A Brand New Look.. or Not: Apple's Release of iOS 7

Apple released its new operating system today named iOS 7. I'm guessing that most of you have at least heard of the iPhone and its new updates like the iPhone 5s and 5c. If not, then here you go. The release of the new software has been accepted with open arms, unlike the releases of the new versions of the iPhone mentioned earlier (This is seen by the 2% bump in Apple stock today and the roughly 5% drop after the iPhone release explained in the Apple Stock article). 

I found it very interesting that the new iOS 7 looked eerily familiar. (I have recently switched from being an iPhone user to being an Android user, one of, if not the biggest competitor to Apple as far as phone software goes). Well I just happened to notice that the new Apple software looks almost identical to the Android software that I am running. An easy comparison is the lock screen picture above. It has become difficult to even tell them apart. Do you think that this shows that Google (producer of Android) and Apple are coming to an agreement on the best way to layout a phone? Also, how influential do you think the capitalistic nature of this competition between giants will be to the average person? Because as I see it, there are a LOT of people turning to smartphones and now it is even harder to choose.

CNN

LA Times

Android vs. iOS

NSA Spies on Brazilian President? How the Brazilians Responded

   

As you can see, we have another blog post about the NSA. Sorry guys, but this was one that I just couldn't pass up. The President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, has cancelled her upcoming meeting with Obama due to alleged spying by the NSA. Although it is only an allegation, this does definitely hurt the United States and their battle for more trade with Brazil, especially the oil company Petrobas. As stated in the CNN and NY Times articles, Brazil is a huge player in the economy of the Americas and also trades a lot with China. I would just like to know what was so important to the NSA that they would even allow for the possibility for such an allegation. Do you think that the NSA may learn its lesson with this event or will it continue to spy on well.. everyone?

Another interesting factoid that I came across while researching this event was the Brazilian response. As told in the Business Insider article, a group of Brazilian hackers responded with a message to who they thought was the NSA, but turned out to be NASA. This little misstep created quite a chuckle for many following this story. Who knew one letter could make such a big difference? It is interesting to think about the fact that not only are the citizens of the United States tired of the NSA's spying, but it has even spread to our peers on a national scale.

BREAKING NEWS: Shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. Sparks Media Frenzy

CNN article
NY Times article
Washington Post article

If you haven't already heard, there has been a mass shooting in the Navy Yard in Washington D.C. Thirteen people are confirmed killed, including the gunman, Aaron Alexis, a Navy reservist. The video attached does a great job of explaining the play by play of this sorrowful day. Currently, the FBI is searching for evidence and conclusions regarding the matter and Mayor Vincent Gray stated "We don't have any reason at this stage to suspect terrorism, but certainly it has not been ruled out." Since 9/11, it seems like every crime committed is at first linked to terrorism; is this becoming an hackneyed thought or should we always suspect terrorism?

On another vein, I think it is interesting to look at the media's profound effect on the spread of the information. This horrific murder scene with at least 13 dead has gone viral. Do you think that the media's, especially the internet's, ability to bring people together during this tough time is a positive or does it get unaffected people riled up over something completely unrelated to them. If you want to stay up to date with the events as they happen, be sure to check out the Live Blog by the Washington Post.

A Library Without Books

I just thought this was interesting.

A library opened today in Texas, but it doesn't contain any physical books. Instead, it has e-books, e-readers, computers, and iPads.

This video explains the concept:

The library will have an annual budget of $1.2 million, which will cover the costs of about 10,000 new e-books each year.

What do you think of this new concept? Many other libraries have instituted new technology and "e-" features. Do you think they will eventually become entirely bookless?

TIME

npr

I Was Going to Make Up a Pun About Trader Joe's But I Couldn't Think of One

  

Trader Joe's has been previously known for its employee benefits for part-time workers, but the grocery chain has changed its policies. Employees working less than 30 hours a week will no longer be covered by the benefits Trader Joe's offers. They will have to buy their health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or ObamaCare. The employees that are losing their health insurance coverage will each be given a $500 stipend to "hold them over" until they can enroll with ObamaCare.

Some conservatives think that Trader Joe's change in behavior is a sign that ObamaCare is too costly -- they think the grocery chain has foreseen the high costs the Affordable Care Act would place on the company and decided to cut health benefits to avoid these costs.

Supporters of ObamaCare think that this is a solid example of what the law was created for. All workers need health insurance, and not all companies provide it, so the ACA makes sure that people can get what they need, no matter who they work for.

What do you think of those perspectives? Do you think Trader Joe's made a good decision in regards to the company's finances and to the employees' welfare?

USA Today
The Blaze (opposes ObamaCare)
Market Watch

UPDATE: Trader Joe's? More like TRAITOR JOE'S. (That's the pun. I am sorry.)

Facebook Stock at its Best

When Facebook went public last year, it's starting price was $38. It hit $45 on the day of its IPO in May of last year, but that number quickly dropped. Today, the stock price broke its record of $45 and things seem to be looking up for Facebook. Last September, the price hit its lowest point at $17.55, but now, almost exactly a year later, the price hit a high point of $45.09 and closed the day at $45.03.

So why is Facebook successful now when it was doing so poorly before? This article suggests that speculation about the company's possible expansion into China could play a part. Facebook's advertising is also a factor. The company has recently been successful in its mobile ads, which pull in 41% of its advertising revenue. Instagram, owned by Facebook, is also expected to have ads soon. In this article, analyst Arvind Bhatia says that "video advertising and Instagram" are "catalysts for the stock."

Why do you think Facebook is doing more successful now? Do you think the stock price will continue to rise, stay the same, or fall down again?

CNN

Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013

The state of Hawaii currently allows civil unions, and the Governor Abercrombie is now proposing a special legislative session to legalize gay marriage. The governor wants all married couples to benefit from the same rights, and would like the Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013 to be passed by the end of the year so that all tax situations can be resolved.

The majority of citizens in Hawaii support gay marriage. The University of Hawaii concluded that legalizing gay marriage in the state would increase tourism profit by $217 million. With this amount of funds, gay marriage could be considered an "industry," as it was described by Hawaii News Now. What do you think of the perception of same-sex marriage as an industry?

Governor Abercrombie's call for a special session is certainly progress, and pushes forward the movement for marriage equality, at least in Hawaii. A special session allows full focus to be placed on the act and will be more efficient than usual discussion. Do you think this is a good way of going about the issue? Do you think other states will or should follow suit in the same fashion?

Huffington Post

OSGATA v. Monsanto

Monsanto has long abused the complex and convoluted patent law system to attack farmers who they believe have violated their seed patents.  In the past years, Monsanto has engaged in nearly 1000 legal suits against farmers, of which 700 were settled out of court.  These previous cases are oddly reminiscent of the McLibel case, in which McDonalds had in essence starved out the defendants through drawn out legal battles (the McLibel case proper lasted 5 years).
In the OSGATA v. Monsanto case, the plaintiffs are pursuing preemptive relief against Monsanto, asserting that they should not be held liable for patent infringement if Monsanto's seeds blow onto their fields - alleging that Monsanto's product had trespassed onto their property rather than them having stolen Monsanto's.
Recently, OSGATA et. al. has submitted a petition for certiorari due to a lower court's ruling that it had no standing to sue Monsanto because the corporation had promised to not sue, and that  "There is neither a history of behavior nor a reasonable likelihood that Monsanto will pursue patent infringement against farmers who have no interest in using the company's patented seed products." However, taking into past developments and suits, it seems unlikely that Monsanto will refrain from filing against farmers in the future.

Insecurity For Security Reasons - The NSA's backdoors into our privacy

Ok.  I promise I won't post anything else about the NSA for the remainder of this week, unless something else big pops up.

Today, articles from the New York Times, The Guardian, and ProPublica revealed that the NSA and GCHQ (NSA equivalent in the UK) actively attempted to sabotage the cryptography community by inserting standards with backdoors and using supercomputers to crack encryption technologies.  The usage of supercomputers is worrying, but in light of the recent revelations, expected.  However, the insertion of backdoors into our encryption standards (NIST Special Publication 800-90) was not.

In the publication, the inclusion of Dual_EC_DRBG, or Dual Elliptic Curve Deterministic Random Bit Generator was concerning at first, due to concerns about its speed (3x slower than the other two methods listed).  In 2007, it was revealed by a pair of Microsoft (oh the irony) researchers who proved that with the correct set of numbers, the encryption could be cracked in as few as 32 bytes of output (for size comparison, this post up to here contains about 1000 bytes).  This, paired with the NSA's insistence upon a vastly slower algorithm, lead the researchers to believe that the NSA had intentionally inserted this backdoor into our security protocols.

This wasn't the first time the NSA has attempted to do this; in 1994, the agency pushed for "Clipper" chips which would record transmissions from electronic devices.  This was fiercely beaten down in a frenzy by privacy advocates and legal scholars.

On related and totally disturbing news from late August: NSA officers sometimes spy on love interests.  Well, it sort of explains itself.  The backlash against this was quite humorous, sparking poems tagged with #NSAlovepoems and #NSAromcom.  The WSJ has assembled quite a collection linked here.

"Roses are red, violets are blue, I re-tasked a satellite just for you." #NSAlovepoems #NSAromcom #NSA
— Josh Gay (@joshwahr) September 1, 2013

What Happens in Vegas Stays in the Utah Data Center #NSAromcom
— mariya pylayev (@mpylayev) August 24, 2013

NSA: No Such Agency - Nobody's listening to your phone calls

The NSA - nicknamed "No Such Agency" due to its secrecy - has become the center of the largest privacy scandal in the history of the U.S.

Back in June, The Guardian revealed a secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over phone records.  As time went on, whistleblower Edward Snowden proceeded to give various news agencies classified documents to publish, including the Guardian, among others.  Later, this was extended to government collection of personal emails, and spying on American allies.  See the EFF for more information.  Several organizations have now stepped out, including the ACLU and EFF, to challenge the constitutionality of the broad search powers granted to the NSA.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of these revelations is the idea that even the majority of congressmen did not know about these programs - had they known about these, an argument could be made that at least our representatives knew the extent of the surveillance.  However, these programs were wholly unknown to the majority of our representatives; only three congresspeople in California were privy to this knowledge - Diane Feinstein, Rep. Devin Nunes (22nd), and Rep. Adam Schiff (29th).  The fact that out of the 55 congresspeople in California, only 3 of them knew of this program raises the inevitable question - is secrecy, especially on this scale, fundamentally abhorrent to the concept of democracy?

In light of these revelations, the Obama administration has beaten a retreat from the denial to an attitude of compromise.  However, this really begs the question - should the government be engaging such broad and sweeping surveillance at all?

Proponents of the surveillance point to the over 50 terrorist attacks thwarted by this program, but any trace of these terrorist attacks are not yet available to the public.

Opponents say that the surveillance violates the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizure and the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection (via the Iorfida v. MacIntyre defense against governmental restrictions of the 1st, referred to as "chilling effects").

Three things to take into consideration:

1. The FBI's usage of entrapment was brought up on 2012, concerning FBI agents' incitement of people to domestic terrorism
2. Clapper's denial of the programs
3. According to The U.S. Government, a total of 12,533 people were killed and 25,903 were wounded worldwide as a result of terrorism in 2011, in comparison to the 1.3 million deaths by road injury.  (terrorism kills less than 1% of the people car accidents do).

Religious Discrimination: Massachusetts family challenges "under god" phrase in the pledge

The line "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" has long been a controversial one, with fights over it's implications under the First Amendment raging on since it was first added under Eisenhower.  In the past, the Supreme Court has declined to hear a First Amendment case regarding the phrase "under God" due to standing and other issues.  However, in recent times, there has been a backlash against the religious ideologies of the previous generations, as exemplified by the man with a pasta strainer on his head.

In Massachusetts, the petitioners claim that the usage of "under God" violates their equal protection under the law.  Furthermore, the family asserts that the phrase is tantamount to religious discrimination.  Does the usage of "under God" violate the First Amendment and/or the Massachusetts Constitution?  A lower court has ruled that it does not, citing that recitation is not mandatory, and proponents of the phrase cite that America is still Christian by far.  Should the pledge be once again amended to remove "under God" or provide for alternate phrases to say (including not saying anything there)?  Should god (or any other religious figure) be mentioned at all in our government?  Does the fact that the pledge is non-mandatory change the requirements on the text?

Obama Starts the Ball Rolling on Syria Strike in the Senate

Following the official White House press release on Assad's usage of chemical weapons on August 21st (attached map of affected areas), and Obama's confirmation of his power as the Commander-in-chief to use military force without permission from Congress, a campaign has begun to persuade Congress of the merits of direct involvement in Syria. Top US officials including Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, General Martin Dempsey and Secretary of State John Kerry plead their case today in a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Despite recent opinion polls maintaining a majority opposition to a Syrian Strike among the American people, several lawmakers have expressed their support after Obama's efforts to seek approval began - representing "a huge boost for the president's efforts to win congressional approval for military action," with both House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor declaring their support for Obama. The draft circulating in the SFRC has some choice restrictions, ruling out combat troops and limiting the time period to 60 days. However, the language does not restrict so called "mission creep," should circumstances necessitate further action or intervention after the strike in order to maintain stability or exploit new opportunities. A classic example of mission creep would be the Korean War, in which US forces proceeded into the North after retaking the South as per their original operational parameters - this particular expansion of goals ultimately went unmet after Chinese intervention.
With recent speculations focusing on what Obama would do if and when Congress rejects his proposal, another scenario emerges in which Congress actually approves said strikes. If the Obama administration continues to successfully persuade Congress, the strikes will almost certainly occur. How will the Syrian government react? How will American and Syrian allies react respectively? Will further intervention prove necessary after a strike?

It's a war. No it's not. You have to go through Congress. No I don't.

According to US Government's Assessment, Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people in the civil war there.  Syria and its allies have challenged this assertion, with Assad challenging the West to produce a single piece of evidence that proves the government forces guilty.  However, the part that I believe is most pertinent to us as inhabitants of America is Obama's declaration that the impending vote by Congress would be nonbinding.

Does this signal a changing socio-political context under which the Constitution is interpreted?  In Libya, Obama had engaged in a bombing campaign without congressional approval in violation of the War Powers Act, and in Syria, the president seeks once more to engage in a bombing campaign - this time having already declared this action wholly within his "constitutional powers" as president.  Kerry has characterized the action as a "military intervention" and therefore not a war - a form of legal word-wrangling we are all too familiar with.  Obama himself has called the planned strikes limited and proportional.  Like that time we went into Iraq and killed more than 100,000 people because we had "strong evidence" that Hussein had WMDs.  Or that time when we sent in 30 or so UAVs into Pakistan and killed a couple thousand people in airstrikes, including U.S. citizens.  Actually, there was never a war in Pakistan - at least not as far as Congress is concerned.  Nor was there ever a war in Libya.  Oh, and we never went to war in Yugoslavia.  Not in Nicaragua either, when Congress barred the executive from interfering.

Casualties related to the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, as per the DemocraticUnderground

So, would entering Syria constitute a war?  Does the president have to obtain congressional approval before he goes in?  Can he ignore Congress if it votes against him?

NAACP and KKK Meet in Wyoming

After several months of rules negotiation, leaders from the Ku Klux Klan and NAACP met this Saturday in Casper, Wyoming. Jimmy Simmons, president of the NAACP branch in Casper met with John Abarr, an organizer for the United Klans of America. According to Simmons, "If you want to talk about hate, get a hater. Let him tell you something about hate."
The meeting itself went quite cordially. Dressed in formal clothes, both sides discussed the history of their groups and their current goals. Abarr billed himself as a more moderate member, not participating in violence and even stating "I like to recruit really radical kids, then calm them down after they join." Simmons expressed his his surprise towards his apparent lightheartedness, stating "You're not serious about this, I don't think."
The meeting then took a stranger turn when Simmons offered Abarr a membership application in the NAACP, which he filled out and thena dded a $20 donation on top of the $30 membership fee. If this meeting is any indicator of future events, then the only thing we can say for certain is to expect the unexpected.
Huffington Post Article
Telegram Article

One Big Happy Family

Living at home with your parents after you've become an adult is a major social stigma in the United States, a sign that you can't achieve financial independence  - but according to census data, more young adults live with parents. With the exorbitant cost of living in some places outpacing the starting salaries of many, the practicality of free board with family has become more and more appealing to new adults trying to succeed in today's economy. In other countries, the rate is much higher as places like Canada or Italy (really just half of Europe), with around 40% of young adults living with their families. The social stigma in these countries isn't there unlike in America, and even less so in Asian parents where offspring are expected to help out with their families once they reach a working age. The trend is expected to continue in America even as the economy recovers, as social rules relax.

Another Small Step for Gay Rights

This Thursday, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service ruled "that same-sex couples, legally married in jurisdictions that recognize their marriages, will be treated as married for federal tax purposes... regardless of whether the couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage." While not a dramatic victory, this report is just one of many indicators of the constantly accelerating campaign for equality for LGBT+ persons, another reassurance for gay and civil rights groups.
The ruling itself was an extension of the landmark Supreme Court case United States v. Windsor in which Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional - a clear and cut example of judicial review, a check from the judicial branch on the legislative. Section 3 of DOMA effectively restricted federal acknowledgement of same-sex married couples. Yesterdays report was a confirmation of the "federal tax aspects" of the case. Further change is inevitable - its only a question of what the next event will be to shift civil rights towards further equality.
New York Times Articles on the IRS ruling and the original DOMA strike down

In with the good, out with the bad. And if you live in Washington or Colorado, you can do it recreationally*.

*granted you are over 18 and are only in possession of Cannabis under a certain limit.

    Last fall, when Colorado and Washington legalized the recreational use of marijuana. there was much controversy over not only the drug and abuse, but also the federal vs. state law issue. Although 18 other states allow the use of medical marijuana, at a federal level, the use of marijuana is illegal. Despite the federal law against the illicit drug, the Obama administration will not challenge state marijuana legislative laws. There's not much to say on the actual drug itself, but the fact that Obama and his administration will not sue to change these state laws is surprising, given the fact that "Last week, the White House said President Obama did not support changing federal laws regulating marijuana, which treat the drug as a highly dangerous substance with no medical purpose."Although there is definitely a shift in views concerning the legalization of marijuana across America, the murkiness of federal vs state law is something to watch.
LA times story
Washington Post story
Government policy on marijuana
State law vs Federal law

Ugh, Another Corruption Case?

     When I got the familiar vibration from NY times telling me that "Ford Hood Shooter Is Sentenced to Death by Military Jury," I didn't really think much of it, but as I inconspicuously looked it up during an especially boring lull between lectures, I realized that this is a big deal. According to NY Times, "The last execution there was in April 1961, with the hanging of John A. Bennett, an Army private convicted of the rape and attempted murder of an 11-year-old Austrian girl." It's been over 50 years since someone has been executed at Fort Leavenworth, the "intellectual center of the army." This got me thinking about military corruption/crimes in general and didn't get much other than radical claims.
     I kind of lost interest at the ALL CAPS TITLES IN FLUORESCENT YELLOW so I came back to this specific case. Maj Nidal Hasan, former military psychologist, isn't really greedy corruption (money, sexual relations, etc.,) its more martyrdom for a religious cause, and in my opinion, I think it's scary that the people that are supposed to protect us from the US' perceived "enemy," might be the enemy. 
A view from a non US perspective
NBC news with a little history on capital punishment

If you're planning to buy a house, sooner is probably better than later.

  

   After the housing bubble popped along with the US economy 7 years ago, we (our parents) got used to seeing "for-sale" signs and housing prices drop lower and lower. However, as the economy gets that much stronger, the housing market is seeing prices rise and stay stable at a constant pace. With the recent numbers from June and July coming out, the prices of homes are indeed getting better, with Las Vegas experiencing the highest increase. We know that the housing market is connected to the economy, but according to recent studies, the house market may be growing independent to the economy. What are your opinions about the stronger housing market, and is it significantly connected to the economical growth?
housing bubble in 2006/7
BBC housing
the economist housing
The economist interactive housing graph
The housing market vs GDP

Obama Administration Confirms Syrian Chemical Weapon Usage

Vice President Joe Biden has just confirmed with "no doubt" that the Ba'ath government was responsible behind the August 21st Ghouta chemical attacks. Casualty reports have ranged from 322 to 1729, with accusations of guilt coming from all sides. Coming just a year after Obama's Red Line speech, the attacks reportedly occurring 3 AM struck several rebel held towns. 

Initial reactions from the international community were harsh, With the US suspecting Ba'ath involvement. The Assad regime rejected responsibility, and then proceeded to blame the rebels for staging the attack to discredit the regime - proclaiming that the US and others were using it as an excuse to attack. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich stated that "agenda-driven regional mass media have begun an aggressive attack at once, as if on command, laying all the responsibility on the government."

UN inspection of the attack site was delayed after the Syrian government reportedly shelled the area for days, removing evidence, and the investigators themselves were targeted with sniper fire. Reports indicate that a nerve agent was used, corroborating witness reports and videos of the attack.

Just yesterday, the UK and US deployed several guided missile destroyers and a helicopter carrier to the region to be ready for a strike against Syria, after UK prime minister David Cameron called the attacks "morally indefensible." Several nearby submarines, aircraft carriers and regional AFBs (Air Force Bases) are ready to give support should the order to attack come, which the Americans are ready for according to US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Said attacks are expected to strike prime military targets, especially any units responsible for said attacks.

While the Obama administration has solidly put the blame on the Syrian government, other groups are still claiming their innocence. With the event so recent, not all evidence has yet been collected or reviewed by investigators - and only time will tell if other nations agree with the US government's findings. Do you think the Syrian government or the rebels perpetrated this attack? Is the US government aiming to intervene militarily out of outrage for the situation, or for other reasons? 

No more borrowing for the US?

            Well, according to the debt limit put forth, yes. In mid October, the US reaches the debt limit and officially* cannot borrow any money. The debt limit, a limit of spending put forth by congress, is exactly what it sounds like: a limit on the borrowing of money that the US does. Debt limit explained (this is kind of biased toward Congress so watch out)

            Of course, there have been many debt limit scares, like the one in May, but the recent increase in them may be sign of the impending doom that may fall upon the debt ridden US. Or, it could all be a scare tactic to get American’s behind Obama’s back on whatever spending plan he puts forth. Obama debt limit scare

            In the end, only one thing is for sure—there is a debt ceiling, and it is coming up fast.

BBC debt limit article

Washington Post debt limit article

NY times debt limit article

How much the US spends per time (this one has “demonocracy” in its name so it may not be the most politically unbiased.)

First Openly Gay Male U.S. Soccer Player

Robbie Rogers, a professional MLS soccer player, retired in February at age 25, announcing then that he is gay. However, such a young athlete with such a great passion for the game, Rogers decided to return to Major League Soccer, signing a multi-year contract with the L.A. Galaxy this past Saturday. This makes him the first openly gay male athlete in U.S. professional soccer.

Rogers is not just an average player - he was a former winger on the U.S. National Team, has won the MLS Cup with the Columbus Crew, and has even played in the English premier league for a time. The L.A. Galaxy coach, Bruce Arena, was very clear in describing the assets that Rogers provides to his team, emphasizing that Rogers was acquired for his soccer skill, as he should be.

On a side note, between David Beckham and now Robbie Rogers, the L.A. Galaxy seem to have a knack for acquiring some of the most publicized players in the MLS.

What do you guys think of Roger's milestone? Is this the beginning of a larger domino effect that started with Jason Collins in the NBA and now Rogers in the MLS? How significant a step in the right direction is Roger's announcement/signing with the Galaxy?

Huge Tornado strikes Oklahoma

A tornado was reported to have hit Oklahoma today. 51 people are confirmed to be dead (more deaths expected to be uncovered) ,  some of which were children. Many others are injured and are in the care of nearby hospitals. The tornado did tons of damage to property and it completely destroyed two elementary schools. The tornado traveled at speeds up to 200 miles per hour and it was over one mile wide. There is a lot of information, photos, and even videos for those of you who are interested in seeing more as this post does not tell the half of it.

More information/visuals can be found here : http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/05/20/tornadoes-severe-weather-plains-midwest/2325875/


Obviously, this is a tragic event and I don't have any specific questions for you to reflect on. Respond as you see fit.

Tea Party to Capitalize on Scandles

It looks like all the recent scandals has lead to the Tea Party being back in the news again. Many Tea Party leaders are using the recent scandals (AP Phone record seizure, Benghazi and Libya, and the IRS targeting conservatives), as a means to recruit individuals,lobby more members of Congress, and promote key Tea Party principles. Tea Party members gathered in Washington and it seems like their group is more active then ever before. Given their successes (aiding in the election of several Republican senators and house members) in the 2010 congressional election, they may be able to use their groups newly founded energy to deviate from the GOP disaster in the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.  Many people, however, believe that the Tea Party could overplay their hand. Here are a few things several Tea Party members said related to this post:

"This is the defining moment to say I told you so." - Katrina Pierson 

"What's happened here is a reminder of, this is what happens when you expand government," 

"I personally feel so vindicated. But whats scaring me now is what's going on below the water line that we're not seeing." - Mark Falzon

"Suddenly, this is a very real demonstration of too much power ceded to government bureaucrats." - Matt Kibbe 

What are your takes on all this? Is the Tea Party asking for too much / doing too much? How will these scandals (and Tea Party Reaction) reflect on upcoming elections? 

Woman Receives New Bionic Hands

About a year ago, 25-year old Aimee Copeland was riding a makeshift zip-line when the line supporting her suddenly broke. She fell and was injured; her calf was deeply cut and had to be closed with 22 staples. Over time the condition of her leg worsened, causing her leg to turn purple. Doctors then concluded that Copeland's injury had contracted a flesh-eating bacteria known as necrotizing fasciitis. Copeland had to undergo surgery to amputate both of her hands, feet, and her left leg.

After a year of recovery, Copeland spent several weeks with a company called Touch Bionics, which makes prosthetic arms/hands for those with upper limb deficiencies. Touch Bionics had decided to give Copeland a pair of their bionic hands called "i-limb Ultra Revolution", free of charge dues to the fact that Copeland's insurance wouldn't cover the cost of the hands, which are $100,000 a piece. At Touch Bionics, Copeland learned how to function her new hands, which can perform about 25 different movements. She now has regained the ability to do simple things such as fixing her hair or picking up small objects. Additionally, many of the hand's movements can be controlled through an i-Phone app. Touch Bionics also make prosthetic fingers, and skin called "living skin" that is designed to cover prostheses to give it a more natural look.

What do you think about the future of prosthetic limbs? Do you think that expensive prostheses such as these will eventually be available to the general public?

Google Maps 2013

Most everyone has either used the extensive information available with Google Maps or heard of it, and its capabilities are about to get even more advanced. Google has just announced upgrades that are going to be available to the public in the coming months. These upgrades include many more personalized custom settings. For example, based on past search history, reviews, and networks of friends, the map will automatically make recommendations of places it has "calculated" that you will enjoy. Another interesting feature is that if, for example, you click on a local deli, a box will appear that shows many reviews of the deli, and related search items will also pop up on your map. While there are other downloads available such as Yelp that do things along these lines, now it will all be built in to the map itself.

What is more, the map has a new built-in schedule for alternative forms of transportation, so that it automatically gives directions and compares estimated times of biking, driving, or taking the train at any given time. Car accidents appear on the map in real time, and the map will reroute directions in order to take into account time delays of accidents and traffic. Finally, instead of searching for a start and end address, you can now simply tap the map at the start point and end point, and it will route your directions just the same. People interested in testing it out can sign up for an invitation here.

What do you guys think of these upgrades? Which ones do you think will be the most useful to you, or to other high-school/college aged people? As technology and smart phones keep getting more and more advanced, are all these new, specified upgrades more and more helpful? Or are they "too much information" and becoming annoying? What other upgrades with Google Maps do you foresee in the future?

IRS Scandal - IRS targets conservatives

Steve Miller, the acting IRS commissioner was forced to resign Wednesday when it was discovered that the IRS focused in on conservatives claims of tax exemption status. A little more than a year ago, several members from conservative groups such as the Tea Party reported difficulties getting their tax exempt statuses approved. Miller became fully aware of the issue by May 3, 2012 after asking one of his managers to investigate. The investigation revealed that the "agency singled out groups by name for additional examination". In a report to Congress six weeks later, Miller defended the IRS by claiming that "the agency "took steps to coordinate the handling of the cases to ensure consistency" due to an increased amount of applications in 2010. After the scandal was confirmed to be true, Miller claimed that “mistakes were made, but they were in no way due to any political or partisan motivation.” 

Following an official announcement by Obama, many top officials of the IRS also resigned. Obama said that the conduct of the IRS was "inexcusable" and he announced that an investigation would be launched. Obama's top concerns are the public's faith in the IRS, "holding the responsible parties accountable, by putting in place new checks and new safeguards, and going forward by making sure the laws applied as it should be." 

Republicans are especially furious as you could imagine. House Speaker John Boehner went as far as to say, "My question isn't about who is going to resign. My question is, who's going to jail over this scandal?"

It seems lately that there are a lot of scandals ( AP phone records, Benghazi attacks, IRS targeting conservatives) that reflect poorly on the Democratic party. 

What are your thoughts on this? How will Republicans benefit from these scandals(are they seeking something in particular)? How does this event effect the public's faith in the IRS/government agencies? Is there anything else that needs to be done? 

For More Information:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/15/boehner-on-irs-scandal-who-is-going-to-jail/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/15/irs-chief-resigns/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57584707/acting-irs-commissioner-steps-down-obama-announces/

Stem Cell Success

For the first time, scientists at the Oregon Health and Science University have created human embryos that are genetic copies of living people. They have used these to make stem cells, cells that can divide into different specialized cells and self-renew to keep producing more stem cells. You can watch a video of a beating heart successfully made from stem cells here, and if you're interested on how they actually did it, scroll on down about halfway through the article.

The successful development of stem cells has all kinds of medical implications. They can be used to grow replacements for all kinds of diseased cells and can treat a wide range of diseases with personalized body tissues. Thus, this stem cell development has the potential to treat everything from diseased blood cells to diseased brain cells to patients with Alzheimer's disease to diabetic people.

However, in addition to the medical advantages of stem cells, this development also means that humans now have the ability to clone themselves. And as cool as this may sound, it also brings to light many ethical questions. Many, if not most scientists have flatly declared human cloning unethical and scientifically irresponsible. That being said, it is hard to imagine that no one will go ahead and do it with the knowledge and methodology of human cloning now available. 13 states currently ban reproductive cloning (human clones), and seven states ban "therapeutic cloning," which is cloning for medical treatment (i.e. growing a replacement organ). However, the federal government has yet to set restrictions or determine legality of either practice.


So what do you guys think: How much cloning should be allowed? Should we allow therapeutic cloning and/or reproductive cloning, taking into account the ethics of such practices? Should human cloning legality and restrictions be left up to the states, or should there be national legislation regarding its usage?

Immigration Reform: Yes or No?

Currently, an immigration reform bill is pending in the Senate. The bill intends to make massive changes to the immigration process, by providing more security around the southern U.S. border, and including new means for illegal immigrants to obtain their U.S. citizenship. There is much opposition to the bill, due to the fact that the accumulated cost of this reform will add to the U.S. deficit. Over 50 years, it is expected to cost the government $6.3 trillion for this large-scale reform.  Others believe that the sudden addition of 11 million citizens to the nation will cause other problems "would put the country's national security at risk". 
However, many have been pushing for this reform in order to change the lives of many suffering immigrants. Mexican priest Rev. Alejandro Solalinde, an outspoken speaker for Mexican migrants, will be travelling from Los Angeles to Washington in order to push for this grand-scale reform. Solalinde intends "to include more voices in the debate" by speaking on behalf of the poor migrants form Mexico, "lobbying for a path to citizenship, a stop to the separation of families, and greater attention to the human cost of immigration policies." He doesn't believe his voice will have much impact on the national government, but he is determined to make change for the better, no matter how small it may be.

Do you think that Solalinde will be able to have any influence the American government? Do you think immigration reform is something that the U.S. is ready to deal with?

12th state legalizes same-sex marriage

Minnesota became the 12th state to legalize same-sex marriage today, following similar same-sex marriage legalization in Delaware last week. Governor Mark Dayton posted the photo to the left of him signing the new bill on his twitter account, saying "It's history." This is a rather radical turn-around for Minnesota, as just six months ago, an amendment to the Minnesota State constitution permanently banning gay marriage was almost passed.

In addition, the Illinois state senate approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage back in February, and although it has yet to be voted on by the full House, it is half way through the congressional process. So, while national legislation in favor of same-sex marriage has not come yet from the courts as many hoped, it seems that at least over the past few weeks, same-sex marriage has been having success at the state level. A full map of states is shown below:

So what do you guys think? How big of a step forward are the recent Delaware and Minnesota legalizations of same-sex marriage? Do you think they will significantly influence other states or the national government to do the same? Any other thoughts or comments on same-sex marriage in general?

Ohio Kidnapping Case

We've had a short break from blogging because of AP testing, but I feel that we missed out on an important story that i'm sure you've all heard of in the news lately. I hope to tie this story into a bigger question about justice and look forward to your responses. Below is a quick summary of the case.

Ariel Castro kidnapped 3 women seperately in the state of Ohio in  2002,2003, and 2004 imprisoning them all until just recently. Castro is accused of repeatedly raping and beating these women. One of the victims, Michelle Knight, was impregnated multiple times. Each time, Castro would starve and beat her to force a miscarriage. It is rumored that another victim, Amanda Berry, was impregnated and did not miscarry (I am not sure if this was confirmed). Now, Castro fathers the 6 year old child. Throughout their imprisonment, police reports claim that the girls had their obedience constantly tested by Castro - any failure to comply would result in a beating. Castro's brothers would sometimes visit the house but they claim that they never knew that the girls were there because the T.V. or radio would always be on and Castro would not allow them into a certain area of the house.

More information can be found below:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/ohio-kidnapping-police-report-_n_3247300.html
http://fox5sandiego.com/2013/05/13/brothers-call-ohio-kidnapping-suspect-a-monster/#axzz2THmxcHkk


What should Ariel Castro's punishment be? Do you think an eye for an eye justice is justifiable in a situation as messed up as this one? Is death too easy, and life imprisonment too soft for Castro? The question seems to be hinting towards an extreme form of justice but it is not intended to be that way.  I'm aware that cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited by the Constitution. What are your thoughts?

Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Convicted of Murder

Abortion provider Dr. Kermit Gosnell (72) was found guilty today of first-degree murder. First charged in January 2011, Gosnell had been accused of the murder of 21 unborn babies who had been over 24 weeks old, and the deaths of two patients as a result of his practice.
Gosnell ran a clinic in Philadelphia; his clients being either immigrant, minority, or low-income women.
 During the day, Gosnell's clinic sold dangerous and expired medical drugs to his clients and wrote fake medical prescriptions. By night, the clinic turned into an abortion center, where Gosnell and his staff performed illegal and dangerous abortions. These abortions removed almost fully developed, breathing babies who were killed illegally.
Gosnell was an actual doctor, however his staff had no medical licenses and little medical experience. One of his staff members included a high school teenager, who was trusted to give patients anesthesia and perform other tasks.
The equipment used to perform the abortions were extremely unsanitary and malfunctioning, making it dangerous for the women who often developed serious medical conditions after their abortions. Gosnell and his staff often overdosed their patients on drugs, and they would be left for hours in the clinic without proper medical attention.
In the coming months, it will be decided whether or not Gosnell will pay the ultimate price of the death sentence for his crimes.

 How could a clinic such as this run for so long? Why hadn't there been any investigation on the clinic sooner? Do you think Gosnell should receive the death sentence?

Associated Press Claims Justice Department Intrusion

The Associated Press claimed Monday that the Justice Department had secretly collected two months worth of telephone records of around 20 reporters and editors from the news agency. The agency's CEO, Gary Pruitt, obviously outraged at such a breach of privacy, called the activities a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into the agency's operation and information "that the government has no conceivable right to know." In a letter, he further emphasizes that their actions are a "serous interference with AP's constitutional rights to gather and report the news."

The Justice Department and Attorney General Eric Holder, meanwhile, are in a very sticky situation. Their only response as of now has been that federal investigators only obtain phone records from news agencies after making "every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means." However, they have failed to disclose the reason for the probe into the AP phone lines. Back in 2012 Holder announced investigations of leaked specified state secrets, however, this AP probe seems to be pretty unrelated to the subjects of those investigations, leaving a pretty questionable justification of the probe.

Now it seems that everyone, including myself, are waiting for the justification that the Department of Justice is going to come up with. No matter what they claim as their reason for the probe, however, it is going to be very questionable, and will almost certainly draw tons of criticism from the public, the AP, and the rest of the government. So what are all of your reactions? Is probing into a wide range of AP phone calls acceptable in order to try and find a source leaking confidential information, or is such an action an unacceptable abuse of power under any circumstances? Just how unconstitutional is such a probe - Does it violate the First Amendment Freedom of the Press, or will you be satisfied with their actions under certain circumstances? If so, just how serious a threat must be posed in order to warrant such a probe?

Limo Fire on San Mateo Bridge

Yesterday night, a limo burst into flames while transporting nine women to a bachelorette party in Foster City. Four women escaped but five were killed in the fire. One of those who died was the bride. This caused a lot of traffic on the bridge. Police are still trying to figure out what happened.

Shooting at McDonald's in East Palo Alto

Six people were shot at McDonald's this afternoon, pretty near us--Palo Alto. The victims were old people, young children, and middle aged people. It's suspected to be a gang-related crime. It seems like people are always getting shot these days. How does that make you feel? Can gun control ever be effective?

Obama's Press Conference--Obama Sounds Tired Out

On Tuesday, Obama had a long-awaited press conference which has received considerable criticism. Obama was criticized for being passive, not even beginning the conference with an opening statement. Then in response to many of the questions asked, "he often found himself remarking on the difficulty of his job: intelligence sharing (“this is hard stuff”), closing Gitmo (“it’s a hard case to make”), Republican governors blocking his health-care law’s implementation (“that makes it harder”) and responding in Syria (“it is a difficult problem”)." He also revealed much frustration at the uncooperative Congress. For example, Obama mentioned signing into law a bill about flight delays which he disapproved of. When asked why he went along with it, Obama said that he "cannot force Republicans to embrace those common-sense solutions.” Unfortunately for him, this kind of slow government is what America was setting itself up for when it created separation of powers. People have also been making a big deal of when Obama said "If you put it that way, Jonathan, maybe I should just pack up and go home. Golly. I think it's a little — as Mark Twain said, rumors of my demise may be a little exaggerated at this point." This comment seems to me to reveal an almost given-up attitude, and as one article said, it "prompted immediate online coverage that made the president sound downright self-pitying." Personally, I sympathize with Obama's plight. It must be tiring to always constantly have to look good for the public and make things work where others don't cooperate. But then again, that's basically been the president's job description from the beginning.

Removing Age Restriction on Contraceptives?

The Food and Drug Administration announced that Plan B morning-after pills are safe as non-prescription drugs for females 15 and older, a change from how it used to be-- prescription-only for those under 17. US district judge Edward Korman then ruled to end all age restrictions on contraception, saying that the restrictions on the pills were political and not scientific. But now, Obama appealed to the court, trying to keep the restrictions. Many people, including Obama, disapprove of the court's and FDA's decision to lower the age, saying that 15 is too young to responsibly buy and use morning-after pills without their parents. Conservatives also disapprove of abortion and the use of contraceptives, especially at such a young age. Meanwhile, others feel that contraception should be available to any female of childbearing age, and they argue that scientifically, the morning-after pill is safe and effective regardless of age. They also feel that Obama's desire to keep the restrictions is purely political, to keep the religious conservatives on his side. Again they cite the research findings that the drug is safe.

What is your opinion on the removal of the age limit for buying morning-after pills without parental supervision? For 15 year-olds? How about all age restrictions? Is Obama trying to please conservatives?