Trump talks of raising taxes, alarming G.O.P

       Donald Trump has recently talked about implementing tariffs on American companies and moving their factories to other countries. He also has talked about increasing the taxes on the compensation of hedge fund managers. Republicans have been known to consistently preach cutting taxes and bolstering business to help economic growth. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/us/politics/republicans-wary-of-donald-trumps-populist-tone-on-taxes.html?_r=0&referrer=

         Traditional republicans are in shock but the huge difference in Trumps view of taxes. They fear the Trumps opponents may start to adopt a more tax admitting stance to gain some support from some people on the fence on Trump. However, traditional republicans do not want to see a tax allowing nomination represent the Republican Party.

        Many republicans are fearful because while Trumps view on taxes may not align with republicans it does support the feeling of a great deal of voters. The club of growth is an anti-tax group that is investigating Trimps tax plan and is seeking to find flaws in it. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donald-trump-is-set-to-blow-up-gop-orthodoxy-again/article/2571075

        I feel that Trumps view on taxes is a great risk for many Republicans. if Trump is seeking a tax increase, his opponents are going to be forced to allow for taxes at a greater frequency because they want to lessen the gap between themselves and the current leader of the polls. However, by doing so, the candidates are going against the orthodox republican view on taxes and this could become a big problem if some of their votes leave for a third party candidate in the election for presidency.

Ten years after Katrina

When I first heard about Katrina, I was too immature to understand. Instead of thinking about the billions and billions and billions of dollars it would take for the city to recover or how some parts could never be the same at all, I thought that maybe New Orleans could be like the next Atlantis, and even though all of this sucked, that would be pretty cool. Don’t judge. I was six. 

But even ten years later, I still can’t pretend to comprehend how long and painful the journey to recovery for New Orleans was. It did not help that New Orleans pre-hurricane already suffered from high rates of poverty and crime. Today, while the city is definitely on the road to recovery, it’s not quite there yet. Reflecting back on the natural disaster’s 10th anniversary, some think that disaster relief hurt the people it was supposed to help the most, and point out that there is disparity between some regions, that affluence and recovery fall along racial lines. 

(I like this article. It's informative and interesting and also has nice pictures.) 

Fast forward seven years later, and Hurricane Sandy hit the east coast in November. This time, FEMA was more prepared to address the natural disaster, bracing itself for the storm before it even hit. Obama’s approval ratings shot up after Sandy…which happened, lucky for him, right before the 2012 election. 

The Constitution does not address how the government should handle things like natural disasters, which are incredibly costly to manage. To me, especially because of what I can see in the difference between how Katrina and Sandy were handled, the answer seems obvious. The government is there to provide help in times of crisis, is it not? And while there is an argument to be made that the government should step out in times of recession because the economy may bounce back by itself in times of stress, I cannot see one that excuses government inefficiency and hesitance to respond during a natural disaster. To me, while this is not a power explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, I see it as an extension of the government's duty to protect the security of the nation. 

What are your thoughts on the role of government in responding to natural disasters? Please provide a constitutional basis. 

Dick Cheney warns of another potential attack similar to 9/11

                                                                                             Former president Dick Cheney has criticized Barack Obama and Joe Biden for allowing ISIS to grow. Cheney claims that if Osama Bin Laden was able to assemble a force to attack America with airplane tickets and box cutters, then America could be at great risk because ISIS has the ability to get their hands on much more powerful weapons. He claims that ISIS could get their hands on chemicals that could inflict great pain that Americans should not be faced with. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/31/politics/dick-cheney-terrorism-threat-isis/index.html                                                                                                                                                                                                 Dick Cheney sights Obama as the fault of ISIS. He feels that when he and president George W. Bush left office in 2009 America had Iraq under control, but Obama allowed Iraq to be left without American military soldiers. In doing so, Americans saw the rise of ISIS. According to Cheney, the most concerning issue is how ISIS is able to recruit people from America to fight in Syria and Iraq. Without high level security these Americans could return to the U.S and inflict serious pain. http://www.wdsu.com/politics/cheney-warns-of-potential-for-another-911/35020886                                                                                                                                                                           Cheney also referenced that ISIS is extremely terrifying with the prospect that a nuclear weapon could be made in the middle east. I feel that Cheney is trying to bring worry to Obama's foreign policy. He is calling for a much higher security and may be referencing that we must take a stand against ISIS. http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/31/cheney-we-could-see-another-911-with-much-deadlier-weapons/

        While I feel that ISIS is a big risk, I feel that it is unnecessary to automatically take a military stance against ISIS. While ISIS is a dangerous organization, a war could not prevent deaths and would not lessen the tension between America and ISIS. However, I am fearful that American citizens that have joined ISIS could inflict damage to the U.S. I, however, trust American security and feel that we must just be cautious and prevent people from joining and strengthening ISIS. I do feel that we must not let ISIS obtain too much power because it would put America at risk. 

       This can be tied the to the Bill of Rights and how citizens have the right to bear arms. However, I feel that if people are putting the U.S at risk then they may be punished for their words. I feel that if Americans support ISIS then they are putting America at risk and therefore are subject to questioning.                                                                    

The USA considering building a wall between us and Canada

       Republican candidate Scott Walker has raised a controversial topic about building a wall between America and Canada. Walker believes that it is a serious issue. Walker claims that we have to fear a terrorist attack coming through Canada. Canada has seen two Islamist terrorist attacks in the past years and Walker feels that Americans could be at risk. The republican fight for nomination has been dominated by talk of immigration. Donald Trump has taken a strong stand against immigration and many republican however a majority of the discussion has revolved around Mexico.http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/30/scott-walker-canada-border-wall-immigration-terrorists

       Scott Walker"s view on immigration has been shifting over the past two years. The governor of Wisconsin was quoted saying two years ago that it would be logical to grant citizenship to some of the undocumented immigrants. However, recently Walker said that undocumented immigrants were not entitled to amnesty. Also, recently Walker claimed that the number of legal immigrants may need to be curbed to protect American jobs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/04/24/what-does-scott-walker-believe-on-immigration/
   
       I feel that Donald Trump had a direct effect on Walkers shift on immigration. Trump strong stance against immigration forced Walker to take a stronger stand against immigration in fear of being denounced by Trump. Walker feels that if he stays highly tolerant of immigration he will be exploited by Trump and decided to lessen the gap between their views on immigration. Trump is leading the republican race right now and Walker does not want to be at the other end of the spectrum on such a heavily discussed topic like immigration.

       While immigration was not a overwhelming topic in the Constitution, the southern and northern states were split on the topic of slavery. In the Constitution the founding fathers did not know whether or not to count slaces toward the population. If Walker had stuck to his proposal of giving some illegal immigrants citizenship it would raise of the issue of representation in the house. In the constitution the founding fathers had to compromise to could slaves as 3/5ths of a person. However, immigration talks could cause some states to lose or gain power depending on allowing immigrants to enter or not.

       So while Walker claims that he would consider a wall between the U.S. and Canada due to terrorism risks, I feel that immigration could be another factor pushing his decision.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/08/30/walker-says-wall-along-canadian-border-worth-reviewing/u8pNzaDtZkUIqcYsCTNHhP/story.html

Sanders to tell DNC that 'establishment politics won't do it'

     


        On Friday, Bernie Sanders, seeking the democrat nomination, will step in from of the Democratic National Committee to express his views of Establishment politics. Establishment politics are conventionally known as a closed group of elites in the government. Sanders seeks to denounce these ethics and strive for a smaller elite. Sanders strives to convince the democrats that we must not follow the elite groups like Wall Street or big banks. However, Sanders has never spoken in front of the DNC so his views could easily be dismissed.http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/bernie-sanders-establishment-politics-dnc/index.html

       Everywhere I have read, the Democratic National Committee is said to be the most establishment meeting there is. Sanders is putting a high risk on himself by ripping establishment in front of a crowd that could easily shut him down.(http://www.kcci.com/politics/sanders-to-rip-establishment-politics-to-dnc/34963334). 

       

       Sanders has been pushing a anti-establishment view on the government in fundraisers; however, this is the first real risk he is taking. Sanders understands that he needs to gain the support of smaller organizations for his nomination. Sanders is taking a calculated risk, but I feel that it is necessary for his nomination. I feel that the attention in the democratic campaign has been tied to Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden. Sanders needs to take a risk to get his name out there. 

       Sanders is attempting to get the support of the lower class. He wants to implement a $15 per hour minimum wage and free tuition for college.He realizes that to gain nomination he needs to please a certain group of people with opponents like Hilary Clinton having control over certain parts if the democratic party. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-bernie-sanders-chicago-fundraiser-met-0818-20150817-story.html

       Sanders view of the government ties in to how the Articles of Confederation attempted to bring down the power of the elite. Sanders seeks to give the lower class a higher influence in the government and seeks to please the. The Articles attempted to help the minority also by giving each state equal power and prevented taxing without unanimous decisions. Sanders is going away from the founding fathers view that there needs to be an elite class for a government to work. Sanders feelings that an elite class will hinder the government and society from moving forward.

Devaluation of the Chinese yen

                                                                               That is a lot. 

Devaluation of the Chinese yuan

Last week, over the course of a couple of days, China devalued its currency around 4 percent. This matters because currency devaluation can trigger a “race-to-the-bottom” effect – when a country weakens its currency, its prices are lowered, which increases its exports and market share because consumers want the cheaper products, which encourages other countries to do the same. 

There is much speculation over the cause of this rapid devaluation, which is the lowest the yuan has dropped in a 2-day period in a very long time. One thing most can agree on is that it reflects that China’s economy may not be as strong as the world thought it was and that its rapid yearly growth rate (the GDP used to increase by 7 percent every year) may be starting to falter. 

However, people think there is more to it than just an attempt to increase exports and boost the economy. I read lots of opinionated analysis on China’s reasons for devaluing. 

a) China has, in the past, been accused of initiating a “currency war,” which is another term for competitive devaluation. The United States has also, in the past, fallen victim to competitive devaluation, which causes loss of jobs and can force protectionist policies like the enactment of tariffs. Some news sources took the bad blood angle and “spun” the story to speculate that this may be the start of yet another currency war (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/21/currency-wars-whos-next-to-pull-the-trigger.html)

b) Others say no, starting a currency war won’t help China’s efforts to become an IMF reserve currency (http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-rallies-around-yuan-as-imf-mulls-reserve-currency-inclusion-1434366682), elevating it to the status of the likes of the dollar, the euro, the yen, and the pound sterling. Some articles I read (http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-moves-to-devalue-the-yuan-1439258401 and http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/your-money/currency-devaluation-is-a-short-step-in-chinas-long-advance.html?_r=0) “spun” the story in a more forgiving way, defending China by saying it was only trying to loosen its grip on the yuan and try to determine it by market value, which is what the IMF wants – free-floating currency.

The difference between how the prices of currencies are determined: The U.S. dollar is “free-floating,” which means that its value is tied to the market. The Chinese yuan is not currently free-floating. The central bank, not the market, determines its value every day, but it can be assumed that the central bank takes the market into account. 

(Now, awkward transition as I try to connect this to what we’re learning in class right now. Sorry.) Both of these countries’ exchange rate regimes reflect, to an extent, the overall structure of how they run their governments. China exercises tight control, the United States lets the people decide what they want and hopes for the best. The advantage of free-floating currency is independence from other currencies and freedom from complicated intervention policies, the disadvantage of free-floating currency is volatility. The price of freedom is volatility. Is it worth it (in any case…feel free to talk about government or economics, but other examples are also welcome!) ? 

FIFA Inquiry Yields Indictments

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/sports/soccer/fifa-officials-arrested-on-corruption-charges-blatter-isnt-among-them.html?ref=world&_r=0

As one of the most watched events around the world, it's safe to say the FIFA World Cup generates millions of viewers (and billions of dollars) around the globe each year. Discoveries about the 2010 World Cup, which was held in South Africa have lead to investigations that have yielded facts that South Africa was chosen due to high officials being bribed for their votes on where it should be held. The arrests of the officials involved did not come as a huge surprise, as the FIFA organization has been bombarded with accusations of bribery for decades. Like the Olympics, hosting a huge event such as this can bring great economic growth to a country: tourism, infrastructure building, and creating jobs for their people. Clearly the voting process ought to be more tightly regulated. How do you guys think they should go about having a clean vote? Who is supposed to make sure the officials stay on track?

US Holds Back to Prevent Harming Civilians

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/world/middleeast/with-isis-in-crosshairs-us-holds-back-to-protect-civilians.html?ref=world

While it appears that the US has successfully identified some buildings that seem to be the headquarters of the Islamic State, the buildings have remained untouched by airstrikes and heavy military assualt. The reson for this is that the US fears civilian casualties, and has elected to wait until the area is clear of innocents before attempting a full on strike. Leaving the buildings intact has its drawbacks, however as it was reported that Islamic State fighters successfully drove out Iraqi soldiers, handing another round of victory to the Islamic State. The possibilty of killing civilians would "hand the Islamic State propaganda" and is cited as one of the main reasons that airstrikes are being withheld. While I'm not totally convinced, I do think this is the proper way to go, even if their cited reason isn't exactly why I'm supporting holding off on the airstrike. However, I can also see the urgency in the situation because wait too long, and the headquarters will be moved and disappear into thin air. What do you guys think? How clear of civilians should an area be before an airstrike is commenced? Do you think it's more dangerous to let the Islamic State soldiers run free?

Campaign Launched to Prosecute UN Sex Offenders

Earlier this month, international advocacy group AIDS Free world launched a campaign to end impunity for UN personnel who commit rape on peacekeeping missions. This is not a new problem by any means, as peacekeepers have been accused of abuse in several African nations over the past couple of decades, and it was recently revealed that French troops committed systematic rape on children in the Central African Republic during a peacekeeping mission. The reason this keeps occurring is because the law protects perpetrators as long as they work for the international body, meaning that no peacekeeping forces may be prosecuted by the country in which they commit abuse. Only the nation that the peacekeeping troops belong to have the authority to prosecute them for crimes while on duty, but countries have rarely handed out repercussions for soldiers committing rape. In order to prevent such abuses from further occurring in the future, the UN must eliminate laws that grant perpetrators immunity. Putting pressure on countries to prosecute their offenders may turn out to be a good collective way to solve the problem.

What is the most suitable way to approach this issue?

FBI and Law Enforcement resold to plane threats

U.S. Law enforcement received around 10 phone calls this weekend that threatened incoming flights. NORAD resorted to sending two F-15 fighter jets to assist Air France Flight 22 to JFK airport from Paris after Maryland State Police contacted the FBI regarding the phone threats they received surrounding the flight. US police officials contacted the flight crew through radio to ask them if anybody on the flight was sick, and when the crew responded that there were not, they ordered the plane to be evacuated and searched. Once the entire plane was deboarded, a search was conducted, but nothing of importance was found. Threats have been reported by authorities in big cities all along the east coast, but so far searches have not turned anything up. Police know not all threats are legitimate, but they must handle every one in a professional manner to avoid missing anything. It's a good thing that all planes landed safely this memorial weekend, but law enforcement and the FBI will continue to investigate the threats to make sure there is no danger.

Did the NORAD make the appropriate decision in bringing out fighter jets or was it a bit of an overreaction to a nonexistent threat?

If law enforcement continues receiving phone threats on flights, what would be a best way to take care of them?

Chinese Island Building Raising Eyebrows

China's continued island building since early 2014 by transforming submerged reefs into artificial land has been catching the eyes of its regional neighbors. Although neighboring countries like Taiwan and the Philippines also lay claim to some islands in the spratly islands where most of the artificial islands are, their work is raising eyebrows because in the past year China has managed to construct 2000 acres of islands. China has stated that the islands will primarily be used for civilian purposes, but has also admitted that they are of military value as well. However, it would be in violation of international law to use those islands for military purposes as they are artificial. This means that the Chinese have already violated international law, but not much can be done by the international community. Much of the worry stems from the fact that Chinese authorities have not formally addressed the public on what it's true intentions with the islands are, along with the fact that they are very wary of unexpected visitors coming near their islands, as an American patrol jet recently was shooed away from the area.

Congress Reports Isis Making Gains

This week members of Congress and a former member of the Defense Department reported that extremist Islamic terrorist organization ISIS have been making strategic gains as they continue to maintain control of their share of territory. According to Michele Flourney who served Defense Department under Sectetary of Policy for OBamas previous term, ISIS poses a significant threat to countries all over the world, especially with their international recruitment numbers rising. "This is a terrorist problem that affects us and we have to take a more forward leaning posture." said Flourney. Her remarks were appropriately timed as ISIS captured the city of Ramadi last week, which was pretty depressing for the US military as they had just assisted the Iraqi troops in recapturing the city a little while earlier. Senate Member McCain called out the Obama administration regarding what he views as a lack of US Governmental action over the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Iraq. He believes the president should not hesitate to deploy more troops to the war zones. "We need to have a strategy," McCain said. "There is no strategy. And anybody that says that there is I'd like to hear what it is. Because it certainly isn't apparent now." Current Defense Department Secretary Carter urges resources to be sent to the Sunni tribes in the provinces where they can more of a difference since the tribes have political interests in fighting the group. Hawaiian Democrat Gabbard agreed with Carter, saying that the persecution of Sunnis by the Shia Iraqi government military has forced entire families and communities to take refuge in ISIS

How should the international community respond to the the territorial gains?

What is the best way for the US and Iraqi governments to collectively dismantle ISIS?

43 Killed in Major Offensive Against Drugs

Link

A few days ago, Mexican officials clashed with the Jalisco New Generation, one of the countries largest and most violent drug cartels. While the majority of the deceased were cartel members, the fighting lasted for hours and dozens of guns were recovered. The scale of the offensive calls into question the efficacy of the War on Drugs in the US. It is generally accepted that millions of tonnes of illicit substances are smuggled over the US American Border every year, but US law enforcement usually does not begin until it reaches the cities. In my opinion it would make more sense to try to attack the root of the problem instead of allowing cartels to grow to this huge scale where massive assaults are needed in order to hurt them. I am aware that jurisdiction laws complicate things, but it seems narrow minded to leave our neighbors to themselves. What do you think? Should we let the Mexican Authorities handle a problem they cant control? Or should the US step in? 

Senate Rejects NSA Bill

Link

With the "Compromise bill" falling 3 votes short of passing in the Senate, the NSA domestic spying program is threatened with expired authority. Meaning, if a law is not passed soon that remediates the issue, the NSA as we know it will cease to exist. However many people believe that would be a good thing. With time being eaten up by filibusters from the likes of Senator Rand Paul, senators describing the program as an illegal abuse of power, there are others who claim the program is vital for national security. What do you think? Should the NSA be kept in existence or in some other form? Or should it be completely dissolved? 

A Little More Than a Misunderstanding

Link

Roughly 8 months after the TMZ video initiated a media firestorm, the former Baltimore Raven, Ray Rice, walks free with all charges dropped. His two game to indefinite suspension has been lifted by league officials and is now free to sign with whatever team is willing to sacrifice moral integrity for his talent on the field. Despite his wife stating that she is very much against the punishment aimed towards her spouse (which helped lead to the dropped charges) this upholds a very dangerous precedent in professional sports. The idea that the superstars are above the law and should not be subjected to moral scrutiny due solely to their physical abilities is not something we need. Society needs these spotlighted athletes to be a moral compass for today's youth; we don't need kids aspiring to be the next Ray Rice or Suh. Not only that, but it also brings into play the gravity of the domestic violence issue in the United States. His lawyer states that it was all just a big misunderstanding, but the video very unambiguously depicts Rice assaulting his wife. he got off with a slap on the wrist and a little training seminar that I'm sure amounted to "please do not hit your wife or other people." Personally I think Rice should be banned from the NFL and I'll be rather disappointed if a team picks him up in the following years. What do you think? Do you think Rice was punished adequately for what he did? Or was it all really just a misunderstanding?

It Wasn't as Bad as it Could Have Been

link

Earlier this week another massive oil spill occurred in the Santa Barbara area. While not on the scale of the likes of the BP spill which dumped hundreds of millions of gallons of crude into the oil, this recent spill is far from a small matter. Despite the pipe line only spilling 100,000 gallons of crude, the environmental impact is still very real and the long term ramifications are staggering. However I would like to focus less on the ecological issue and more on the business side of it. As stated in the article, this particular company, Plains All American Pipeline, has had over 175 different violations of federal safety and maintenance regulations, yet has still been allowed to operate. The pipeline has recently been inspected, meaning the companies process is either woefully inadequate or purposefully neglectful, neither one of those are good. The title focuses more on the fact that the pipe was not operating at full capacity instead of the spill itself suggesting that people should be grateful that it wasn't worse. However a spill is a spill. The damages are irrefutable, and the companies responsible pay a petty fine, doggedly clean up and then continue to exploit the world and its resources for profit. Hardly seems fair, especially not with the declining status of the environment.
What do you think? Am I just grasping at straws?

"We're not losing"-Obama 2K15

Link tho

With the Islamic militant group, ISIS, seizing control of the last border crossing between Iraq and Syria, the massive collation of World Powers assures the public that this is merely a tactically setback. While the US does admit that pushing ISIS out of the 95000 sq km (roughly 50% of Syria) would be difficult, experts insist that the majority of this territory holds no significant strategic value. I suppose this is too serious a topic to joke about. This extremist group has been responsible for over 17000 civilian deaths in the last year. They are guilty of numerous atrocities and crimes against humanity, yet despite US-Iraqi efforts, their ranks have only swelled. The failure to adequately deal with a small splinter cell and to allow it to grow to this extent calls into question the US' effectiveness in the Middle East and the validity of its involvement. The half in, half out methods of "no boots on the ground" doesn't seem to work very well. Though the military advisers placed reek eerily of the Vietnam War, I doubt a large scale escalation is anywhere on the radar.

What do you think?

Should the US send more than just advisers?

Or how else should we address the issues in the region?

Boy Scouts Debate on Gay Adult Leaders

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32833797

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is going through a debate the we are a country are muddling through right now as well: what their stance on gay marriage is. While they allow openly gay youth to be members as scouts (as decided in 2013) at the moment gay males are not allowed to be leaders in the organization. The head of the BSA Robert Gates has claimed that its ban on gay adult leaders is unsustainable, and his words ring true in New York, where a chapter has hired an openly gay male as a leader, as a message that they are flaunting the rule. Gates says that while he could revoke that chapter's charter for disobeying the rules, doing so would only hurt the scouts in that area, so he is not going to make any move against them. He also says that he would be open to having a "chapter by chapter" form of decision making where geographically each chapter could decide for themselves whether to keep the ban on gay leaders or not. I, for one, agree with Gates that the ban is unsustainable, especially in more liberal places and just in general because it seems to me if gay scouts are allowed to participate, but not allowed to lead, it sends a negative message about gays being able to hold positions of leadership.
Thoughts on this? Are they better off going chapter by chapter or keeping an overlying position on it? Think of chapters as "states" and the organization as the federal government. Is your position the same? Why or why not?

'Droughtshaming' Hopes to Cut California Water Cheats

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-32789579

It's no secret that California is the middle of an extreme drought, and lots of people think that water conservation should be mandatory, not "encouraged." As we learned about in economics, as long as the conservation isn't mandatory, I think lots of people will continue to take advantage of the free rider effect present in this situation. A new social media trend has local people playing vigilante justice by taking photos of water wasting and posting them to twitter, facebook, or instagram with the #droughtshaming. While I do think that some people aren't making enough of an effort to do their part, I'm not so sure about trying to shame people into changing their habits and routines and there's no proof that these postings make people save any more water either. What do you guys think? Do you think this trend might actually make people save more water? Even if it does, is it socially acceptable?

Record Fines for Currency Market Fix

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32817114

5 of the largest influential banking institutions are facing massive fines for a variety of criminal charges such as maipulating the foreign exchange market, rigging benchmark interest rates and have been doing so for possibly up to 5 years. Due to the widespread nature of these large corporations that include JPMorgan, Barclays, CityGroup, and RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) their actions have affected countless investors and institutions around the globe. The majority of the fines are being extracted under anti-trust laws that are supposed to prevent businesses from working together in this way. Now I'm not sure exactly why it's solely the US that's demanding fines from these companies, because the effect of their cartel reaches far beyond the United States, but do you think it's right that the US is the main plaintiff? How should a situation like this be prevented in the future? Why was the cartel able to fly under the radar for so long without getting caught?

NJ Bridge Closure: What Effect on Christie's Presidential Aspirations?

Wall Street Journal Article

In September 2013, the George Washington bridge connecting New Jersey and New York City had several lane closures, causing severe back-ups and incredible traffic. It came to light that these closures were engineered to punish the mayor of Fort Lee, NJ for not supporting Governor Chris Christie in his campaign for governorship. Fort Lee was severely effected by the closures.

Source: Washington Post

On Friday, three people were indicted for the closures. The governor, who is considering a run for the Republican Presidential nomination, was not. He maintains that he did not know about the political retribution, and fired those involved as soon as he found out. Critics claim that even if he did not know about the specific incident, it illustrates his managerial style. Governor Christie is also known for his aggressive tendencies and willingness to pick a fight. At the moment, the New Jersey Governor is not a leader in the polls for the nomination, and he has not official his candidacy.

How do you think the incident will affect Christie's campaign? Do you think this is illustrative of how Christie would be as as president?

Charges for Six Police in Baltimore

Article

Friday morning, the Baltimore chief prosecutor Marilyn Mosby announced the charges against six police officers in the death of Freddie Grey while in police custody. The charges range from second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter to false imprisonment and misconduct in office. Freddie Grey died a week after being arrested from a spinal cord injury, thought to be received while in police custody. The investigation and the charges focused around Grey's ride in the police van, where he was shackled at his feet, but unrestrained. He was unconcsious when they reached the police station.

The recent investigation showed that the police made another stop on the way to the station and picked up another prisoner. Mosby has also said that the arrest was illegal.
The charges comes after a week of protests in Baltimore that received lots of coverage due to the outbreak of violence that occurred. The protests were calling for the charges, as well as other measures to stop this from occurring again. Baltimore is the latest city to have an outbreak of protest after a death of a Black man in the hands of the police. The police also did not release the report to the public in fear that it would lead to more violence.

How do you think that the police should handle protests in order to best serve the community? How do you think that deaths while in police custody should be handled?