BART Begins Operational Testing to Future Berryessa Station

Warm Springs/South Fremont BART station

BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) has been moving forward recently with its Silicon Valley Extension Project. For decades, the southern terminus of the rail system in Alameda County was Fremont Station, located on Mowry Ave. in Fremont in between Mission Blvd. and Fremont Blvd. However, as the Silicon Valley continues to expand, greater demand has arisen for BART to extend its southern terminus down into San Jose, America's 10th largest city and the heart of the Silicon Valley.

In the past, before the BART Silicon Valley Extension Project began, transit service connecting the Fremont BART station with the Silicon Valley was provided through Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) routes 120, 140, 160, 180, and 181. They used the highways 680, 880, and 237 to connect Fremont BART with various other locations in the Santa Clara County area.

But in the long term, demand for a one-seat ride from Alameda County into the Silicon Valley has risen, necessitating the BART Silicon Valley Extension Project. Thanks to federal funding, the project has been rolling forward. As of April 2017 BART opened a new station, Warm Springs/South Fremont Station, located ~4 miles south of the original southern terminus. And BART continues testing further, onwards towards Berryessa Station, located between Berryessa and Mabury Roads in San Jose, CA. That was the main focus of this article- that BART is now starting to operate trains between Fremont and Berryessa station, running at various speeds between 5 and 80 mph to ensure the proper operation of train components on the new track.

traffic on the Interstate 880 southbound approaching 237 junction (Milpitas, CA)

And you may ask-- why should I care about BART extension? Right now the 680, 880, and 237 corridors are gridlocked during commute hour. Spending hours locked in traffic not only adds extra additional carbon dioxide emission to the environment, but also makes drivers fatigued and stressed. Time is money, and time wasted sitting in traffic is money lost to the American economy. Not only that, a full 10-car BART train can carry some 200-300 people at standard capacity (standing room only). During commute hour, I would estimate a single BART train to carry some 400-600 riders. Imagine 400-600 additional cars on the highway, adding to the gridlock. And did I mention that the Silicon Valley is expanding so even more cars are now trying to get there?

Thank God we have BART.

Read more here:
Berryessa Extension Testing
BART Silicon Valley Extension Project

Discussion Questions:
1. What other practical advantages does setting up the BART Silicon Valley extension provide?
2. List some potential barriers that might discourage the public from riding BART. What can we do to address and eliminate these barriers?

Decline in Obamacare Funding

Source 1

Source 2

Since his campaign, Mr. Trump has clearly been against the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act gives federal funding to insurer companies so that eligible customers can pay less money out of their pocket for expenses such as copayments or deductibles. As an opponent of Obamacare, President Trump had made plans to decrease and eventually stop funding towards the plan. Many health analysts predicted that insurance premiums would go up and that such plans from Mr. Trump discouraged insurance companies to not participate in Obamacare markets in 2018. The republican House of Representatives claimed that the federal reimbursements were not actually supported by congressional appropriation. A judge actually agreed with the House but suspended the claims after the Obama Administration appealed.

Recently, the fundings for Obamacare ran out on September 1st. The Trump administration only promised to cut funding by 41 percent, but the complete lack of funding has caused layoffs and a decrease in outreach programs. The Trump administration stated that they would cut the budget for people who weren’t able to meet their enrollment goal, but still give them a base of $10,000. However, in the past week or so, several companies have received no information about the budget, leading to job losses and some companies having to run on donations.

Connection to class topics: Clearly, the situation with the judge backing out on her statement when the administration appealed exemplifies the weaker nature of the judicial branch compared to the legislative and executive branches. Also, President Trump having the power behind Obamacare and its budget shows how the executive branch has more powers behind carrying out the law than any other branch of government.

Questions:

1. Looking at the current situation, do you think the Obamacare powers should still be in the hands of Trump?
2. Why do you believe that these companies have not received information on budgets?
3. Why do you think Trump would’ve still cut budgets to Obamacare considering the possible rise of insurance premiums and insurance companies dropping out of the Obamacare markets?

What effect will Hurricane Irma and Harvey have on the US economy?

Texas's coast affected by heavy rain and winds

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/09/07/how-hurricane-harvey-will-ripple-through-u-s-economy.html
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/07/investing/economy-hurricane-irma-harvey-florida-texas-jobs/index.html


For the past few weeks, the United States has had to endure the effects of Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma, some of the worst natural disasters in United States history. As these storms continue to damage cities, economists are analyzing the impact of these storms on the United States economy.

Since Hurricane Harvey started earlier than than Hurricane Irma, the economic impact of this natural disaster is becoming more clear. Just last Thursday (08/31), the number of jobless claims had the highest one-week jump since Superstorm Sandy in 2012, according to the Labor Department. The gas price in Houston has also increased from $2.35 last month to $2.66 last Wednesday, resulting in some inflation. Hurricane Irma has not had as much of an economic impact yet, but it is predicted to have an even bigger effect than Harvey when it hits Florida's big cities.

Analysis: I think that that the number of jobless claims will increase as after the storm is over as opposed to right now because people generally file jobless claims after the whole storm is over. Though these hurricanes are devastating to the people that lived in those cities, I do not think the entire nation's economy will not be affected very much in the long run. In fact, there could be a possibility of a better economy after all the relief efforts are over, since the amount of spending and the number of jobs increase. Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Katrina, and Superstorm Sandy are all evidence of this. I completely agree that the impact on the lives of residents in affected areas are much more important to consider than the impact on the economy.  

Discussion Questions:
How do you think the Hurricanes will affect our economy?
How long do you think it will take to recover from this?

Confusion between United States and China Regarding North Korea

Source 1

Source 2

There has been talk between President Trump and President Xi Jinping of China involving the situation in North Korea. On Wednesday, they had a 45 minute conversation regarding the topic and President Trump described it as a “very, very frank and very strong phone call.” Trump has also reached out to leaders from South Korea, Japan and others to help garner more support against North Korea. In addition, as many of you know, Trump has been talking about fighting North Korea with “fire and fury” if they posed a threat to the U.S. or allies.

President Trump (left) and President Xi Jinping of China (Right)

Both Xi and Nicholas Burns (a former diplomat) had told Trump that it is in his best interest to be careful in what he says in order to prevent an escalation of the current situation. The UN Security Council had recently imposed sanctions on North Korea’s testing of intercontinental ballistic missiles in July. Although at first Kim Jong Un backed down on his plan to fire missiles, he recently launched one over northern Japan and conducted an underground test of what was claimed to be a hydrogen bomb.

Amidst all of this, the U.S does not have a clear plan of action. People who were supposed to be involved in working with China, including Jared Kushner and Rex Tillerson, have either been caught up in other affairs or have disagreed with Trump on specific policies or broader views. There has also been mixed signals coming from the U.S. as the Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has threatened to cut off trade with anyone trading with North Korea. This, and other steps being taken to institute an oil embargo on North Korea do not bode well for the U.S’s relationship with China. Moreover, Mr. Trump has recently called for an investigation on China’s theft of technology from American companies, and has been demanding steps for stricter regulations towards Chinese steel exports. Amidst all of this, President Xi has been doing all he can to take care of the issue with North Korea. Such actions from the United States could possibly strain the alliance with China, especially since there is a lack of someone to actually discuss and help ease tensions between the two countries.

Discussion Questions:

What is your opinion on the mixed signals the U.S. government has given to the Chinese government? Was it a wise move for Mr. Trump to start an investigation of China or to plan for stricter regulations on steel trading with China?

What has President Trump done that is either helpful or not helpful to taking care of the issue in North Korea?

What do you guys believe is the logic behind Trump’s oil embargo plan?

Trump Sides With Democrats Over Debt Ceiling and Amnesty for Children

Link to Article 1

Link to Article 2

Photograph by Alex Wong / Getty

 Unexpectedly, Trump has chosen to side with the Democrats in regards to the budget plan. As the US national debt approaches 20 trillion dollars, the two parties in congress have become divided about what to do. The GOP presented Trump with a proposal to postpone the debt ceiling to December, as well as an increase of disaster relief funding to $15.25 billion dollars. Trump has decided instead to side with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, the Senate and House Minority leaders on a plan to suspend the debt ceiling. While there is little practical difference between these two proposals, the main difference is that Trump has chosen to look to the democrats for a solution.

 Beyond just the debt ceiling, Trump has also implied that he would sign a congressional bill replicating DACA. He also traveled with Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a democrat facing "a tough reelection effort in a solidly Republican state that Trump carried in 2016 by 36 percentage points." Trump complimented her, referring to her as a "good woman." Despite this change of alliances, Trump is still set on his tax plan, which Democrats are likely to oppose.

 His support for child amnesty is also something to take note of. While he canceled DACA with an executive order, he doesn't seem to see the issue as closed. He on twitter stated that if Congress can't find a solution he will revisit the issue, likely desiring that congress takes the blame from conservatives who don't think America's immigration policy is strict enough, and from liberals who think the opposite.

Questions:
 What impact will Trump siding with Democrats have on how conservatives see him?
 What should America do to reduce the decifict that it has every year?
 What is the cause for this apparent shift of alliance?
 

Russian Firm Paid for Political Ads During 2016 Election

Link to Article

By Mikhail Svetlov/Getty Images.

 Recently Facebook announced to congress that it had discovered the origin of certain ads that were displayed during the 2016 election. A Russian company known to publicize the state narrative were discovered to have spent $100,000 to advertise on Facebook. While a ¨small portion¨ of them contained Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump directly, most of the ads were focused around  divisive issues that the two candidates disagreed on ¨from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights.¨
 While Facebook only disclosed the source of the ads and not which candidate or platform they seemed to support, it is likely that this will be taken as evidence that Trump´s campaign received social media help from Russia. While $100,000 is comparatively small when put next to Trump´s overall campaign fund, investigators are primarily focused on whether the Trump campaign was in contact with the Russian government and/or this corporation when these ads were placed; they are less concerned about the actual effect that these ads had on the election.
 Some congressmen such as representative Adam Schiff of California see this as a warning sign of potential foreign involvement for future elections, as he sees this as a sign of malicious intent on the part of the Russians.

Questions:
 Is this the extent of Russian involvement in the 2016 election?
 Should Russia as a state be punished for the actions of a corporation in their nation? If so, how?
 Should we prevent foreign companies from political advertising?

Chinese Attitude Sours Towards Unruly North Korea

China and North Korea alliance propaganda from the 1950s

An analysis of Chinese government attitudes towards its unruly nuclear neighbor, North Korea, has demonstrated shifting attitudes leaning in opposition against Pyongyang's continued aggravation of tension.

There was no end to the Korean War. After signing an armistice in 1953, both parties temporarily stopped fighting without declaring a winner. Supporting the South side was the US, whereas supporting the north side were China and Russia. For years after the Korean War armistice, China has been the main ally to North Korea and supplies more than 80% of North Korea's oil and other vital trade resources. Although the UN may agree to draft increasingly harsh sanctions on the North Korean regime, it is up to China to enforce these restrictions.

Yet recently with continued nuclear tests from North Korea, the global community has largely united in outrage against the rouge nation. Chinese government attitudes towards North Korea has soured, as the events serve to be an embarrassment to President Xi Jinping during global leader conferences such as the BRICS summit, which occurred hours after Pyongyang's most recent nuclear test of a bomb seven times as powerful as Hiroshima.

In this complex interplay of global events, China may be the only one left now with a true, direct ability to stifle the ambitions of the North Korean regime while incurring minimal civilian damages. The US could respond against North Korea with a pre-emptive strike, but doing so would likely invite retaliation from Pyongyang, which would bomb innocent civilians in Seoul, located only about 100 miles away. Yet the role of the Chinese government in this issue is nuanced as well; China would be very unhappy to see a collapse of the North Korean regime only to find a US ally right on its neighbor. As tensions continue to rise, instead of focusing only on US and North Korean inflammatory rhetoric, eyes around the globe ought to focus upon China as well, since China is the middleman that might be holding the keys to defusing of tensions.

Discussion Questions:
1. What should China prioritize- global security or national interests- in addressing the North Korean regime? What do you believe China will prioritize?
2. What can the United States do to advance its interests with respect to influencing Chinese government decisions?

Links:
China Grows Weary of Its Unruly Neighbor
Shift in China-North Korea Relations

Latest News (9/06) in the North Korean Missile Crisis: The US drafts a UN Resolution to freeze Kim-Jong-Un's assets

Citizens celebrating the latest nuclear test, according to the North Korean news agency

Main article:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41182541
Supplementary articles (for background info):
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-timeline---fast-facts/index.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-40871848

North Korea has been an independent, communist nation since beginning of the Cold War. They signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a treaty designed to drastically slow the development of nuclear weapons in nations, in 1985. However, North Korea had been secretly running a nuclear weapons program, violating the Non-Proliferation agreement they signed. After the Bush administration found out about this, North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Since then, North Korea has conducted numerous missile tests that have drawn the attention of many nations:US, China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia to name a few. Sanctions to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program have proven ineffective over the years, and now North Korea claims to have hydrogen bombs that can easily fit into long-range missiles. 

Though many believe that North Korea is simply developing nuclear weapons as a way to gain power, big nations in danger of an attack have taken the necessary safety measures. For instance, South Korea has developed Thaad (the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense), a missile defense system funded by the United States. Japan also has a similar defense system called "the Patriot missile system."

Despite the numerous sanctions that have failed to control North Korea, The United States proposed a list of new sanctions which will soon be looked over by the members of the United Nations security council. This resolution will ban oil exports to North Korea. Though Russia and China have recently become supportive of the sanctions against North Korea's nuclear program, they are still suppliers of oil to North Korea, so there is no guarantee that they will be supportive of this one. The sanctions will also ban textile exports from North Korea, severely weakening its economy. Furthermore, the sanctions will freeze Kim-Jong-Un's assets and ban him from traveling. US envoy Nikki Haley says "Enough is enough. We must now adopt the strongest possible measures." 

Discussion questions:
Was it smart for the United States to put together these sanctions despite its ineffectiveness over the last decade?
Do you think nations like Russia and China will approve of these sanctions?
Why do you think North Korea is keep trying to expand its nuclear program?

Putin Lends Aid to Maduro Leadership in the Midst of Venezuelan Economic Crisis

On Wednesday Putin announced that Russia would work to provide political and economic aid to Venezuela in order to keep President Maduro in power.

For the last few years Venezuela's economy has deteriorated rapidly, and President Maduro has autocratically unified his power over all branches of the once-democratic Venezuelan government. The legislative branch of the government, which was once controlled by the opposition party, was shut down months ago by Maduro's allies in the Supreme Court. Maduro even swayed a vote to rewrite the country's Constitution in order to give himself more autocratic, dictatorial power. In many ways, Venezuela's government once resembled that of the United States (legislative, executive, and judicial branches), but the lack of checks and balances and widespread corruption led to the degradation of this system with Maduro's ambition for power. As James Madison once warned in Federalist #51, "ambition must be made to counter ambition", or else episodes such as the current events in Venezuela might occur.

Putin's decision to offer support to the Maduro government shames President Trump, who recently threatened Venezuela's actions. It serves as a shame because it reminds the global observers that Trump's threat was merely empty words. Furthermore, lending support to the Maduro government is highly controversial considering how Maduro has been globally condemned. Putin's support comes at a cost, however. Putin is extracting oil resources from the country in return. Putin likely sees some sort of reward to come from establishing new footholds in America's backyard. Putin's motives of lending support to Maduro are inherently suspicious, considering how his intervention in the Syrian Civil War disrupted US plans of regime change there several years ago and were purportedly even helping to assist the Assad government. In light of this news, Russia could be blamed for yet again trying to meddle with US foreign goals and interests.

Also, ironically, maduro is Spanish for "mature". :)

Links to Articles:
Putin Lends Aid to Maduro
How Venezuelan Government Has Degraded

Discussion Questions:
1) What weaknesses do you believe existed in the Venezuelan government to allow for this downfall and degradation of democracy?
2) What do you believe are Putin's inner, anti-American, intentions in lending aid to President Maduro?

Are Obama's Immigration Orders Constitutional?

Perhaps because I support the policy goals, I agree with the legal reasoning explained by this conservative/libertarian law professor:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/09/04/the-case-for-daca/?utm_term=.3a7ea7800029

But then again:

Assad's De Facto Victory in The Syrian Civil War

link to article

Syrians rally for Assad | Source: New York Times

 Recently the Syrian Army under the control of Bashar al-Assad has lifted the siege of Syrian city Deir ez-Zor from opposing ISIS. ISIS has been declining for some time, and this is a major defeat for the caliphate. Once ISIS is out of the picture the Syrian Government will be able to move troops west to fight the NATO backed rebels. Unless a major power interferes directly, it is almost certain that Assad will end up triumphant in this struggle.

 Countries such as America that have supported the opposition rebels in the past are now being forced to adopt a more realistic view of a potential deal with Assad. The idea from the Obama administration that "Assad must go" is no longer a practical thing to demand. Now, America would be lucky to get any deal with Assad.

 The international community of rebel supporters is shrinking one by one, with Countries like Saudi Arabia and America diverting their efforts to things that they believe are more winnable. Even Turkey, a member of NATO is now moving siding with Iran, as they no longer see stopping Assad as doable. Their primary concern is to stop the Kurdish backed rebels that threaten both Iran and themselves.

 A victory for Assad would hold great significance, with NATO failing to bring their chosen side victory. While Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran, all backers of the Syrian government, have taken casualties, they are all ideologically stronger. It is likely that in the future they will be more willing to involve themselves in additional military conflicts.

Questions:
 How will this de facto victory alter the strategies of Russia, Hezbollah and Iran?
 Is this the beginning of a coalition against NATO's regime changes in the Middle East
 Will NATO move on to try to change a different regime?

Hurricane Irma strengthens; Florida and Puerto Rico prepare

Instagram | Mike Buresh

Since Hurricane Harvey hit Texas on August 25, the US Coast Guard has endeavored on countless of rescue missions in the area. However, now that Hurricane Irma is increasingly expected to hit parts of Florida, some Caribbean islands, and possibly even parts of the East Coast, some of the Coast Guard has relocated from Texas into Puerto Rico, Florida, and Georgia to prepare for the effects of the next natural disaster.

 Late Monday evening, Irma's winds increased to a maximum of 130 mph, making it a Category 4 hurricane (on the Saffir-Simpson Scale measured 1-5). The storm is expected to hit the US coast in around a week, and people in the predicted affected places are scrambling to prepare. Puerto Rico governor Ricardo Rosselló has declared a state of emergency and classes have been canceled on Tuesday; Puerto Rico may start experiencing the effects of the hurricane as early as Wednesday. Along with Puerto Rico, a series of other Caribbean islands, including some of the US Virgin Islands have been issued hurricane warnings, typically given 36 hours before the effects of hurricane first begin to appear.

Though the storm isn't expected to make it to the states until a few days after, Florida governor Rick Scott has also declared a state of emergency in all 67 counties of his state on Monday, claiming that the state cannot be too prepared. He urged families to prepare their disaster kits for when the hurricane is expected to turn north and hit Florida. President Trump has "offered the full resources of the federal government as Floridians prepare for Hurricane Irma."

Unfortunately, the hurricane is also under good conditions to continue strengthening, as it is moving with "warm sea surface temperatures and favorable upper-level winds." Florida is expected to receive the usual hazards: strong winds, heavy rain, and dangerous storm surges, which may be particularly dangerous this time, considering the amount of time Irma has spent over the water.  Irma began forming near the Cabo Verde Islands in east Atlantic (which has produced some of the most intense, devastating disasters), and has traveled across the ocean to hit on or near the US coast. With the predicted magnitude of this storm, states all along the east coast may have to worry about the effects of Irma.

Predicted routes
twitter | ryanmaue

Discussion Questions:
Should the United States issue more protection (like what Trump promised Florida) to Puerto Rico and its Virgin Islands?
Has the United States done as well as it can to prepare for and recover from natural disasters? If not, or if something can be improved, what should be done?

Source 1
Source 2

On DACA, President Trump Has No Easy Path

New York Times Article

President Trump is in a sticky situation due to the matter of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals(DACA), an Obama era executive immigration order implemented in June of 2012. The policy protects over 800,000 undocumented immigrants from being deported. Mr. Trump mentioned throughout his presidential campaign that he would scrap the program if elected for office, but now that he is in office he faces the difficult decision of ousting immigrants that were promised security under DACA due to a deadline by the courts. Legally, what is the best course of action for Mr. Trump to take? Will Mr. Trump change his mind on the issue? Should childhood arrivals be granted amnesty or a path to citizenship?

*UPDATE* Obama's Position

University of Utah Hospital changes protocol with law enforcement after nurse arrest

Handout | Reuters

A little over a month ago, a video of a nurse being dragged out of a hospital by policemen sparked national outrage. The video, recorded on July 26, documented an incident at the University of Utah Hospital when Alex Wubbels, the nurse, refused to let the police take a blood sample of a crash victim in a coma because it was against hospital policy. She showed them a printout of the rules, which stated that the police must have a judge's order or patients consent, none of which the police had. The police responded by arresting Wubbels anyway, claiming they did not want to harm the patient, and taking her into the police car for 20 minutes before releasing her.

On Monday September 4, the University of Utah hospital announced new reforms to its protocols regarding law enforcement. In order to prevent similar situations from happening again, law enforcement officers will have to work with hospital supervisors instead of the nurses, who can now focus on attending to their patients instead. The nurses and care staff will also no longer need to know the policies for dealing with officers.

In addition to the new policies, Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski and Salt Lake Police Chief Mike Brown have issued official apologies to Wubbel, who accepted the apology and is now looking forward to "help promote further civil dialogue and education." It seems as though the police were unaware of the hospital policy at the time of the incident, though the protocol had been drawn up and agreed on a year ago by both the University of Utah Hospital and the police force, but the police have assured that the officers are now familiar with the new policy in place. The arresting officer Detective Jeff Payne and one other officer are now on administrative leave.

Source 1 and Video
Source 2
Source 3

Fun Fact: Alex Wubbel is a two-time national alpine skiing champion. She competed in the 1998 and 2002 Winter Olympics.

Discussion Questions:
Is this yet another example of police misconduct?
What else can be done to make sure that these incidents don't happen again?

Congress Returns from Recess with a Long To-Do List

Sites like NBC and the New York Daily News have been covering the return of the congress from it's "summer vacation." Changes have already been made, but one opinion post argues that the most important job congress has right now is deciding on a spending bill. This brings up the topic of a border well again, though the editorial board of the Washington Post believes there is almost no way this will actually result in any sort of government shut down.

Instead of a government shut down, the Post argues Hurricane Harvey may actually have made the need for a spending bill even greater, and is the reason a government shut down isn't possible. Jason Silverstein from the New York Daily News has claimed that congress has the economy hanging in it's hands as a result of the tight deadline that has resulted from it's summer recess.

All of this leads back to the posts written in early August, before the recess. CNN covered the recess, explaining that it was tradition that almost didn't happen this year. Interestingly, ten republican senators asked to cancel the recess, supporting the opinion post in the Washington Post by describing five important aspects that congress needed to solve right away, "fixing health care, funding the government, dealing with the debt ceiling, passing a budget resolution and improving the tax code." Three of those five relate to our economy, thus making these last few days for the congress to come up with decisions incredibly important.

In terms of discussion, what do you believe would have been the right thing to do? Should senators have stayed and solved these major problems? Do you agree that the economy is the most important problem for congress to solve? What do you think is the right move for congress as they come closer and closer to a major deadline?

note: all links have more descriptive opinions on the importance of congress's decisions, and what they will be deciding.

Mattis warns of 'massive military response' to NK nuclear threat

Article 1
Article 2

Two major actions being considered by President Trump to deal with the increasing nuclear threat include the "many options" of "total annihilation" of North Korea, as well as stopping all trade with any country that has economic relations with North Korea.

Launching a preemptive nuclear attack on North Korea has many implications. First, it could provoke tensions with other countries in the area, such as China or Russia. The use of nuclear weapons so close to their borders could, worst case, initiate a nuclear response, or at the very least, incite backlash, possibly diplomatically or economically. North Korea will also be looking to return fire, and could launch counter strikes against the US or its allies in Asia (South Korea and Japan). There is also the issue of likely civilian casualties in North Korea, and the aftermath of destroying a nation's leadership. A post Kim Jong Un North Korea could be similar to a post Saddam Iraq, becoming unstable, and a base for terrorism. It could even become uninhabitable due to radioactive fallout (which may even affect nearby nations due to wind and water patterns).

Stopping trade has similar negative consequences. China, who is one of North Korea's main trade partners, is also America's largest trade partner, with total trade last year adding up to over $650 billion. Ending business with China and other countries would decrease American imports, driving prices of many goods up, as well as decreasing business efficiency. Even if China agrees to cut trade with North Korea in order to maintain trade with America, this may result in North Korea launching nuclear weapons in protest anyways.

What is the correct choice for the white house to pursue? Are there other options to consider?

Connection to class topics:
Does and should the president have the sole power to end trade and launch a nuclear strike? Since the constitution, the office of President has gained significant powers, especially in the area of foreign relations. New technology, such as the invention of nuclear weapons have given the President even more military power (he alone holds the responsibility of launching a nuclear attack). Congress has no check on this presidential power, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule it unconstitutional. Yet it does appear to be the best strategy. Having 435 Congressmen deliberate over the launching of a nuclear strike in a time of crisis and national defense may be too slow. Does this mean that the constitution is outdated? Does new technologies not anticipated by the Founders make the balance of power inefficient? Or should America retain its founding principles no matter what, as the benefits of balance outweigh certain strategies?

Hezbollah accuses the U.S. of putting lives at stake by hounding ISIS convoy

Al-Akhbar/Marwan Tahtah

As the war against IS (ISIS or ISIL) continues in Lebanon, both U.S. backed Lebanese forces and Hezbollah have stepped up to confront it. On Saturday August 16th, the Lebanese army launched their biggest military attack since Syrian rebels and extremists appeared in northeastern Lebanon, hoping to regain control of all their boundaries. Hezbollah, backing President Bashar al-Assad, also began an offensive on that Saturday, though both groups claim that they are not collaborating in any sort of way.

Though Hezbollah is technically an ally to the Lebanese coalition government, which the Lebanese army answers to, the Lebanese forces are wary of constructing relations with the Lebanon-based militia. The United States supports the Lebanese army with enormous military aid, including tanks, drones, and aircrafts. The U.S. has also trained a majority of the Lebanese troops, and turned the historically feeble army into an stronger force to be reckoned with. Hezbollah, on the other hand, is backed by Iran, and is considered a terrorist organization in the United States. With their sponsors holding hostile sentiments against one another, Hezbollah and the Lebanese army stand little chance for alliance and cooperation. For the Lebanese army and the United States, it is now essential that they put out a strong front and effective offensive. Otherwise, it would be the perfect opportunity for Hezbollah and Iran to emphasize their indispensability for the stability of the state. 

More recently, Hezbollah and the United States directly clashed heads on Saturday, September 2, when Hezbollah accused the United States of putting lives on stake by preventing the passage of 600 Islamic State fighters and their families from eastern Syria, near the Lebanese border, to western Syria, near the Iraqi border. 

This was a compromise drawn between Hezbollah and IS, which ended the week-long effort to eject Islamic State presence along the Syrian-Lebanese border. In the swap, Hezbollah would allow IS members evacuate from Lebanon (with no resistance) and relocate near Iraq in return for the bodies of captured Lebanese army soldiers, Hezbollah fighters and an Iranian military adviser. However, the United States, unhappy with this decision, took action to prevent the IS convoy from reaching its destination by bombing the route on which it traveled. United States warplanes have now been monitoring the status of the stranded convoy in Syrian-government-controlled territory, and bombing any Islamic State trucks that try and come to meet it for the past three days. 

Hezbollah claims that the actions taken by the United States have put women, children, the injured, and elderly at risk of dying because the convoy does not have access to food or water when American warplanes are bombing the aid coming from the Islamic State. However, the American military says it will not infer with any aid coming from the Syrian government (only interfering when IS tries to help), and claims that a supply delivery has already been made. The convoy itself will also remain unharmed, as there are civilians traveling in the group that they do not wish to harm. 

Both Iraq and the Lebanese government have reacted negatively to this decision made by Hezbollah. Though Hezbollah defends its decision by claiming that it will prevent the deaths of more combatants, some people in Lebanon are growing discontent over the authority that Hezbollah holds over the policies and proceedings of the state. Iraq is angry about the potential relocation of the IS fighters, already preparing an offensive of its own. 

My Opinion: I think the morality of the US stopping the convoy is a difficult situation to consider, as Hezbollah's negotiation with IS seems extremely promising for the US-backed Lebanon. Many Lebanese civilians were more than happy that the Islamic State was ejected from the Qalamoun region of their country after three years of being in control, showering the Lebanese army with flower petals and gifts when they returned on Wednesday. If the US continues to block the passage of IS members to the Iraqi border, the negotiation may be nullified and the fighting may return to Lebanon. However, some experts warn that this might be "Trojan Horse" move from Hezbollah, as the militant group gets almost all the credit for the victory (the Lebanese army was not involved in brokering the compromise). The increased popularity of Hezbollah is dangerous for the Lebanese state, and some government officials and opponents are worried about the cross-border control that Hezbollah now holds, as well as the potential for increased legitimacy and influence in the country. 

Unfortunately, I think that the United States is doing exactly as it should based on its foreign policies, though it may not be the most morally sound option. Because one of the US's top priorities is to support the Lebanese government, preventing the success of deal that would legitimize the threat of Hezbollah's authority is in the US's interests. The US has also been known to have a strict official policy against negotiating with terrorists (though the US has not been very diligent in following this rule, which is poorly worded and has wildly diverged from its original purpose anyway: source), and this is not just a negotiation with terrorists, but a negotiation between two groups that the United States considers as terrorists. Furthermore, because IS is a terrorist group, the United States would logically want to cripple their ranks as much as possible. The decision not to bomb the convoy is definitely a good one, as militaries are supposed to keep civilians out of cross fire as much as possible.

Even more unfortunately, I think the US has come to a standstill about what to do next. The military can't watch over the stranded IS buses forever, and since Assad and IS aren't exactly friendly, I'm not quite sure how often supplies will be delivered, nor how long the supplies will continue coming. When the food and water runs out (or apparently is already running out according to Hezbollah), the US will either have to let the convoy go on, turn them back to where they came from and risk IS retaliation in Lebanon as well as disproval from Lebanon, bomb them, let them starve, turn complete responsibility over to the Syrian government who are unlikely to treat them well, or another version of a horrible, unappealing option that should be morally unthinkable. 

Questions:

Do you think that the United States is doing the right thing by interrupting a compromise and preventing the passage of IS members from Lebanon to Iraq?

How will the actions of the United States affect the Lebanese people, given that the decision undermines the authority of the Lebanese government, but also ends the fighting and protects the lives of Lebanese soldiers?

Now that the convoy is stranded in the middle of the desert, what should the next move be? 

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

Map of IS Occupied Cities in Lebanon

Trump preparing withdrawal from South Korea trade deal, a move opposed by top aides

Article 1
Article 2

Is the "artist of the deal," President Trump, making some poor decisions on America's free trade policy?

One of the main effects of backing out of a free trade deal with South Korea is the economic impact on US consumers and corporations. South Korean companies supply a large amount of America's electronics and technologies imports, such as Samsung, Kia, etc. Tariffs placed on these products may benefit American manufacturers and workers to some extent by encouraging purchase of American goods, but will also drive product prices up; especially if Korea responds with tariffs, prices may skyrocket, putting everyone at a disadvantage. Trump's economic advisers have spoken out against ending the deal.

Another concern is the US - South Korea coalition against North Korea, and whether trade tensions could weaken the military effectiveness against a common enemy. Several of Trump's military advisers, including Secretary of Defense Mattis have spoken against ending the deal.

Can Trump's advisers convince him to maintain the deal, and how does his track record as President so far indicate his choice of action? What are your thoughts on Trump's decision? Is it helping him achieve his goals as President?

The Nuclear Deal is Working

Yukiya Amano of Japan, a UN official tracking Iran's Nuclear Program | The Guardian

Amidst all the horrible news concerning foreign affairs (thanks North Korea!), the UN has released a report that The Guardian, The New York Times, and the American Conservative have all covered with a positive air, except for slight nudge towards Trump.

Not only has Iran complied with the JCPOA, but the country has actually housed less of the substances that the agreement outlined. For example, the stockpile of heavy water is under the agreed amount, as is the uranium stockpile. This agreement was made in return for relief from harsh sanctions on the country.

As one who has a personal connection to Iran, I find the report to be a relief, and I agree with the American Conservative's claims that this report is "not surprising," followed by the New York Times mentioning that the findings are "unsurprising."

However, the report isn't all positive. All three sources have related the findings back to Trump. Trump has been putting pressure on the senate to withdraw from the agreement. He has even claimed that, had it been up to him, he would've found Iran "noncompliant" months ago.

This is quite concerning to me. How can one claim that a country that is abiding by preset rules is noncompliant? Despite this, Trump seems to be "checked and balanced" by not only the legislative branch on this matter, but even the five other major countries that are involved in this agreement.

Is it really right for the US to pull out of an agreement that Russia, Germany, England, France and China have all warned would result in isolation of the US on this subject? Does it make sense to investigate a matter of compliance? And finally, how does the system of the government checking itself play into this?

Boats carrying fleeing Rohingya sink in Bangladesh; 26 dead

Steve Gumaer/Creative Commons

On Thursday Aug. 31, 26 Rohingya women and children fleeing the violence in Myanmar were found dead in Bangladesh. Three boats carrying an unknown amount of Rohingya Muslim refugees sunk in the Naf River near Cox's Bazar, and the bodies of 15 children and 11 women were found.  They will be buried if no family or person claims them. The boats the refugees were "rickety inland fishing boats" according to a coast guard completely unsuited to the rough waters near the Bangladesh, indicating that the boats are used as close to a last resort.

The refugees are fleeing persecution in the predominantly Buddhist country where they are denied rights and citizenship. In 2012, tensions between the Rohingya Muslims and ethnic Rakhine Buddhists erupted into bloody riots and since then, there has been an anti-Muslim sentiment throughout the country. The last major assault before the most recent one was in 2016, when nine policemen died on border patrol. The government cracked down on the attacks, which spread allegations of rape, torture, and killing of Rohingya in Myanmar.

Last week, Rohingya insurgents (Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army) attacked a few dozen Rakhine police posts. The violence has prompted a response from the security forces, and over 100 people have died and 27,000 were forced to relocate from their home in northern Rakhine to the neighboring country Bangladesh. The Myanmar police are brutal, with satellite imagery from the Human Rights Watch showing them burning the homes of refugees and attacking any non-Buddhists with sticks, guns, and knives. Some Hindus and other Buddhists have fled the country as well after being attacked by Rakhine forces. Hundreds of people are currently stranded in no-man's land at the country's border.

Rohingya Refugee Map

Discussion Questions:
Should the United States intervene and help with this situation? Should the United Nations do more? How and why?
Are human rights laws being violated? If so, what consequences should the Burmese government (government of Myanmar) face?

Source 1
Source 2

US Expels Russian Diplomats in Response to the 755 Expelled Diplomats

As of Thursday, August 31, the Trump Administration has ordered for the Russian consulate in San Francisco to close, and for a reduced number of Russians in the D.C. embassy and the New York Russian consulate. This puts both country's in an equal state, for both Russia and the US have only three consulates in the other's country. However, this decision doesn't quite seem to be made for "equality", rather the decision seems like a retaliation of Putin's decision to expel 755 U.S. diplomats from Russia by September 1st.
If that isn't enough of a back and forth, Putin's decision is in response to both new sanctions against Russia, and Putin's claim that Russia will not "leave anything unanswered." Lauren Koran of CNN reports that these decisions have all resulted from last years election, and in a conversation between the US secretary of state and Russia's foreign minister, "Russia will study the order and respond to Washington."
In March of 2017, the US had administered an expulsion of 50 Russian diplomats, and five months ago, ABC news hinted that this may be a "return to the days of the cold war games," but what about now?
These tensions add pressure to the current state of affairs in North Korea, with discussions concerning the new sanctions. Does this increasingly sensitive relationship between Russia and the United States actually pose a threat to either government? Is the ABC news valid in it's claim that we may be returning to the days of the cold war?

note: all underlined words link to the articles used to construct this post
photo: US embassy in Russia