Apple Resists Court Order from Justice Department

Apple is currently resisting a court order filed by the Justice Department last Friday to assist the FBI in unlocking the iPhone of Syed Farook, one of the two gunmen involved in the San Bernardino shooting last December.  The FBI is asking Apple to disable an iPhone security feature that erases an iPhone’s data once a password is entered incorrectly ten times.  Once that function is disabled, the government can crack the password without the risk of data being deleted.  Data encrypted on the device would most likely include evidence that could provide key clues as to why the shooters targeted certain victims, if the shooters were planning other attacks and if they received direction from overseas (Washington Post). 

Justice Department lawyers question Apple’s steadfast refusal to cooperate, wondering whether the tech giant is prioritizing their “marketing strategy” over a terrorist investigation. ”Apple’s current refusal to comply with the Court’s Order…appears to be based on its concern for its business model and public brand marketing strategy,” Justice Department attorneys wrote in the court filing.

According to Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, “The U.S. government has asked us for…something we consider too dangerous to create. They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone” (Washington Post).  Creating this “master key” to disable security on Farook’s phone would provide the FBI with important information related to the case; however, it could also jeopardize the security on every iPhone and risk the safety/privacy of citizens if the bypass is found in the wrong hands.  Apple believes that the court order is a direct “overreach by the U.S. government” and that it would set a dangerous precedent for the future in which other software companies could be forced to hack into its customers’ devices (CNN).

A federal court hearing in Riverside, California has been scheduled for March 22^nd to resolve the dispute.  It is expected that many privacy advocates and civil liberties groups will file various amicus briefs (USA Today).

What do you think? Is Apple justified in their resistance to cooperate in creating a “backdoor”? Is the information found in this phone worth potentially jeopardizing the security/privacy of millions of iPhone users? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-wants-apple-to-help-unlock-iphone-used-by-san-bernardino-shooter/2016/02/16/69b903ee-d4d9-11e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/16/us/san-bernardino-shooter-phone-apple/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/02/19/apple-fbi--court-march-22-riverside-march-22/80635402/

Is Cruz playing "dirty" in the GOP race?

Today Ted Cruz asked one of his top aides, Rick Tyler, to hand in his resignation for posting a misleading  and 'inaccurate' video (CNN). The controversial video showcased subtitles which implied that the GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio had said that "there were 'not many answers' in the Bible" (NYT). 

This video was in some sorts a tipping point in the Cruz campaign for a couple reasons. First off, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Rubio have accused Cruz of playing "dirty" tricks throughout the campaign. These accusations highlight the irony of Cruz's campaign, especially because one of his slogan reads "TrusTed." Secondly, Cruz and Rubio are bitterly fighting over the support from evangelicals in order to have a chance to beat the current front runner, Trump. By throwing low blows at Rubio over the Bible, Cruz may have just put a nail in his own coffin as his unfavorable ratings have been increasing over the past few months. According to a Monmouth University poll, in November, Cruz had a unfavorable rating of 21%, and now he has an unfavorable rating of 39% (NYT).

What do you think about Trump and Rubio's comments? Do you think Cruz is going too far over the gray line of mudslinging? To what extent should candidates be allowed to publicize negative ads and posts (on social media especially)? Do you think that the recent actions committed by the Cruz campaign will have a large impact on the upcoming Nevada caucus? How about the long run?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/22/ted-cruz-fires-top-aide-for-spreading-misinformation-on-marco-rubio/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/politics/rick-tyler-marco-rubio-video-

What About the Zika Virus?

The Zika virus has been gaining attention rather recently. There have been two cases reported in the U.S., but this disease is far more common in South America. As of now, there are an estimated one or two cases per 100,000 people (Washington Post).

The two cases brought into the U.S. were of 80 passengers returning from another country. There has also been a case reported in Puerto Rico (Washington Post).

The Zika virus causes microcephaly, "unusually small heads and damaged brains," in infants. There were a surge of these cases in Brazil, when doctors began to notice a trend. Zika combined with other viruses can lead to this effect; Zika is the main cause, however (NYT).

Symptoms include rash, fever, joint pain, and red eyes (NYT). What's even more alarming, though, is Zika has now been found to lead to paralysis as well as the previously mentioned effects. In Colombia, one of five (severe) cases in the past 6-weeks is that of a 10 year old girl who has lost function in her legs (Washington Post).

1. Zika is relatively new. Is it like the Ebola epidemic, in that the "scare will blow over," so to speak?
2. If so, why? If not, how is Zika different?

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2016/02/21/zika-has-been-linked-to-birth-defects-now-it-may-be-causing-paralysis/?hpid=hp_no-name_zika-730pm_1%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
2. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/health/what-is-zika-virus.html

Kalamazoo Shooter was Driving for Uber Between Shootings

On Saturday, in Kalamazoo, Michigan, three shootings occurred within seven hours of one another. Authorities believe that all three of these shootings were committed by the same person, Jason Dalton, an Uber driver. Authorities now have reason to believe that Dalton was even driving Uber customers in between the shootings. A source suspects that he was even looking for more fares after the last shooting, which killed four people and put a fourteen-year-old girl in critical condition. Dalton was arrested at 12:04 a.m. on Sunday morning. Authorities found a handgun in the back of his car at the time of his arrest.

One of the more peculiar parts of this case, however, was that Dalton's neighbors, the Pardos, described him as part of a 'typical American family' (CNN). Besides from spontaneously shooting in his backyard or into the sky, another longtime neighbor, James Block, said Dalton was a "'well-mannered' and pleasant" man (NYT).

The motive of these shootings is still unknown as Dalton is predicted to be formerly charged with "six counts of murder, two counts of assault with intent to commit murder, [and] six counts of felony firearm" on Monday (CNN).

Kalamazoo is another city to add to the long list of cities that have experienced mass shootings within the past year or so. Why do you think there have been so many mass shootings recently? Is it because of lenient gun control laws? People's need to make a political statement? What do you think the federal, state and/or local governments should do to prevent these shootings? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/22/us/kalamazoo-michigan-random-shootings.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=MostPopularFB&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/21/us/michigan-kalamazoo-county-shooting-spree/

Concrete evidence for black holes published

A little more than a week ago, a group of scientists and researchers known as the LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) Scientific Collaboration published evidence that heavily suggested the existence of black holes in the universe (BBC).

Last September, gravitational waves were perceived by the two LIGO antennas in Washington and Louisiana for the first time in history. Between the two antennas, the waves that were picked up were nearly identical to each other, further enhancing the reliability of the discovery. The waves are believed to have been caused by two black holes merging (New York Times).

The evidence confirms what Albert Einstein predicted in his theory of general relativity from 1916. He asserted that gravitational waves existed, but with little evidence to prove it. This is due to the fact that there was not technology that could actually sense the waves at the time. The significance of the waves is that they serve as the first pieces of evidence that support the existence of black holes, as there really is nothing else in the universe (to our knowledge) that could create such waves (NPR).

Why does all of this matter?

For one thing, this discovery means that we have ways to examine objects that do not emit light. Until now, we have depended on the fact that an entity in the universe emits light in order for us to observe it. The existence of gravitational waves breaks that barrier, and will likely lead to further heavenly discoveries (TechInsider and Vox).

I think it is important to note that there is a slight possibility that the gravitational waves can be from something other than a black hole. The LIGOs were upgraded very shortly before they detected the gravitational waves. Since the waves reported are the first perceived gravitational waves in history, there is no benchmark for them. It is not completely certain that black holes are the only phenomena that can create gravitational waves. I think that this is really good evidence for black holes, and would be surprised if it turned out that they do not actually exist. However, I think that there should be a little more data gathered with the new LIGO technology to determine whether or not the detected waves were actually from black holes.

Do you think that the gravitational waves can prove with complete certainty that black holes exist? 

Should funding for space programs be increased because of these discoveries?

Sources:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35524440?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/11/466286219/in-milestone-scientists-detect-waves-in-space-time-as-black-holes-collide

http://www.techinsider.io/gravitational-wave-ligo-detection-importance-2016-1

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10981548/gravitational-waves-significance

The Scoop on South Carolina

February 20, 2016 marked the South Carolinian caucus for this election season. And, with results in, it is clear that Donald Trump is the winner.

By a 33% victory, Trump took South Carolina. The battle for second place raged on between Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. As of now, it appears that Rubio has won by a .2% margin, coming in at 22.5% against Cruz's 22.3% (Fox).

Bush halted his campaign after a crushing defeat in a distant fourth place with 8%. Now, according to Rubio, this is a "three candidate race," of which he is sure he will secure the nomination. He welcomed Governor Nikki Haley, an Indian-American, and Sen. Tim Scott, an African-American, on stage with him as he pledged to run as the face of a new generation of Republicans. The son of Cuban immigrants, Rubio underscored his policies with an emphasis on "generational change" (New York Times).

South Carolina is a winner-take-all system, which means Trump has gained 29 delegates from winning South Carolina. Further, per congressional district won, he gains three additional delegates. This means Trump has, in total, gained 44 delegates (so far). Currently, this is more than all of his competitors' delegates combined (Washington Post).

1. Keeping in mind the statistics regarding Trump's delegates, as of now, do you believe the South Carolinian win will almost assuredly predict Trump securing the GOP nomination?
2. How do you believe Trump would fair against Clinton? Sanders?
3. Is Rubio's platform regarding generational change viable? In other words, will the face of Republicanism as we see it today embrace his vision?

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/us/politics/south-carolina-primary.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region
2. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/20/make-or-break-trump-seeks-sc-win-as-several-gop-candidates-fight-for-life.html
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/17/if-donald-trump-wins-south-carolina-can-he-be-stopped/

The Democratic Race in Nevada

The Democratic caucus in Nevada is tomorrow, February 20th. However, the question of who will win the caucus still remains in contention as the two Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are effectively tied in the eyes of likely caucus goers according to a recent CNN/ORC poll.

Some important issues for voters in Nevada include gun control laws, the economy, immigration and race relations. In terms of gun control laws, Sanders seems to have the upper hand as some see Clinton's gun control policies as too liberal. Clinton has hammered down on Sanders as having gun control policies that are too moderate; however, this criticism may have hurt Clinton in Nevada's rural Democratic areas. Clinton, however, seems to be slightly ahead in the arenas of "foreign policy, race relations, immigration, and healthcare" (CNN Poll). The economy seems to be a split territory between the two candidates. Clinton has polled 1% higher than Sanders in terms of the economy. However, among those who see the economy as their number one priority, voters seem to have polled in favor of Sanders.

For a little bit of the more well-known advantages, Sanders is polling ahead of Clinton with voters under the age of 55. Clinton, on the other hand, is in favorable terms with the Las Vegas area because of her support from union members.

One element that has added to the uncertainty of Nevada's fate is the skeptical participation of eligible voters. Sanders, once again, is relying on new voters while Clinton seems to appeal to voters who are more likely show up at the caucus tomorrow.

So, who do you think will win the Nevada caucus? Will one candidate win by a long shot or will this be another close race like Iowa? Keeping in mind that there are still over 40 primaries to go, which candidate needs Nevada the most? Does Sanders need to prove that he can fare well in different parts of the country? Or does Clinton need to stockpile on early wins to blow Sanders out of the water?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-nevada-poll/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/19/politics/nevada-democrats-2016-loneliest-road/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/latinos-hold-some-cards-nevada-democratic-caucus-n522096

President Obama to Visit Cuba

President Barack Obama is planning on traveling to Cuba sometime in late March. This trip will theoretically precede Obama's trip to Argentina and plans on being scheduled before Good Friday and Easter Sunday, two important Latin American holidays. Tomorrow, Thursday, the administration will announce a more finalized version of the president's Latin American travels (Washington Post).

In 2014, Cuba and the U.S. started a reconciliation of relations. Then, last summer, diplomatic ties were formally reestablished (Washington Post). Additionally, the U.S.'s embassy in Havana, Cuba, was reopened, as well as the restoration of air traffic in and out of Cuba to the U.S. (ABC), which was once banned.

Obama would be the first sitting president since Coolidge in 1928 to visit Cuba (NBC). This makes Obama's visit somewhat historic, especially to American-Cuban relations.

Obama makes clear that his visit to Cuba is an attempt to reach out to all Cubans, not just President Castro himself (Washington Post). Obama wants to impress upon Cubans the ideas of moving forward and expanding their country's means of free expression.

Some people believe this visit is a mistake, as it could only reaffirm Cuban leaders' repressive actions. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican from Florida and a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, happens to agree with this notion (Washington Post).

1. Given my last statement, do you believe Obama's trip to Cuba will do more harm than good?
2. Are there other ways to go about promoting free expression in Cuba that are less outright than a face-to-face visit by the sitting American president?

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-visit-cuba-just-eight-months-after-embassy-reopens-in-havana/2016/02/17/c0db1b46-d5ea-11e5-9823-02b905009f99_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_obama-cuba-1040pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
2. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/president-obama-make-historic-visit-cuba-u-s-official-says-n520461
3. http://abcnews.go.com/US/president-obama-planning-trip-cuba-month-sources/story?id=37015093

Cruz's Tax Plans for America

GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz is sticking to his conservative roots with his plans, revealed in November, pertaining to the future of the American economy. Among his ideas, Cruz claims that when he becomes president he will try to eliminate the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) and introduce a new tax plan. This tax plan would consist of a "flat 10 percent individual income tax" and a "16 percent broad-based consumption tax" (Reuters, Washington Post).

An analysis completed by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that Cruz's plan would slash federal revenues by $8.6 trillion in 10 years, causing a substantial addition to our already increasing debt. Additionally, these flat income taxes would more largely impact poorer Americans rather than middle- and high-income taxpayers. In fact, these taxes would substantially decrease the tax burden on the wealthy and would also slightly decrease the tax burden on middle-income families.

Cruz's campaign spokesperson Rick Tyler responded to the Tax Policy Center's analysis by saying that "'tax cuts create economic growth...economic growth creates more taxpayers who make more money and have more revenue to be taxed, which creates more revenue for the government'" (Washington Post).

Opponents of Cruz's tax plan also cite that historically large tax cuts by GOP presidents such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have resulted in increased national debt. According to the Washington Post, these increases in national debt occurred because the economic growth that was predicted or proposed to happen afterwards, to hypothetically offset the decrease in federal revenue, never occurred.

After reading Tyler's response, I could not help myself from noticing the large gap in the vague phrase "'tax cuts create economic growth.'" Tyler elaborates on how economic growth would aid our government but never actually bridges the gap between tax cuts and economic growth. After reading about economic growth in tonight's homework, do you think that Cruz's tax plan will really increase economic growth? And if so, how? Also, what do you think about Cruz's proposal to get rid of the IRS? What consequences, good and/or bad, could this proposal possibly have? Lastly, do you agree or disagree with Cruz's policies. What are some alternative ideas for spawning economic growth for our country?

Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/analysis-cruz-tax-plan-would-benefit-rich-explode-deficit/2016/02/16/9e8353ca-d50d-11e5-a65b-587e721fb231_story.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cruz-taxplan-idUSMTZSAPEC2GNQMPP4

Economists' Criticisms for Sanders' Plans

 Bernie Sanders’ health care plan is expansive, to say the least. It would require revamping many parts of the government; it could increase the size of the federal government by up to 50% (NYT), impose a higher tax on the wealthy as well as a 6.2% payroll tax and 2.2% income-related premium applicable to all works (Huffington Post), all the while with claims to save trillions of dollars over the course of many years, theoretically balancing out and saving Americans more than what they’d be paying in increased taxes to fund this plan.

With such large ideas, there are bound to be equally as large criticisms; these criticisms come even from fellow liberals. One of Sanders’ biggest ideas is a single-payer health care system, which essentially means health care becomes de-privatized and the government assumes all its costs. The 2.2% tax described above is supposed to be the central player in paying for this system, but economists question whether or not this tax will yield enough (NYT).

Further, the usefulness of this plan for the upper-middle to upper-class is obviously questionable; they are likely wealthy enough to afford a privatized version of all of what Sanders’ is proposing without suffering increased tax cuts. Under the plan, they’d end up spending more.

Lastly, for a single-payer health care system to function without financially ruining itself, it has to make decisions on which treatments it wants to cover. This means the government makes this choice. Just because coverage is provided by the government doesn’t mean everything is covered. The government cannot cover absolutely everything and hold down its costs, so there will still be instances where Americans will be left without coverage for some (likely more expensive) treatments due to the government having to balance costs (New Yorker).

1. Do you think the criticisms of Sanders’ plan are valid? Whether the ones you see here or others you’ve heard.
2. What do you think about single-payer?
3. How do you think the upper-middle to upper-class is going to be affected? Will they in fact lose more than they’ll gain?

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-health_us_56b25e8fe4b04f9b57d83008
3. http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-bernie-sanderss-health-care-plan-leaves-out

South Korean President Warns of North Korean Collapse

On February 15th, 2016, South Korean President Park Geun-hye discussed the issue of North Korean's nuclear bomb program in front of parliament. A part of this televised parliamentary address was devoted to explaining why the inter-Korean industrial zone at Kaesong was closed.

54,000 North Koreans worked at the 124 South Korean-owned facilities, but the money that the South Koreans are giving to the North Koreans ends up in the hands of leader Kim Jong Un to promote national "security." The South Korean's main liberal opposition party believes that the closing of the industrial zone would only deepen tensions between the two countries.

As of now, Japan and the United States have been introducing more sanctions after the recent North Korean missile tests. China is reluctant to take any action that would "destabilize" its neighbor, reducing the efficacy of United Nation measures.

Throughout the "North Korean attacks on a South Korean naval corvette" in 2010, the industrial zone was still open because the industrial complex is seen as separate from politics. Is it about time that the South Koreans close the industrial zone to punish the North Koreans?

Does imposing more sanctions on North Korea contribute to Kim Jong Un's expansion of the country's military program?

Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/south-koreas-park-vows-all-out-effort-to-punish-north-for-provocations/2016/02/15/f4c6aece-4d3f-4378-b9c0-eccef80c1966_story.html
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/02/15/south-koreas-leader-warns-north-korea-collapse.html

Justice Antonin Scalia Died at 79

On February 13th, 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia died at 79 near Marfa, Texas. Appointed by Ronald Reagan, he is the longest serving member on the Court before he died. Justice Scalia is known to be the man "of God, a patriot, and an unwavering defender of the written Constitution and the Rule of Law," said Texas Governor Greg Abbott. He is a strong conservative who has previously been an opponent of abortion, affirmative action, and same-sex marriage.

With the election cycle at full speed, Marc Rubio announced that the "next president must nominate a justice who will continue Justice Scalia's unwavering belief in the founding principles." Republican senators are reportedly grouping together to block any of Obama's nomination that leans more left that Scalia. This nomination is especially heated because the conservative majority Supreme Court could switch to a liberal majority.

On average, the nominating process of a Supreme Court Justice takes 2-1/2 months, but given the circumstances, the process may take much longer. If the process extends past President Obama's term, the next President will have the nominating power.

Do you think Obama will be able to nominate a liberal justice?
Will Obama purposefully nominate a moderate to appeal to the Republicans in the Senate?
What types of liberal policies might get past a liberal Court, but not a conservative one?

Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/2016/02/13/effe8184-a62f-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/02/13/antonin-scalia-dies-and-obama-can-transform-the-supreme-court/#56fa7b562e62

SoCalGas Fixes LA Gas Leak

Over the past 16 weeks in Los Angeles, 66,000-97,000 pounds of methane have been released into the Porter Ranch neighborhood every hour. It wasn't until Friday, February 12th, 2016 that the gas leak was filled up with cement. As of now, residents of 2,200 homes have been temporarily relocated, and the Southern California Gas Company has paid for the temporary living conditions of these people.

Residents of Porter Ranch are allowed to return home eight days after investigators and authorities rule the area safe. California Senator Barbara Boxer supports the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources to do this type of investigatory work; however, because residents have raised concerns, she is also calling for an independent group to test each neighborhood.

As of now, the total amount of damages from this incident is $250 million, but the number may be higher since the $250 million only includes the cost of relocating residents and filling the well, not the lawsuits of those affected and actions to reduce the effects of the released methane.

What kinds of punishment should Southern California Gas Company receive? How can we counteract the effects of the millions of pounds of methane that were released into the atmosphere? Should there be tighter regulations on natural gas wells since the SS-25 (name of the leaking well) wasn't mandated to have a valve?

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/us/southern-california-porter-ranch-gas-leak/index.html
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-dramatic-video-gas-leak-porter-ranch-20160212-story.html

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/11/socalgas-fixes-natural-gas-methane-leak-los-angeles-porter-ranch

Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina Drop Out After New Hampshire Primary

After the New Hampshire Primary on February 9th, 2016, Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina decided to drop out of the presidential race. Chris Christie finished the primary in 6th place, earning 7.4% of the votes, while Carly Fiorina finished the primary in 7th place, earning 4.1% of the votes. 

Many claim that the reason they dropped out at this time is because both Chris and Carly do not have enough votes to attend the CBS Republican debate. In order to qualify, candidates must place in the top five in national and South Carolina averages by Friday and have received "a minimum of 3% in Iowa, New Hampshire or polls in South Carolina or nationwide" (Joyella). The 3% threshold is to ensure that those in the top five still have a reasonable amount of support. 

After dropping out of the debate, Carly made a final statement to address the fact that Hillary is now the only women still running for president, "To young girls and women across the country, I say: do not let others define you. Do not listen to anyone who says you have to vote for a certain way or for a certain candidate because you're a woman." 

What do you think about Carly's last few statements? Does she speak with good intentions? Is she just bitter about the low support from Iowa and New Hampshire?

Even though Chris lost the election, do you think he made an impact on the other candidates and the public? 

Do you think CBS should have hosted an underdog debate? Why or why not? 

Sources:

http://graphics.latimes.com/election-2016-new-hampshire-results/

http://deadline.com/2016/02/carly-fiorina-quits-chris-christie-likely-next-gop-debate-cbs-1201700103/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/after-new-hampshire-some-gop-candidates-may-not-qualify-for-cbs-news-debate/284426

Supreme Court Blocks Obama's Climate Change Plan

After the Paris Climate Conference (COP 21), Obama pushed for environmental conservation measures to ensure that US emissions are below the established threshold. On Tuesday February 9th, 2016, the Supreme Court decided to halt the implementation of the clean power plan (one of Obama's proposal), which would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.

The Supreme Court will most likely hear this case after President Obama officially leaves office. Bruce Huber, a professor from Notre Dame Law School, believes, "this is an exceedingly uncommon situation for the court to step in, and it jeopardizes the plan all together from going into affect while President Obama remains in office."

Several proponents of the plan believe that the conservative Supreme Court justices have a very strong opinion on the issue since the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has not heard oral arguments on the subject yet and since industries and states would not have to abide by the new rules for another two years. This raises a few questions because the Supreme Court is supposed to seem objective and nonpolitical. Due to natural biases, the four liberal justices are against the order, while the five conservative justices are in favor of the order.

To what extent should the Supreme Court justices be nonpolitical? Would it make much of a difference if the Supreme Court halted the clean power plan after it reached the high court? If the Supreme Court overturned the constitutionality of the plan, what other proposals should be made to limit carbon emissions?

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/supreme-court-obama-epa-climate-change/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/09/supreme-court-halts-obamas-emissions-rule/80085182/
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/09/us-supreme-court-blocks-obama-carbon-emissions-plan.html

Investigation of Somali Plane Bomb Underway

Last Tuesday, an explosion occurred on a passenger plane after it took off from Somalia's main airport, forcing the captain to make an emergency landing. The source of the explosion was later revealed to be a bomb, the detonation of which resulted in a one-meter sized hole in the side of the Airbus fifteen minutes after it left the airport (the flight was headed from Mogadishu to Djibouti). 

Although a technical malfunction was originally thought to be the source of the explosion, Somali Transport and Aviation Minister Ali Ahmed Jama stated in a press conference that it was due to "a bomb that was intended to destroy the plane and kill all passengers on board" (1). The only death resulting from the detonation was that of Abdullahi Abdisalam Borleh, who was initially missing, then later identified and declared dead. Investigators now suspect Borleh of carrying a laptop containing the bomb onto the plane. The video above, released by CCTV on Sunday, shows two airport workers handling the laptop, then handing it to Borleh. Somalia has reached out to the United States for aid in the investigations, and several FBI agents are now in Mogadishu.

Although the case is still under investigation, some officials believe it to be the work of Al-Shabaab, an al Qaeda affiliate(4). However, no group has claimed responsibility yet, and it is not yet certain whether Borleh was a member of any group. What do you think is the real story behind this event? Do you think it will have an effect on US foreign policy?

Sources:
1. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/officials-blast-somalia-airplane-caused-bomb-160206191753414.html
2. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35521646
3. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35521644
4. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/07/africa/somalia-airplane-explosion-video/

Taiwan Earthquake and The Tin Cans

On February 6th, 2016, a 6.4 magnitude earthquake struck Tainan city, located in the southern part of Taiwan. Currently, rescuers are still trying to rescue more than a hundred missing people in apartments and several other historic buildings. 

There has been a new finding of blue oil tin cans within the walls of an apartment building. Investigations are now attempting to determine if the blue tin cans went against building restrictions. A Taiwanese law established that using these tin cans were in fact illegal, but if the building was created before a certain time period, the tin cans could be used. After construction reform laws went into place, contractors could still use other fillers, such as styrofoam. 

This raises a few questions in terms of safety and security. Given that Taiwan is located near the Ring of Fire, should Taiwan have tighter building restrictions? 

An interesting component of the story is that a few days after the earthquake, many news organizations are giving an update on the progress of the rescue with a focus on the tin cans. Are news organizations overemphasizing this finding? Is this an example that shows that news organizations are businesses?

Sources:

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/world/4-survivors-rescued-collapsed-taiwan-apartment-building-article-1.2523873

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/06/asia/taiwan-earthquake/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/08/asia/taiwan-earthquake/

Bill Clinton Bashes Bernie Sanders

For the past few months, Bill Clinton has stayed relatively quiet regarding the race for the Democratic nomination. For the most part, his speeches have been filled with sentimental stories about Mrs. Clinton's past successes and leadership skills, and few words have been said regarding the opposition.

However, Clinton's latest speech given in Milford, NH quickly turned from a discussion of his wife's attributes to a tirade against Sanders, whose policy supposedly contains numerous double standards and missing details and whose views Clinton claimed to be a "hermetically sealed box" (1). Clinton also criticized Sanders' supporters, accusing them of being sexists and using the Internet to attack those in support of the Clinton campaign, although Sanders had denounced these "Bernie bros" in a CNN interview earlier that day (2).

While Clinton's harshest remarks were reserved for the "Bernie bros," he was also critical of Sanders' free college and universal healthcare plans, calling them impossible to fund. He also addressed the sources of money involved in Sanders' fundraising campaign, stating that "anybody who takes money from Goldman Sachs couldn't possibly be President" (3).

What do you think about Bill Clinton's sudden outburst regarding Bernie Sanders? Could he be frustrated that the very state that made him "The Comeback Kid" in 1992 might now turn against his wife?

Sources:

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-clinton-bernie-sanders_us_56b7d00de4b04f9b57da0d2f
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanders-condemns-bernie-bros_us_56b75a28e4b08069c7a79b1e
3. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bill-clinton-bernie-sanders-hillary-218916
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/bill-clinton-after-months-of-restraint-unleashes-stinging-attack-on-bernie-sanders.html

North Korea Launch

This morning, North Korea launched what they claimed to be a satellite into orbit. This launch, according to the State run news agency, was personally ordered and directed by Kim Jong Un. North Korea claims the launch was for scientific purposes and was entirely peaceful, but many have their doubts. Both South Korea and Japan warned North Korea of the negative consequences the launch would have.

The frightening aspect of this launch, is that the same technology used to put this satellite into space is the same technology used to deliver nuclear warheads (1). If this is North Korea’s true intention with this satellite, most of Western Europe, Australia, and the Western Coast of the US would be in range of a nuclear attack.

The UN has recognized this danger and has called an emergency meeting at 11 am E.T. in New York City to discuss the appropriate response (2). What makes this launch even worse is the fact that this is the second time in the past month that North Korea has done something similar to this. At the beginning of January, North Korea is believed to have tried, and failed, to test parts of a hydrogen bomb (3).

Do you believe this launch was for scientific purposes or to test technology used to transport nuclear warheads? Do you think North Korea should be punished for this launch and why or why not?

Sources:

1. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/06/asia/north-korea-satellite-background/
2. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/06/asia/north-korea-rocket-launch-window/
3. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/politics/north-korea-hydrogen-bomb-test/index.html

The Controversy of Super Bowl City

Most of us are aware of the recently created Super Bowl City that was created to draw crowds to the massive event being held very close to us. While this may seem like an effective way to increase tourism in San Francisco, the reality is not so pretty. The City of San Francisco is paying 5 million dollars to make this happen (1). I personally find it ridiculous that the city would spent so much money on a party for one of the richest companies in the world. According to Forbes, the NFL’s revenue for 2013 was around 9 billion dollars. Should the NFL not be responsible for paying for their own party that is advertising their event that’s not even happening in San Francisco?

The price of the Super Bowl City is not the only concern people are having with it. For starters it has made people’s lives more difficult. My Mom was personally affected by Super Bowl City as she works a quarter mile away from it. Super Bowl City has made her usually hour long commute even longer to a grueling 2 hours.

My least favorite part of Super Bowl City is not the enormous cost or the stress and time taken away from the people who work nearby, but actually how the homeless have been treated. The homeless have been forced to leave the area and some were even given tickets and had their tents taken away (3). This is not addressing the issue of homelessness, but only making it more difficult for the people that are homeless.

So what do you think? Should San Francisco have held such an extravagant event? Was the treatment of the homeless necessary to create an image of cleanliness in the City?

Sources

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/super-bowl-50-further-divides-san-francisco.html
2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2013/08/17/how-the-national-football-league-can-reach-25-billion-in-annual-revenues/#18cfbdb73ad0
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/super-bowl-homeless-san-francisco_us_56b29454e4b01d80b2451c95

Democratic Caucus Results

The Iowa Caucus this past Monday was an exciting race among the Democrats with Clinton beating Sanders by 0.3% of caucus participants (1). Bernie fans do not distress, even though Clinton won a majority of the delegates, a couple months ago even the idea of Bernie coming close to defeating Hillary was a seemingly unattainable dream. To the disbelief of many, Bernie has been able to hold his own and actually now has a 18.4 point lead over Hillary in New Hampshire (2).

Bernie’s main supporters are the younger generation or the millennials. The millennials, ranging in age from 17-29 support Bernie over Hillary by a 70 point margin (3). Hillary has tried to swing this enormous gap back in her favor, but has done so through awkward and seemingly forced appearances like her dancing on the Ellen show where she attempted to perform some  “hip” dance moves like the “whip”. As a millennial watching this cringe worthy attempts at dance made me feel uncomfortable to be honest.

Bernie’s main issue to win the election is to get the millennials to actually vote. While he does hold this massive lead over Clinton in this one demographic, younger generations are notoriously bad at voting. In the 2012 election, only 38% of voters aged 18-24 voted (4) while as an entire population, 62.3% voted (5). This is a substantial gap that could mean the difference in who becomes the Democratic Presidential nominee. Regardless of who you plan to vote for (if you are of age), I encourage you to go and exercise this Constitutional right and make your voice heard.

Sources:

1. http://bigstory.ap.org/
2. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-new-hampshire-presidential-democratic-primary
3. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/iowa-bernie-sanders-won-his-partys-future.html
4. https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf
5. http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/2012-voter-turnout/

“Poll-ease”… Why were the Iowa Caucus predictions so off?

                                                                                                                     choosetocaucus.com

February 1^st marked the official start of the 2016 presidential election voting season, as Iowan voters determined the number of delegates each candidate would receive. The Iowa Caucus was met with much enthusiasm, as the Republican party recorded approximately 180,000 caucusgoers, which beats their previous record by around 60,000 individuals. 

The Iowa Caucus has become a hallmark event, and some news anchors went as far as to dub January 31^st as “Iowa Caucus Eve.” Prior to the actual caucus, many news media sources published predictions regarding the outcome of the caucus. Many sources like the Huffington Post predicted that Donald Trump would win with a fairly solid margin of 5-15% depending on the source.

It’s fair to say that taking a well-designed and highly accurate poll is difficult given the constraints of reality and the variability of human behavior; however, the results of the Iowa Caucus, which put Ted Cruz on the top of the other GOP candidates and have Clinton and Sanders in an approximate tie, present a couple of questions, which fall under the overarching question “Why were the Iowa Caucus predictions so off?”

Carol Bialik from FiveThirtyEight published an article about some of the lessons from this times polls, one of which is to poll to the end given that voter turn out is everything. Do you agree with this? What other factors could have contributed to the technically inaccurate predictions? Is the Iowa Caucus just to darn hard to accurately poll and predict?  

Moving away from the Iowa Caucus, do you think that the news media and the free media should still report the predictions prior to the caucus, even if the predictions may not be completely accurate? What effect do you think these predictions have on voters and voters of states with impending primaries or caucuses? What standards should the news media be held to when reporting statistics (Should they have to report polling methods? The margin of error? The sample size? The source?) Finally, how do you think the use of polls has evolved with the free media?

Sources: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/us/politics/iowa-caucuses-donald-trump.html

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/iowa-teaches-pollsters-to-poll-until-the-end/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/new-hampshire-primary-2016/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/primaries/iowa-entrance-poll/

Department of Justice Begins Review of San Francisco Police

On December 2, 2015, 26 year-old Mario Woods was shot to death by five officers of the San Francisco Police Department. The police said Woods, a suspect in a stabbing incident, possessed a knife which he would not put down. This supposedly prompted the officers to fire at Woods. Bystanders captured the shooting on video. According to them, as well as the video, Woods was not holding a knife and had his back against the wall.

Since Woods was black and the officers caucasian, many civil rights groups have become involved in protests against the police department. Woods' family has since filed a civil rights lawsuit for wrongful death. Many local residents and civil rights groups, have called for the federal government to look further into the case, particularly the video footage. In response, the U.S. Department of Justice has launched a review of San Francisco's police.

This event is particularly relevant considering how close the shooting was to us. We hear stories of police brutality and discrimination in other states, often across the country. For some, the concept of a corrupt or racially biased police force may seem far-fetched considering the diverse area in which we live. Think about our interactions with police officers up until now. For many of us, the only police officers we've dealt with have been those who work at our schools, be it middle school or here at Aragon. Some of us may have visited a police station for a volunteer exercise or for Boy Scouts—something along those lines. For these cases, the officer was most likely friendly and seemingly harmless. This definitely plays a role in shaping our views of police. This is not to say that we are not influenced at all by the news we hear of police brutality, nor does I mean that we are completely unaffected by events that occur more than a block away from our homes. I just think it is an interesting point to consider.

What about you? What are your thoughts on the matter?

We just learned about the recent growth of the media, particularly electronic media and the use of the Internet as a means of informing the public. What effect does this growth have on coverage of police-related stories? Do you think police brutality has truly increased, or has this issue become more apparent due to the current nature of the media?

First Official Start to 2016 Presidential Primary

The long anticipated Iowa Caucus is set to commence tonight, where hopeful candidates for the Presidency seek to kick off their campaigns on the right foot.

There are a handful of major story lines that will be highly analyzed. Whether Donald Trump can ride his wave of attention and secure a stunning victory in the Republican Party. Or if Bernie Sanders, who early on in the campaign process was down by a wide margin, can comeback and secure the win in Iowa over the longtime favorite Hillary Clinton. Both candidates, being Sanders and Trump, share one common hope for the Iowa caucus; large voter turnout. Recent Quinnipiac polls show Trump leading Ted Cruz 31-24 percent in Iowa, and Sanders narrowly leading Clinton 49-46 percent.

However, among the first time Iowa caucus voters polled, Trump leads Cruz 40-22 percent and Sanders dominates Clinton 62-35 percent. These finding lead various election analysts such as Peter Brown to believe that voter turnout is a crucial point in this Caucus. If it's just the usual voters that vote in every Caucus, then it is really up in the air as to which candidate will win in each party. However, if surges of new voters turnout to this campaign, as many people predict, the advantage will go to Trump and Sanders.

For the numerous amounts of people in our class who are "feeling the bern," you'll be glad to know that the pressure is really on Hillary Clinton right now. Polls in New Hampshire, where the next primary is scheduled for, show Sanders holding a comfortably lead over Clinton. Being down 2-0 in the first two primaries and eventually winning the party's nomination and the overall presidency has only been done by one candidate in history since these two primaries came into prominence in 1972; you guessed it, Bill Clinton.

Obviously winning Iowa tonight is a good start for all of the candidates in the field, however, our recent elections show that the first winner doesn't always secure their party's nomination. For example, in 2008, Mike Huckabee won the caucuses, but John McCain went on to win the nomination for the Republican Party. Likewise, in 2012, Rick Santorum narrowly won Iowa, but Mitt Romney eventually secured his party's nomination.

This topic is hard to tie back to government related issues, so I thought I would just ask an open question as to what do you think about the current state of the candidates so far? I know that this election will be our first to opportunity to vote in a presidential election, and I'm curious to know which candidates you prefer at this point?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-to-watch-2016-iowa-caucuses/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/01/iowa-test-will-first-timers-show-up-to-caucus.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/01/politics/iowa-caucuses-2016-highlights/
http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bill-clinton-lost-iowa-and-new-hampshire-primaries/