Trump Mocks 16-year-old Greta Thunberg on Twitter

CNN

This year, 16-year-old Swedish climate change activist with Asperger's syndrome, Greta Thunberg, was named Time Magazine's Person of the Year. Greta Thunberg has inspired many with her activism and has become a symbol to many young activists around the world. She is the youngest person to have ever received this honor. In doing so, she beat out Nancy Pelosi, the Ukraine whistleblower, Hong Kong protesters, and President Trump.

In response to this, Trump decided to tweet, "Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, the go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!" In retaliation, Greta changed her Twitter bio to "A teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend."

I dunno, I just thought it was kind of funny that the President was feeling kind of salty about not receiving the honor, so instead of congratulating Greta for receiving a deserved award, he instead decided to attack the 16-year-old girl on Twitter. The article linked kind of talks about the habit of bullying that Trump seems to have, but despite it, he receives little reprimanding for it.

What's your opinion on this event? Do you think Trump's supporters enable Trump's sort of bullying behavior? 

National labor Relations Board Rules in Favor of McDonald's Labor Union Case

USA Today
NY Times

In 2012, 20 McDonald's workers filed a case against the National Labor Relations Board for being fired or punished for trying to unionize and demand higher wages. the workers were seeking a ruling in which McDonald's would be considered a "joint employer" with its franchises. this would make it easier for McDonald's workers to unionize and make McDonald's liable for labor violations they commit. However, the ruling was made so that McDonald's would only have to pay a cash settlement to the affected workers.

Had this case been settled under the Obama administration, a settlement would probably have been reached that favored the workers and would make McDonald's less profitable. since the case was stretched out and determined under the new general counsel appointed by trump, many criticize McDonald's for prolonging reaching settlement until proceedings could be held under a more sympathetic Republican-appointed counsel. Consequently, many view the decision as unfair and criticize the Trump administration for siding with the company despite what had been litigated under the Obama administration.

Do you think this ruling is fair? Should partisanship be affecting a case that was previously going to be settled under different terms?

Concerns Arise About National Security Surveillance After Report or F.B.I.'s Russia Investigation

NY Times

After a recent inspector general report about the F.B.I.'s Russia investigation, it has been revealed that the process used to obtain and renew court permission to wiretap Carter Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is heavily flawed. FISA was enacted in order to regulate domestic surveillance for national security investigations. However, under FISA, most targets do not know their privacy is being invaded and are not allowed to know which evidence is used against them in court.

Much of the criticism of FISA is due to the low rejection rate for approval granted combined with the errors and omissions in the evidence presented in court. This failure to follow policy has raised the question of what actually goes into many wiretap cases since they are rarely audited and challenges the validity of the FISA system. As a result, many believe some sort of reform must occur in order for it to continue.

What do you think about such an issue concerning national security? Do you think reform is necessary? If so, what sort?

The House Judiciary Committee Prepares Articles of Impeachment Before Sending them to Full House

ABC News <---- pretty good link to get a summary on the impeachment hearings
NY Times
The Economist
CNN

On Thursday, December 12, the House Judiciary Committee will meet to debate the two articles of Trump's impeachment. This means that the Democrats will likely be finalizing the articles regarding Trump's supposed quit-pro-quo arrangement with Ukraine and the Biden investigation while the Republicans will likely be offering amendments to the articles in efforts to oppose the impeachment. Both the committee and the full House are headed by the Democrats and thus, the case of the Democrats is more likely to be pushed forward, meaning Trump may be impeached.

However, According to The Economist article, today's political polarization will make it harder to impeach Trump. Because the Senate holds impeachment hearings and is led by the Republican party, it is unlikely that Trump will be removed from office. Removing Trump from office would require a 2/3 vote in the Senate, meaning a good number of Republicans would have to vote against their political party. Instead, it is likely that should Trump be impeached, a vote to acquit Trump will be held.

Do you think it is probable that Trump will be impeached given the situation? What is your opinion on the role of partisanship in an impeachment?

Too much or Too little Accountability?

                                                      [Tom Toles-Washington Post]
The New Yorker

The New Yorker article discusses the impeachment inquiry from the report on Tuesday and how Trump is reacting to this impeachment process. The article emphasizes how Trump attempts to shirk these inquiries and advancements in the hearing by directing his federal officials to refuse to testify even when compelled. Additionally, Trump ordered his subordinates to "defy all duly authorized subpoenas for records." In response to Trump's behavior regarding the investigation, Adam Schiff, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, responds, "This is the result of a president who believes that he is beyond indictment, beyond impeachment, beyond any form of accountability, and, indeed, above the law."

Considering in today's class we discussed whether the president has too much or too little executive power and how oftentimes the public holds the POTUS to a certain standard that it could never amount to, this article attempt to address some of these topics. John Cassidy from the New Yorker argues that Americans are not holding the president accountable for his actions. Cassidy argues this is detrimental to a trusting relationship between the president and the public. Cassidy argues that if Trump gets away with his antics then this would set a terrible precedent for future presidents that there would be no repercussions for obvious abuses of power. This would represent the president as being above the very own law he creates, which makes for a rather hypocritical position. Also, someone who puts the national security and well-being of his constituents in jeopardy just to advance his own political ambitions might not be the best person to represent the people as a whole. Just a thought...

Oftentimes the public is suspicious of authority. To what degree should the American people be trusting of the presidency and its role and to what extent should we be skeptical?

Should the president be able to refuse to testify and even compel those under him to do so as well? What could this mean for future presidencies?

Food or Home? Decisions decisions...

NBC News
The Guardian

When food is a luxury...

The Trump administration has proposed rule changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that include creating "stricter work requirements for program eligibility, cap deductions for utility allowances and "reform" the way 40 states automatically enroll families into SNAP when they receive other forms of financial aid" (McCausland). It is estimated that because of these changes, 3.7 million fewer people will receive assistance in an average month and 2.2 million households dropping by approximately $127.

With regards to the last rule change, this may force some families to choose between whether to have a functioning roof over their heads, or food on the table. This is especially true in metropolitan areas with dense populations and high living costs (*cough cough* California).

A counter-argument some make is that SNAP enables poor people to be lazy and does not incentivize people to work. The article addresses this by arguing that if these nutritional needs are met through SNAP programs and the like, it would actually incentivize people to work more and be more healthy in their day to day lives. Some also argue that these programs are a waste of tax payers dollars (*glare*). Ah yes, I forgot. We should spend tax dollars on trillions of dollars on the military and let our fellow citizens starve. Makes complete sense to me...

Personal opinion: The only people who call people who use programs such as SNAP or WICS or other programs lazy are those who have never been poor, never been hungry, and exemplary of what is wrong with America and humans and life in general. Why don't these people realize that the ones who suffer the most from these losses are THE CHILDREN **please note pic above** Lest I punch a wall, I will stop here. Too edgy? Too bad.

~What do you think of these changes to the SNAP?
~Are there any alternatives to the pitfalls of these programs?

To the Committee's We Go...

                                                                          [Erica Palan]
CNN Politics

CNN Politics...2?

CNN 3!

Will he or will he not be impeached? This question has been a broken record recently but, alas. I shall play it just a bit more. 

As a brief, generic explanation for the process at this point, the House of Reps. has the responsibility of oversight and investigation to bring forth the charges against a particular official. For now, the House authorized an inquiry into Trump and Ukraine. Then the Senate holds the actual impeachment trials, which necessitates a two-thirds super majority to convict anyone. 

As of right now, the House Intelligence Committee has a report of the findings about the alleged quid pro quo exchanges between Trump and Ukraine and yadah yadah yadah. The Committee is allowing members to review this report on Monday before they must approve the report on Tuesday. After this, onto the next committee it goes. The report is transferred to the House Judiciary Committee before its first impeachment hearing which will serve as the basis for the articles of impeachment that will be presented. At this hearing four constitutional scholars (three chosen by Democrats and one by Republican) are supposed to testify. Apparently Trump will not be participating in the hearing. 

For some reason, maybe because it is a bit too complicated to follow (?), the committees and subcommittees are shrouded in obscurity when it comes to common political knowledge for youngsters and adults alike. For example, before taking a government/politics class, I had never known that committees were such an integral part of decision-making. In fact, most decisions are deliberated in committees, not completely on the floor. With that said...

Questions: 

~What do you think about Trump not appearing for the hearing? Is it a good call?

~Even if Trump does not get impeached, how do you think this will effect the 2020 election? 

Change Your Mind about How To Change Your Mind

[pic from article by Dawn Burke]

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/change-your-mind-rebroadcast/

Alright folks. How likely would you say you actively change your mind? This here is a rebroadcast from an episode of "How to Change Your Mind" in an embarrassingly sad way to relate to Thanksgiving bread-breaking and meeting those people in your family that you really wish you didn't have to. Ring any bells?  ...   (DINNNNG DOOOOONG)

Ahem! This rebroadcast attempts to recognize the reluctance people have to change their minds, whether that be about policy or which way you orient your toilet paper roll. Why? Because for some ridiculous reason, it is difficult for people to admit that they are wrong. Or worse........to admit that they don't know. Steven Sloman, a professor at Brown University, argues that people have this very peculiar inclination to prove that they know stuff about lots of stuff...and more stuff. He refers to this as the "illusion of explanatory depth". Apparently, people are REALLY FREAKIN' BAD at causal explanations or how things work. Take, for instance, climate change!

How much do you really, REALLY know about climate change policies? (Not a whole lot???). Sloman and a partner replicated the Rozenbilt and Keil experiment, except as it related to climate change and gun control. Participants had so much confidence in their knowledge about climate change policy, it's a wonder how their ego fits through the door on any given day. Amusingly enough, when asked to demonstrate their understanding, they failed. *gasp* Folks! This is about climate change, but it's not REALLY about climate change.

Similarly, when asked about their opinions on climate change, then asked to read an article giving certain facts/information, those with different opinions interpreted things very differently. They even became more extreme in their views after acquiring this "new information". This is because people seek out the information that affirms their viewpoints. Anyone remember the media chapter? Or seminar? Or class in general? Hellooooo school.

The point of this rant is to encourage people to do some self-reflection, myself very much so included. Do people really know anything at all? If so, why are people so blindly confident in their beliefs to the point of extreme loathing (think us v. them mentality). Think really extreme political polarization. What is going on?!?

QUESTION!
~What are some things in your lives that you believed to be true or real (e.g. religion, grades, toothpaste flavor, dog person v cat person, brand of toilet paper, love, drugs, policy, etc.) only to CHANGE YOUR MIND???
~What caused said change?