiving controversial responses including protests and lawsuits. While federal judges of the 4th and 9th Circuit Courts ruled in favor of Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington when they disputed the legislature, the Supreme Court issued the opposite, approving most of the ban when it was first heard in June 2017, then further approving the entirety of the ban in December.

During the hearings, it is believe that a majority of the arguments will center around unconstitutional discrimination and immigration laws. Under the Constitution, the right to pass and author immigration laws lies within Congress, limiting the president to solely enforcing such laws. However, proponents of the ban present their arguments using the 1952 provision that allows the president to “suspend the entry of.. Any class of aliens… for such period as he shall deem necessary.” In opposition, the prosecution stresses the 1965 provision that protects immigrants and citizens from being “discriminated against… because of the peron’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The Supreme Court must make decision that lies heavily between securing the nation from potential threats, and protecting immigrants from discrimination, ensuring that the Trump administration does not violate their first amendment right to religion.

In my opinion, Trump's utilization of the 1952 provision isn't justifiable because an indefinite ban suggests a long term "solution" that is no longer temporary or responsive to an emergency, since he plans to deny them entry forever. Trump's policies have honed in on border and national security, but I think the Supreme Court need to draw a line, asserting that civil liberties and rights granted by the Constitution should not be denied to immigrants, especially when the ban doesn't serve its purpose of protecting the United States from foreign threats. Preventing people from entering the nation does not stop the war on terrorism. In fact I believe it is counterintuitive in that it only angers and riles up nations, causing them and their allies to become hesitant to work and cooperate with the United States. Furthermore, the advances in technology have complicated the combat against terrorism, while domestic terrorism is also a HUGE issue the Trump administration has failed to address.

Questions:

1. Trump’s lawyer justify the ban using the 1952 provision which gives the president unchecked power during times of national crisis and emergencies, but the travel ban denies entry from 8 countries indefinitely. Do you think the defence’s argument is still justified? Can the 1952 provision be applied here?
2. Is the Travel Ban more prejudicial than probative?
3. While Trump’s earlier versions were shot down by 2 major appellate courts, the Supreme Court’s ruling preceded. If a majority of the appellate courts are in accordance with a decision, yet the Supreme Court rules differently, should the Supreme Court’s ruling still be held superior?
4. Who do you think the Roberts Court will rule in favor of? Why?

Sources:

- http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-court-trump-travelban-20180119-story.html

- https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-agrees-to-decide-legality-of-current-trump-travel-ban-1516389203

2 dads nabbed by ICE as they drop off kids at NJ school; 3rd takes shelter in church

Two immigrants from Indonesia have been detained by ICE in New Jersey. These individuals had an order of removal from the United States issued by an immigration judge, which was upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals. ICE arrested Gunawan Liem, of Franklin Park, NJ, Thursday after he dropped his daughter off at the bus stop. Roby Sanger of Metuchen, NJ, was detained after he brought his daughters to school.
ICE has repeatedly said they do not target individuals based on religion, ethnicity, gender or race.

Opinion:
The law is not always moral. Sure, we can look at this from an emotional perspective and say that ICE is making a handful of kids fatherless or even orphans, but logically it is the fathers' fault for being arrested. They made two mistakes, one for immigrating illegally, and two for having children that would suffer if they were caught for doing the first mistake. Go to any other country illegally and you'll be deported if you're lucky, but when America does it, it's heartless and terrible.
These guys were fleeing religious persecution in Indonesia and had 365 days to apply for asylum. Instead, they chose to break the law and as a result, paid the price.

Do you think ICE is justified in this arrest? Is this article biased with its choice of words?

http://pix11.com/2018/01/25/2-dads-nabbed-by-ice-as-they-drop-off-kids-at-nj-school-3rd-takes-shelter-in-church/

Gymnastics victims' champion or avenger? Nassar judge Rosemarie Aquilina stirs controversy.

Following a week-long hearing where over 150 females testified against doctor Larry Nassar, judge Rosemarie Aquilina ruled in favor of the victims, sentencing Nassar to up to 175 years in prison. Though her sentencing was just, Aquilina’s personal remarks during the trial have been criticized for crossing the line of her role as an impartial judge.

Throughout the trial, Aquilina’s sympathy towards the victims was clear — she provided words of encouragement saying, “You are so strong and brave,” and “Leave your pain here. Go out and do your magnificent things,” to the “sister-survivors.” On the other hand, her hostility towards Nassar was also clear. Following the sentencing, Aquilina stated to Nassar, “It is my honor and privilege to sentence you,” as well as, “Our Constitution does not allow for cruel and unusual punishment. If it did … I would allow someone or many people to do to him what he did to others.”

Many have praised Aquilina, calling her a hero, as she became an important advocate for victims in court and a powerful figure as part of the #MeToo movement. However, others have seen her compassion towards the victims and harsh attitude towards Nassar as biased, inappropriate and harmful to the morals of the justice system.

While I think Aquilina’s last comment that reflected the belief of “an eye for an eye” was not the most appropriate, I don’t believe that it is wrong for her to be seen as a figure important to the movement against sexual assault. Aquilina’s sentencing of Nassar was completely fair as he abused over a hundred young females over many years, and this trial was a major milestone especially in light of recent events surrounding sexual abuse.

In class, we just finished learning about the judicial system including the role of judges in ensuring that the interpretation of laws remain consistent. Judges invariably differ in viewpoints and interpretations, but at the same time strive to be impartial in their decision-making. As we learned in class, some judges practice judicial restraint while others practice judicial activism, and all judges come from different backgrounds that would potentially affect their rulings.

Do you think that Judge Aquilina’s personal remarks were appropriate in court? How do you think she should have acted? What is your opinion on Aquilina now being seen as a hero and an advocate for victims of sexual abuse?

Sources:

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Shell buying spree cranks up race for clean energy

Royal Dutch Shell has dropped over $400 million on various renewable energy acquisitions in recent weeks, ranging from solar power to electric car charging points, in an attempt to reduce the multi-billion dollar company's carbon footprint.

Compared to Shell's $25 billion annual budget, $400 million may seem like a drop in the ocean, however, Shell has shown an increasing urgency to develop cleaner energy with the recent acquisition of a 43.86 percent stake in Silicon Ranch Corporation, a Tennessee-based solar energy provider. Additionally, Shell has also invested in two projects to develop charging stations for electric vehicles across Europe’s highways and has signed agreements to buy solar power in Britain and develop renewable power grids in Asia and Africa.

Opinion:
It is clear that fossil fuels and hydrocarbons have a limited time left. Shell might claim that these investments into renewable energy are because they want to reduce their carbon footprint, but I'm sure that Shell is also doing this for business reasons -  oil has little long-term future, the alternatives have a long-term future. Oil companies like Shell will have to evolve in this fashion in order to not get left behind when gas inevitably becomes out of favor or even obsolete. However, I still think this is a welcome change for your average consumer. Even though Shell might be doing this for economic gain, they are still reducing emissions, which will hopefully lead to a greener planet in the future.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shell-m-a/shell-buying-spree-cranks-up-race-for-clean-energy-idUSKBN1FF1A8

Why 'Grey's Anatomy' Just Overtly Tackled Unconscious Bias

Article Linked Here

In last week’s episode of Grey’s Anatomy, the medical drama confronted the current issues with

today’s society. Basically, a 12 year old boy named Eric (after Eric Garner), was trying to break

into his house because he forgot his keys, and the police shot him, thinking he had a gun. It is

later revealed that Jackson Avery (another doctor on the show), as a youngster, was also

stopped and frisked constantly just because his family was rich enough to live in a wealthy

neighborhood. As people that watch Grey’s knows, producer Shonda Rhimes is known for

dramatizing and creating gut-wrenching storylines. This episode aired right after one that

wrestled with the domestic abuse and a transgender portrayal.

I think especially now with the different situations that have occured (like the NeoNazis, police

brutality, Eric Garner, etc), shows like this have the chance to open up and talk about this

unconscious bias. Shows in the Chicago franchise have also touched upon these sensitive

topics.

What do you think about shows that talk about more than drama or comedy? Are you more

drawn to them or are you less likely to watch? Do you think TV shows are tackling these issues

effectively, or are they too much?

This Flu Season Is the Worst in Nearly a Decade

Article Linked Here

This flu season is devastatingly similar to the 2009 swine flu pandemic. This week, 7 more
children died, bringing the total to 37 deaths. The CDC is comparing this flu to 2013-2014 season. The predominant strain (H3N2) causes the worst outbreaks of influenza A viruses and influenza B viruses. The elderly, children, and people with chronic health conditions will be the most affected. This strain is able to adapt to the immune system faster than other strains of the flu. This brings up the idea of vaccinations and whether or not they are effective. According to another article in the Washington Post, (linked here), this year’s vaccine takes about 2 weeks to produce a “full immune response.” However, due to the easily changing strain of H3N2, the vaccines are not adapting, and are not protecting as effectively.

How do you think the government should be responding to outbreaks such as this? Do you think that kids that did not get a flu shot will be more prone to spreading the illness to others? What should organizations like the CDC or the FDA be doing to prevent more deaths?

Air Force One’s new refrigerators will cost taxpayers $24 million

Air Force One, which carries the President of the United States, is getting two new refrigerators. These two new chillers will cost taxpayers a grand total of $23,657,671. This high cost includes the cost of testing and certification, as Air Force One has very specific requirements, and contractors must have high-level security clearances. The previous refrigerators were installed in 1990. They were designed for short term food storage; however, Air Force One reportedly needs storage room for 3,000 meals to cover passengers and personnel. They want to be able to refrigerate enough food for a long enough time so that there is no need to buy food at their destination.

In December 2016, President Trump had criticized the $4 billion plan to replace VC-25As. The plane the president has been riding in has been operating for over 20 years now. I do not object to the replacement of the chillers, as they must be a bit out of date and worn out after such a long time in use. However, even though it is the president they are serving who is bound to have a ton of personnel aboard, I do believe the requirements are a bit lavish and unnecessary. If these new chillers can last another 20 years it may be more worth it, but it might just outlast the plane.

What are your thoughts?
Do you think $24 million is a reasonable price to pay the two chillers for Air Force One?
Is this a good investment?

Sources:
Business Insider
Washington Post

EPA ends clean air policy opposed by fossil fuel interests

One of the government agencies we have learned about in class, the Environmental Protection Agency, has announced that it will be withdrawing the “once-in always-in” policy under the Clean Air Act, which dictated how major sources of hazardous air pollutants are regulated. The Clean Air Act defined "major sources" as one that has the potential to emit 10 tons or more per year of any hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons per year of any combination of hazardous air pollutants, and the “once-in always-in” policy required major sources to remain subject to these stricter control standards, even if steps were taken to reduce pollution below the threshold. However, without the “once-in always-in” policy, these“major sources” like coal-fired power plants can be reclassified as “area sources” when their emissions dip below required limits, subjecting them to differing, more lenient standards.

Senate Environment Committee Chairman John Barrasso of Wyoming says that the “withdrawal of this policy means manufacturers, oil and gas operations, and other types of industrial facilities will have greater incentive to reduce emissions,” while environmentalists say that this change will "drastically weaken limits on toxic heavy metals emitted from power-plant smokestacks."

In my opinion, this is an awful decision on the EPA's part. They are supposed to be the Environmental Protection Agency, not the Environmental Pollution Agency. Sure, fewer environmental regulations on businesses will generate more profit, but at what cost? If you want to experience first-hand the effects of not having strict pollution standards, go to any major Chinese city and take a nice, deep breath. Bureaucratic red tape may be obtrusive, but the EPA was one of the few things that improved the quality of life for the average American citizen. Now, thanks to regulatory capture, the EPA is now the antithesis of what it is supposed to represent.

Can we trust federal agencies to do the right thing in this day and age? 

https://www.apnews.com/646836ad590c4230b730fc17cfbcb967/EPA-ends-clean-air-policy-opposed-by-fossil-fuel-interests

Company shoots shiny orb into orbit and angers astronomers over ‘space graffiti.’

A private company based in New Zealand, Rocket Lab, recently launched a flashy satellite into orbit around Earth. This reflective sphere has 65 faces and is called the Humanity Star. Its name stems from the idea that this sphere will temporarily light up the sky, drawing human attention to the fact that we are but a speck of dust in this universe, and allow everyone to feel a connection to this great expanse of universe we are a part of. It would orbit around Earth for 9 months before it begins to decay and gets burned up entering the atmosphere.

What astronomers are worried about, in this case, is not that it would increase the amount of space debris in the atmosphere, but rather that this disco ball satellite would disrupt their research. As this shining ball flashes across the sky, it could pass through the field of view of observatories and affect data collection. This light pollution affects all those who look towards the stars.

Although the intentions behind the Humanity Star are noble and good, I believe they did not place enough consideration on the effects of sending this satellite into space. This may be fine once, but I do not think it would be a good idea for similar satellites to be sent into space. There are already issues of space traffic and light pollution.

What are your thoughts on the Humanity Star? Would you like to see more?

Sources:
Humanity Star (track its path)
Washington Post
The Guardian

Scientists Rebel Against a Trump Ally at the Natural History Museum

Rebekah Mercer, a board member of the American Museum of Natural History since 2013, is being pressured by more than 200 scientists and other academics to step down from her position. Mercer is the daughter of billionaire Robert Mercer, and she earned her master's from Stanford University in management science and engineering. Rebekah Mercer and the Mercer family are huge Republican donors, and have donated millions in support of conservative causes, including support for groups that reject climate science.

Scientists claim that having Mercer on the board raises public doubt, and will lower the credibility of natural history museums which 78% of Americans believe is a trustworthy source of information. Although the AMNH states that educational content is determined by the scientists and not decided by the donors, many still suspect there may be bits of misinformation that still get put out. Nonprofit organizations rely on donors such as Mercer; however, considering her history of donating to groups that deny climate science, I question her motives. Having contributed so much, it would be difficult for the institution to ignore her requests if she had any in mind, and I find that influence on educational content worrying.

Do you believe a donor such as Mercer's background should affect her position on the board?
If Mercer does not step down, do you think public trust in museums will be affected?

Sources:
NYTimes
Huffington Post

Chinese Scientists Successfully Clone Two Monkeys

Article Link

Picture Link

Summary:

Recently, scientists in China have cloned two monkeys by the names of Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua. This event is significant because it is the first time that primates have been cloned ever. Ever since Dolly the Sheep was cloned in 1996, scientists have replicated the process with other types of animals but never primates until just recently. By cloning monkeys, scientists get closer to figuring out if it is possible to clone a human being. Although scientists claim they will only be using the clones for medical studies, it is likely that the process used on the monkeys will be studied to see if it is able to be replicated on humans. One important point is that it took over 125 different trials on different eggs until they were able to clone successfully. This means that the process will most likely not be used on humans any time soon because of the high probability of failure.

Opinion/Connection:

This scientific breakthrough relates to what we are currently learning about the court system. We currently have laws regulating the ways that humans are to be used as test subjects and these laws follow a code of ethics. The same principle applies to cloning and I anticipate that there will be lots of debating morals in the future about if it is ethical to clone a human being. This will likely be decided in a court of law either on a country by country basis or as an international decision. Personally, I think that even if cloning humans is banned, it will eventually happen. I also think that cloning could introduce tons of new problems in the way of national security.

Question:

Scientific advancements tend to solve problems but also can create new, possibly more dangerous issues in our world. Do you think that cloning will be an overall positive or negative discovery?

New tariff could harm the U.S. solar industry economically

Article link

A good article to read as we transition to our study of economics next week...President Trump's decision to place a 30% tariff is being done with the intention of protecting domestic solar companies, but it also has the potential to harm the fastest growing industry in terms of jobs. President Obama also placed tariffs on Chinese solar panels as a response to government subsidies which led to cheap foreign panels flooding the U.S. market. The author of the story's analogy is that "if the old tariffs represented closing the barn door after the horse has bolted, the new measures amount to putting a lock on the door."

Discussion Questions
1. Do you believe Trump's tariff on solar panels will help or hurt the U.S. solar industry economically?
2. The author suggests focusing on research and development--can U.S. companies design next generation solar panels to get market share back from China?
3. Is there still a bright future for the U.S. solar industry despite extensive international competition?

Senate Confirms Trump Nominee Alex Azar as Health Secretary

The Senate confirmed Alex M. Azar II as the secretary of the health and human services, with a vote of 55-43. Azar graduated from Yale Law School, served as a law clerk under Justice Antonin Scalia, and was a former drug company executive. He will now be responsible for handling a trillion dollar budget that oversees Medicare and Medicaid, and the Obamacare health reform law.

His priorities include tackling the opioid epidemic, finding a way for healthcare providers to be paid by patient outcome rather than the number of tests run, and making healthcare more affordable. He is also under pressure to constrain drug prices; however, Azar himself has admitted that drug prices are too high, but has shown little action to change it, stating that lowering drug prices is a complex task. Under his watch in the company Eli Lilly, the price of Forteo was doubled, as well as additional drugs.

What do you think of this nomination? Do you think the HHS is in good hands?
Do you believe his experience as a former drug company executive is an asset or the opposite?

Sources:
NYTimes
The Washington Post