DOJ grows frustrated with tech firms over encryption

Link to article: www.cnn.com/2017/10/10/politics/doj-rosenstein-going-dark/index.html

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is frustrated because he claims criminals are able to hide many of their actions on their phone with special encryption software that is permitted by the phone makers. He claims that phone companies will not try to make their software "responsible" because they will only want safer and safer software due to competition. For this reason, he believes that courts should be allowed to view content in a criminal's phone on order through a "back door," which would also cause the phone to be more prone to hacking and breeching of content. Rosenstein believes that the way this issue was dealt when Apple had been called to court for not allowing the FBI into the phone of a San Bernardino shooter was very poor and time-wasting, even though the FBI eventually did gain access to the phone with a third-party software.

I believe that although many Americans would Rosenstein's ideas as unfair and inappropriate, looking through a criminal's phone after an intense crime is committed should be allowed, and there should be no reason for a phone company to want to stop this search. This would obviously require a search warrant, however, but making encryption software that is almost impossible to break through in any circumstance at all would indeed allow criminals to hide lots of information that could possibly lead to the catching of other criminals. Criminals should not be able to get away with covering for other criminals that may commit as horrible acts as they would themselves. This impermeable encryption software allows them to do so, and therefore should be prohibited. I know that this means that our privacy would have to be sacrificed a bit, but many of us don't even use this hi-tech encryption software ourselves, and we should be able to give up this little amount of privacy in order to protect ourselves and prevent future horrifying events. For these reasons, I believe Rosenstein is correct in that phone companies should let the justice system look through a criminal's phone without backlash or resistance.

What is your take on this issue; should encryption software be less unbreakable or not? How do you think Americans in general would react to Rosenstein's claims? What could possibly change in the future (ex. new law or new court decision) regarding this issue?

Man who was attacked is charged with felony

Deandre Harris being attacked by the protesters.

Links to articles:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-brutal-beating-of-black-man-by-white-supremacists-still-roils-charlottesville/2017/10/10/e5994132-a515-11e7-8cfe-d5b912fabc99_story.html?utm_term=.b49ff5cf50fd

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/us/deandre-harris-charlottesville-charged.html

On August 12th, Deandre Harris, a black counterprotester, was attacked by a group of six white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia. The attack came after a "Unite the Right" rally, when Klan members and Neo-Nazis confronted counterprotesters; the conflicts left even left one counterprotester dead. Harris was pummeled by a metal pipe and wooden boards, eventually suffering a spinal injury and a head laceration.

On Monday, October 9th, a local magistrate issued an arrest warrant for Deandre Harris on account of a felony. Charged with the same offenses as his attackers, Harris was labeled the instigator and was accused of wounding one of the men. Harris, an aide in special education classes, was forced to quit his job and move from Charlottesville due to fear. He plans to turn himself in to authorities soon.

Do you think Harris should be arrested? What do you think of this situation?

Trump's Move against Birth Control

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/06/health/trump-birth-control-mandate/index.html
                                       
  On Friday, October 6th, Health and Human Services officials announced a new rule: all businesses and organizations with religious or moral conflicts about birth control are no longer required to provide contraceptives in their health plans.Trump affirms this law, saying that it uphold's the country's value of religious freedom.

   Previously, Obamacare mandated that birth control must be covered with zero cost, and currently about 50 million women have access to no-cost birth control. In addition, studies have shown that 9 out of 10 women of reproductive age will use birth control in their lifetime.

    Thus, I believe that Trump's decision was poorly thought out. He did not consider that millions of women, and especially women in conservative states where there institutions tend to have more religious affiliations, will not only become subject to unwanted pregnancy, but also many women who use birth control for hormonal imbalances will suffer from his decision. As important as religious freedom is, it should not come at the cost of basic female health care, as this is essentially gender discrimination and thus violates both the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Furthermore, Trump's move seems hypocritical, as restricting access to contraceptives will inevitably lead to an increase in abortions, and his VP Mike Pence, among others in his cabinet, are vocal pro-life activists.

Should religious/morally opposed businesses and hospitals have the right to refuse providing contraceptives? How do you think this law will impact the nation as a whole? Do you believe Trump has the right to make decisions about women's bodies in the first place?

Trump's Wall is back

Dreamers protest against the recent policy changes.

Links to articles:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/08/us/politics/white-house-daca.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/dreamers-deal-must-include-building-mexico-wall-says-trump-3gkhdn698

A couple of weeks ago, the Trump administration ended the Obama administration's DACA, an immigration policy created to protect minors who entered the country illegally from deportation and provide them with work opportunities. These young individuals, known as Dreamers, are now in even more danger, as Trump has released all his demands for any deal regarding the Dreamers, including the construction of his wall, more immigration agents, and tougher laws.

Trump's effort to address the current immigration system leaves the Dreamers in an extremely vulnerable position. These young migrants usually enter the country illegally to escape poverty and violence back home, and by deporting them they are once again faced with the dangers. I think that we should find another solution for the illegal immigrants, as deportation seems to be an impractical and unnecessary action.

What do you think? What do you feel about the end of DACA and Trump's new demands? 

Trump Administration Continues to Deny Trans Rights

                                         
    This past Thursday, on October 5th, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Justice Department is repealing the Obama administration's workplace protections for transgender people. Sessions stated that although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited workplace discrimination between men and women, the law does not acknowledge gender identity. His memo instructed Justice Department to take up this position in "all pending and future matters."

   Unfortunately, this is not the only time the Trump administration failed to recognize the rights of the LGBTQ community. Despite being less than a year into his term, Trump has already passed numerous legislations that violate the civil liberties of LGBTQ members; in February, he revoked the Obama administration law that gave transgender students equal access to school facilities; in March, he revoked the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Act and removed the questions about sexuality and gender identity from the draft of the 2020 U.S. census. Oh, and Trump tweeted about outlawing transgender people from the military. Furthermore, Jeff Sessions himself consistently acts against not just the LGBTQ community but also women and minority groups by supporting a constitutional ban on gay marriage, opposing the re authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, and making numerous racist comments in the past (including calling a black attorney "boy" and joking that the only problem he had with the KKK was their drug use).

   By selecting Jeff Sessions, a man who clearly disregards the rights of anyone who isn't a straight cis white male, to become the Attorney General, is just astounding to me. Even after all the progress our society has made in terms of LGBTQ rights, culminating in the Obergeful v. Hodges case while Obama was still President, it seems like the Trump administration is set on undoing all of it. In my opinion, Sessions was deeply unjustified in removing transgender workplace protections. As with many conservative arguments, Sessions' only justification is that transgender rights aren't stated explicitly, but we all know that the Constitution also lacked many legal protections of civil liberties, and thus the federal government has been adding Amendments and making new laws since 1776 to address the Constitution's shortcomings. By oversimplifying the meaning of outdated documents, conservative leaders will always find some way to deny people their fundamental rights to safety and liberty.

   Do you believe Session's interpretation of the Civil Rights Act was correct? What are the advantages and disadvantages of adhering strictly to government policy? Do you think old policies should be reformed to accommodate for shifting societal views?

Link: http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/US-seeks-to-quash-lawsuit-opposing-transgender-12256205.php

Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-100-days-how-president-trump-has-impacted-lgbtq-rights-n750191

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-lgbt-rights_us_58346cd9e4b030997bc1524f

Trump says he directed Pence to walk out of game if 49ers protested during national anthem

This Sunday, October 8th, Vice-President Mike Pence attended the 49ers Colts game and promptly left after various players refused to stand and instead knelt for the national anthem, protesting America's wrongs such as police brutality. Antagonism between this protest and the Trump administration is nothing new, and even though he lacked the vehemence of Trump in the denouncing of this protest, he denounced it nonetheless, asserting kneeling during the national anthem disrespects the United States and the military that defends it, despite the fact these players have specific, cited reasons for kneeling.

Again, this topic was already re-brought to light by Trump's Alabama rally a few weeks ago, and has been discussed ad nauseam since then. On whether the players are heroes, traitors, or neither, everyone has already made up their mind. To me, Pence leaving in disgust as a result of players kneeling during the national anthem seems hyperbolic, like a pr stunt. Did Pence really expect that no players would kneel? In this pr stunt, it seems like the Trump administration is trying to make the NFL protests and the president's disapproval of them a relevant story again, possibly because of the fleeting marginal bump in the polls Trump received after his Alabama Rally. Maybe he's trying to distract from other issues maligning the administration, such as news involving his cabinet.

What do you think? Was this a pr stunt? Why or why not? What was its purpose?

Article link
Article link

Court blocks plans to expand coal mine

Bull Mountain coal mine as seen from above.

Bull Mountain coal mine as seen from inside.

Links to articles:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/montana-coal-mine-appeals-ruling-trigger-layoffs-50330339
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-climate-costs-20171004-story.html

With a recent ruling from the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, an expansion for the Bull Mountain coal mine in Montana was halted. In March, the Trump administration, who support this expansion plan, ordered federal officials to stop calculating any environmental costs that plans like these bring. Courts have finally begun to require an estimate of expenses to the climate before making any environmental decisions. This requirement gives time for officials to calculate the potential damage to the atmosphere and decide whether the economic benefits outweigh the global warming.

However, by blocking this project, there is a potential for several workers to lose their job at this coal mine. It is predicted that 30 workers will be laid off as a result of the halt to the expansion. Furthermore, mining officials claim that no additional damage will be done to the environment, as consumers will simply go to other sources of coal, not affecting the total global warming.

I believe that climate change and global warming is a significant issue that must be addressed now. Our environment needs to be protected, and by encouraging the public to use harmful energy sources, we hurt our environment and ourselves. The Trump administration is focused on economic improvements, but pays no attention to the heavy damage that decisions like these may bring. I think we need to evaluate whether the economic benefits are worth the environmental toils, and forcing estimates to be presented is a great way to do so.

What do you think? Should estimates of environmental costs be required for big decisions? Is the court justified in halting this expansion?

Police bodycam shows officer fatally shoot a man who ran. Prosecutors say it was justified.

This Friday, October 6th, Salt Lake City authorities have cleared Officer Clinton Fox in the fatal shooting of Patrick Harmon, a fifty year old African-american man. This event took place a few months ago, on August 13th, and the authorities made this decision based on the testimony of the three officers there and the footage from their three body cameras. All three officers testified that after he managed to break free(not literally) during the handcuffing process, Harmon started to run, and then turned back around to threaten Fox with a knife(a knife was found at the scene of the crime), and then Fox shot him.

A takeaway from this incident is the simple fact that body cameras are not an instant solution to the tensions felt surrounding police and their accountability. The footage is blurry and can be interpreted in different ways; it is hard to ascertain what truly happened, and the testimony of the officers present was still very weighty. I'm not trying to advocate against body cameras, but they are only part of the solution, not its entirety

Countless actions of the police have created this grotesquely prevalent image of a white officer gunning down a black man and facing no consequences for his actions, and this case certainly plays in to this narrative, but it can hardly be defined by solely by it. On one hand, the officers in this case had a legal reason for stopping and apprehending Harmon, erratic bicycle riding and warrants for aggravated assault, respectively, and it was not simply because he was black. On the other hand, one cannot look at this footage and be unilaterally convinced beyond doubt that Fox's force was necessary, nor can they dispel the specter of race. The basic right to life not being taken away without due process of law is protected by the fourth amendment, and there are many who feel, due to incidents like this one, that this law is being circumvented by police, whether in an individual or systemic matter.

This revolving debate is predicated around the justness of police officers' actions, so what do you think? Did Fox act justly? Did he act reasonably? Why? What more can be done to better relations with people and the police? How?

Article Link

The House passes budget blueprint and they are taking steps to a tax overhaul

Link to article 1 

    Link to article 2 

Link to article 3 

On Thursday the House had passed a tax overhaul with a vote 219 to 206.The blueprint for a tax budget plan will overhaul the tax code which hasn't been done since Reagan was president(New York Times). As of right now the President and the Republican in Congress need to discuss the contents of the new reform.

This tax overhaul would allow for the approval of a tax bill with only 51 votes instead of the 60 votes that would usually be needed in the Senate. According to the Chicago Tribune this bill includes a 5 trillion dollar in spending cut, and a promise to cut Medicaid by about 1 trillion dollars over ten years. The Republican party is saying that this reform will increase economic growth by about 3 percent and will add new tax revenues. 

As of right now there are huge debates between Democrats and Republicans. Bernie has been quoted saying "In order to pay for these huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, this Republican budget makes savage cuts to the life and death programs that mean so much to ordinary Americans". Democrats argue that in order to fund for the tax cuts for the wealthy, the new tax reform will cut funding for programs such as Medicare. Republicans such as Diane Black is hugely supportive of this new tax reforming saying "through reconciliation, our budget specifically paves the way for pro-growth tax reform that will reduce taxes for middle-class Americans and free up American businesses to grow and hire,". Many Republicans consider these tax cuts as necessary because the national debt continues to grow and without cuts in spending it would be hard to cut the deficit. What are your thoughts?

New Session of Sessions v. Dimaya

People wait in front of the Supreme Court for the Sessions v. Dimaya case.

Links to articles:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-supreme-court-deport-burglars-20170117-story.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/2/supreme-court-begins-new-session-with-james-garcia/
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-scotus-immigrants-20171005-story.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lynch-v-dimaya/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/15-1498

Earlier this year, native Filipino James Garcia Dimaya was caught for two different accounts of burglary, and his actions had potential to have him deported. By law, non citizens charged with “aggravated felonies” are subject to deportation, and Dimaya, a permanent resident, was subject to this law. While unclear, “aggravated felonies” was expanded to incorporate any “crimes of violence,” and it was uncertain whether the home burglaries could potentially result in any physical violence.

Splits in lower courts prompted this issue to move to higher courts, and in January, this case was taken to the Supreme Court, but due to the presence of only eight justices, the case was deadlocked. With the addition of Justice Gorsuch, however, the Supreme Court decided to reopen the Sessions v. Dimaya case this Monday. With a new Justice on the panel and a rehearing, the court seeks to solidify a decision and set precedent for future immigration and deportation cases.

I feel that Dimaya, a native of the country and a permanent resident, should be treated more like a citizen and the potential for deportation should be lessened. Immigrants should receive fair treatment from the law and the vagueness of the law should not leave one subject to any punishment they don’t deserve. Furthermore, while his burglaries are actions that require punishment, the potential physical threat is low, and should therefore not be treated as an “aggravated felony.”

What do you think about this? Should Dimaya be subject to deportation or not? Why?

Experts are turning to an app to help predict suicide in teens.

Link to Article

Prediction of teen suicide is a complicated task. According to the Washington Post, suicides in teens or teen girls in particular have been on the rise. As technology advances our devices could be more effective at predicting suicide than physicians.

The Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center is now testing a new app which is supposed to recognize whether someone is going to commit suicide. Chris Danforth of University of Vermont says that having a physical check upon you for 30 minutes a few times a year is less effective than a device which is constantly apart of our lives. The app uses algorithms and using the algorithm it can measure how likely someone going to take their life. This new app is called Spreading Activation Mobile or SAM for short. As of right now this app is claimed to be able to predict suicide within a week with about 90% accuracy.

This technology will certainly be useful to those who are facing issues with suicide, however, I question its application.  This app is more useful for those who want to help suicidal teens then to the teens themselves, therefore, the best application would be the one that tests all depressed teens not just teens seeking help(probably a violation of privacy). I am not so sure how they are going to make the most of this app but it is one that could potentially save lives. What are your thoughts?

In wake of Las Vegas shootings, no plans to bring gun silencer bill to House floor, Ryan says

article link




As of Tuesday, the House of Representatives will postpone their vote on a bill increasing the ease of buying silencers in wake of the tragedy in Las Vegas. Currently, buying a silencer requires extensive background checks and a specialized permit. This new law would reduce this to the federal background required for the purchase of handguns. While the voting on this bill has been postponed, congressional republicans have shown no inclination that they will not vote in favor of this bill.

Many Democrats are coming out fervently against this bill, obviously citing the gun massacre in Las Vegas as further evidence of a need for tighter gun restrictions, not looser ones. Republicans remain staunch in their sentiment that guns are not the cause and remain integral to the freedom and safety of America.

I personally feel that we cannot address the gun violence in our nation without some semblance of gun control. I am willing to concede that other factors such as mental health are involved in these acts of violence, but I still feel the ease of purchasing and obtaining guns remains the largest obstacle in solving this problem, and that making it easier to buy silencers is going in the wrong direction.

What do you think? Should this law increasing the ease of purchasing silencers be passed? Does America need tighter gun laws, or is that the wrong method of solving this problem? Why?

Supreme Court eyes Partisan Gerrymandering

Caption: Justice Anthony Kennedy is seen as a potential swing vote in this issue

Starting this Tuesday, the Supreme Court was presented with and is debating Partisan Gerrymandering. More specifically, the Court is debating on whether or not to invalidate a redistricting plan passed by Wisconsin's state legislature. For those who do not know, Gerrymandering is the diving of voting districts in an ultimately unrepresentative, biased way. There have been many accusations of Republican gerrymandering from the Democrats, and many think it necessary the Supreme Court get involved to prevent this blatant inequality. In Wisconsin specifically, there have been cases in which republicans won 48% of the popular vote but 60% of the districts/seats.

As of now, conservative judges have a majority in the Supreme Court, and Gorsuch, a conservative appointed by Trump had the sentiment that redistricting is an issue for the states, and that the federal government would be overreaching its authority in an attempt to regulate it, saying "Where exactly do we get authority to revise state legislative lines?" However, Conservative Justice Kennedy is seen as a potential swing vote due to his statement after a ruling which the court did not strike down a congressional redistricting, in which he noted the court would still be able to help reduce gerrymandering in egregious cases. I think that this issue is topical in that it surrounds the right to vote and how that right can be deceptively taken away or reduced, in spite of the protections such as Voting Rights Act and the 24th amendment.

What do you think? Is gerrymandering an issue threatening our democracy, a hyperbolic leftist complaint, or somewhere in between? How do you think the Court will vote? How should it vote?

Article

Link

With the Supreme Court at Full Strength, It Is Going to Be a Momentous Term

Link to Article 1
Link to Article 2
Link to Article 3

On Monday, the Supreme Court's new term has started and since this is Justice Gorsuch's first full term there is going some very significant cases that the Supreme Court has to decide on. They will be deciding on issues such as the travel ban, political gerrymandering and the one involving the Baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Last year the Supreme Court was cautious on taking important cases prior to the nomination of Gorsuch. The National Review had said the "prospect of 4-4 splits [prevented] decision in the most difficult and contentious cases". In this new term the court is going to take some cases that they were careful on taking the last term.  I am not too familiar with Gorsuch but from what I've heard, he is a conservative voter which is a big deal since now decisions are less likely to be splits. However, based on what I have read from ABC news I can assume that Gorsuch is actually against Judicial activism. He strongly supports the limiting of judicial role which advocated for what the law demands. What are your thoughts?

Should Schools Kick Students Off Sports Teams for Protesting the National Anthem?

Link to article 

On Friday Cedric Ingram-Lewis and Larry McCullough had decided to protes against the National Anthem.During the National Anthem at one of their games, Cedric had raised a fist in the air, while Larry had got down to a knee. According to the coach, Ronnie Mitchem, the students had known that if they had protested the National Anthem that they would receive the punishment of getting kicked off the team. As a matter of fact the Coach had let his players before hand know that if they will protest, they will receive that punishment.

Although the coach supports the right to protest he had found that the actions of the teens were disrespectful to those who had served in military service, however , these teens were following in the footsteps of Colin Kaepernick. And the intent of Kaepernick was to protest racism and police brutality. What are your thoughts?Do you think these kids deserved being kicked off the team? 

58 Killed in Las Vegas Shooting

Article Link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-shooting.html



Stephen Paddock pictured above


Stephen Paddock, 64, was identified as the shooter in the Las Vegas Hotel. This is considered as one of the deadliest mass shootings in the history of America, leaving at least 58 dead, and injuring more than 100 others.

Jason Aldean was performing a 3 day concert in Las Vegas, where the sound of hundreds of bullets scared the crowed.

Police found Paddock dead in his hotel room. On Monday, officers will start looking more into his background and searching his home. The authorities found two rifles near the window of his hotel room. So far the FBI has not found any evidence leading him to any terrorist group.

The evidence the FBI has found hasn't linked Paddock to any criminal history. Benjamin Paddock, Stephens father, actually had a criminal history. Benjamin Paddock had been a bank robber, and had escaped from prison, landing him on the FBI's top 10 wanted list.

Eric Paddock, Stephens brother, was completely shocked to hear the news about his brother. He said he would have never guessed his brother to even own guns.

Thoughts?

At Least 50 Dead in Las Vegas Mass Shooting

Image URL: https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_40/2175121/171002-las-vegas-shooting-run-njs-1127a_f22aa7992c16a109d758bb28b392566f.nbcnews-fp-480-320.jpg


On Sunday night, a heavily-armed gunman opened fire on an outdoor country music festival from a hotel room in Las Vegas, Nevada. At least 58 people were killed, and over 500 were injured in the attack. The gunman was using an automatic weapon and spraying the crowd with bullets from above. Two policemen were killed and the gunman was found dead in his hotel room. He has been identified as 64-year-old, Stephen Paddock, but his motives are unknown so far. Paddock's brother, Eric, was interviewed shortly after the event and told officials that his brother had no history with guns at all, but he was a gambler. 

Even though I believe that there can be no plausible explanations or reasoning for why someone would commit such a heinous act, the fact that he has no history with guns and he's a gambler makes me think that he might've been very depressed and may have had a few rough nights at the poker table which spurred his decision.

This is an example of an inevitable loophole in gun rights. Paddock had only one traffic violation in his criminal record, and he had no violent history, so he was able to purchase automatic weapons legally. Even if he didn't purchase them from a certified gun-selling business, this shows how the background safety checks for gun-owners are inherently flawed because they don't account for a person's psychological state.

What can be done to fix this loophole in gun laws?
How do you think the Nevada government, as well as the federal government will respond to this attack? What should they do to prevent incidents like this from happening in the future?

Article Links:
Link
Link
Link

Possible Terrorism In Canada As Officer Stabbed And Pedestrians Struck

Link to article

In Edmonton, Alberta, a 30-year-old Canadian is in custody after a police officer was hit by a car then "viciously stabbed" and hours later four pedestrians were "deliberately struck" by a fleeing U-Haul truck on Saturday night. The police found an ISIS flag on the front seat of the U-Haul truck. Although the police believe that the man committed the crime alone, the police department still put out a statement, urging everyone "to be vigilant and aware of their surroundings."

ISIS is one of the world's most infamous terrorist organization, and they are known to have many supporters outside of their Middle East territory. In 2014, ISIS has gained a territory about the size of Great Britain, with the population of 11 million people. However, as of 2017, ISIS has lost approximately 60% of their land, with their population cut down to 2.5 million. Therefore, in my opinion, if ISIS is struggling in the Middle East, is it unlikely that they will have the resources to initiate an attack in another country. 

What do you guys think? Do you think this might be another terrorist attack from ISIS to gather the world's attention? How should the Canadian government better improve their security system to prevent another attack like this?

Trump Says Tillerson Is 'Wasting His Time' On Talks With North Korea

Link to article

President Trump recently tweeted "I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man" and "Save your energy Rex, we'll do what has to be done," after Tillerson told reporters that the U.S. has been engaged in diplomatic talks with Pyongyang. From the tweets, it looks like Trump is suggesting that the U.S. is willing to use military force on the North Korean regime.

What do you guys think? If the U.S. initiates the attack on North Korea, what do you think China, the regime's most powerful ally will do about it? If the U.S. does successfully overthrow the North Korean regime, what do you think will happen to the North Korean government and its people?

With String of Tweets, Trump Blames Puerto Rican Mayor of 'Poor Leadership' During Storm Reponse

Image URL

Hurricane Maria left Puerto Rico in tatters, without electricity, or food. San Juan, Puerto Rico's capital, was severely affected by the hurricane's devastation. The San Juan mayor, Carmen Yulín Cruz, recently spoke to media about the US response to the natural disaster affecting the island, which is an American territory. She said that the response was delayed and the responders lacked sufficient and proper equipment to deal with the aftermath of the storm. Trump then responded in a string of tweets, blaming the mayor of "poor leadership" of her city, as well as saying that the Puerto Ricans were relying too heavily on the federal government to deal with the situation, saying it "should be a community effort." 

Personally, I think the Trump Administration handled Hurricane Irma and Harvey quite well, making sure that people were evacuated and away from danger as well as getting first responders into the affected areas quickly rescuing trapped people. However, it seems like the Administration didn't put too much thought into Hurricane Maria because they knew it wouldn't hit the mainland, even though Puerto Rico is an American territory, and they are US citizens. I believe that Trump's response to this call for help by Puerto Rico was a very bad mistake, especially since he tweeted it from the safety of a golf course. It seems like he doesn't really care about it that much, and that is the wrong way to treat fellow Americans in dire need.

Thoughts?

Article Link 1

Article Link 2

Is Satanism a Real Religion?

Photo shown on Fox News Channel

Photo from Thumbnail on Youtube

Tucker Carlson, the host of Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News, calls out the founder of the Satanic Temple, Lucien Greaves, by saying that he's "a troll" for his belief in Satanism. Carlson then accuses Greaves that he has his Satanic beliefs because of his "unhappy childhood". The Satanic Temple wants Christian bakers to make "cakes for Satan". Carlson claims that the Satanic Temple is forcing the bakers to make their cakes and violating the bakers' beliefs. Lucien replies that religion is a protected class, and sexual orientation isn't one. Greaves uses the example that a gay hairdresser shouldn't have to do a evangelical theocrat's hair that refused to serve him a cake. Greaves claims it's the same scenario as the christian baker refusing to make their cake. 

*Click the link to watch the 4 minute video of their conversation*

Questions:

1. Do you think it is okay for Carlson to bash on someone's religion on TV?

2. Is it a violation of one's rights to refuse services because of their beliefs/religion? (the Christian bakers refusing to make the cakes for the Satanic Temple)

3. If you had to make a cake that supports something that you didn't believe in, would you still make it? Why or why not?

Fox News Video/Article

Tom Price resigns after plane scandal

Friday morning US health secretary, Tom Price, resigned. He was previously involved in a plane scandal in which he took advantage of the private jets that were for business and political trips. Price may have cost taxpayers around $400,000. Price faced major scrutiny for this scandal and President Trump let it be known that this sort of behavior was not acceptable and was outraged. Price has made several public apologies but has still received hate and backlash for his actions. All the intense heat Price has felt seemed to have gotten to him because now we see him resigning due to the scandal.

When president Trump first took office he vowed to keep a clean cabinet with little drama. That seems like the opposite with a scandal about the Trump Administration in the news every week.

bbc post
cnn post

US considers lifting protection for grizzly bears

Link: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/montana/articles/2017-09-29/us-considers-ending-protections-for-northwest-montana-bears

Aug 3, 2014 file photo of a grizzly in Montana's Glacier National Park

The U.S. government is considering lifting protections for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area, as well for as bruins in the Northwestern area of Montana- home to the largest group of grizzly bears in the country. 

The grizzly bears were granted threatened species protection in 1975 due to the hunters and trappers who were exterminating them. In the recent years, under this protection, the grizzly bears have thrived and made a dramatic comeback in areas such as Yellowstone and Glacier National Park. The population of grizzly bears has more than doubled since 1993. 

Lifting federal protection of these animals would legalize hunting and many worry that the bears' recovery will take a nosedive without the federal protection like it had in the 1900s. 

This case reminds me of the video clip that we watched in our Federalism Unit called the "Wolves at the door," in which the federal government passed the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and placed gray wolves in the state of Idaho. However, Idaho rejected the wolves and argued that this was a federal abuse of power since they believed the people should be able to decide which animals are allowed in their state. The federal government wouldn't budge as long as the wolves were endangered. 

I believe likewise, this decision to either lift the protection or not, is entirely up to the federal government and since these grizzly bears are no longer considered an endangered species in these areas, it is looking like protections will be lifted sooner than later. 

What do you guys think? Should the government lift the protection on grizzly bears and allow for the hunting of these animals again? 

And do you think that this decision should be solely made by the federal government or by the state of Montana as well? 

Mother Goes to Germany While Leaving Kids Behind

Article Link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/09/29/a-mother-went-on-an-11-day-european-vacation-and-left-her-young-children-alone-at-home/?utm_term=.2e31292667f6

Erin Macke pictured above

Erin Lee Macke, an Iowa resident, decided to leave to Europe on September 20th, and return October 1st. Authorities requested Macke to come back much sooner than the 11 days she had originally planned.

Police were shocked to hear that a mother left the country for vacation, and willing fully left her four children behind without any type of guardian to watch her children. Police hear about parents leaving down, or going out for the night, but never leaving the country. Police went to conduct a Welfare check from Macke's home in Iowa when they found her four children home alone. Her children told authorities their mother had gone to vacation, leading authorities to contact child protective services.

Police arrested Macke Sept 28th for child endangerment. Macke's children range from the age 6-12.  Macke's has been found guilty of four counts of child endangerment. Make has also been charged with allowing a minor to posses a firearm.

Macke has been left with a $9,000 dollar bond. 

Personally I believe Macke should lose custody of her children for leaving her children under 13 without any type of child care service as well as giving them possession of a weapon. I don't think parents should be this careless with their children.

Possible discussion questions:

Should Macke's bond be higher?

Should Macke lose custody of her children?

Should there be higher charges for parents who aren't taking care of their kids?

Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner registered to vote as a woman

Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41423077

Photograph by Reuters

It is claimed that Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior advisor, has been registered to vote as a woman for 8 years now. Kushner's gender has been listed as "female" in the records held by the New York State Board of Elections. 

Although Kushner says that his team had sent in the form with the mistake on it, it is still unclear how this mistake was made, but most believe that the mistake is unlikely to be a case of voter fraud due to his political involvement.

The latest news surrounding Jared and his wife Ivanka is their use of a private email server to carry out any official White House Business. This has been a topic of controversy because during the 2016 elections, Hillary Clinton was under fire for using a private email server and now Democrats are calling them out as hypocrites. 

I honestly don't think that Jared Kushner purposely registered to vote as a woman, although it is confusing since he states he has a "team" to help work on his forms, so this should've technically decreased the chance of a mistake like this happening, but I can't think of anything that Kushner would have to gain by purposely making this mistake. 

What do you guys think? Is this simply a mistake made on Kushner's side? Additionally, what are your thoughts on Trump's administration using a private email server? Should this be allowed? 

University of California Sues Trump Administration

Article Link:
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/bay_area/university-of-california-files-suit-over-trump-immigrant-decision/article_c3b1969e-9509-11e7-b9f7-df9b9db488b2.html

UCLA students standing up for undocumented citizens.














On Sept 8, 2017 the University of California system sued the Trump administration over decision to end DACA. University President, Janet Napolitano, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed against Donald Trump filed in the federal court of San Francisco. Napolitano was a secretary for the homeland security in the Obama administration, as well as helped implement DACA.

Napolitano believes it's important for the University of California system to stand up for their undocumented students and staff members. To her, the Dreamers "represent the best of who we are - hardworking, resilient, and motivated achievers." She believes the dreamers not only benefit the UC schools, but the country as a whole. She also is a strong believer that the removal of DACA is unlawful, and goes against national values.

The lawsuit states that due to the removal of DACA, the university system will lose lots of students and employees. The UC system has about 4,000 DACA students, as well as teachers, health care providers, and researchers. Over fifteen states have sued over Trumps decision.

Napolitano said the lawsuit could pursue the damages for interference with student-teacher relations, as well as interference with investment for students to attend the school.

Thoughts over the University of California suing Trumps decision?

NYC School Stabbing

Photo taken by Thomas E. Gaston from NY Post

Photo taken by Thomas E. Gaston from NY Post

On September 27, 2018, a classmate, Abel Cedeno (18), stabbed two other students. Matthew McCree (15), and Ariane LaBoy (16). A witness states that Cedeno was hit by a pencil which was thrown by McCree. The witness stated that McCree claimed that it was an accident. Cedeno then pulled out his switchblade and stabbed McCree. After Cedeno stabbed McCree, LaBoy stepped up, and Cedeno stabbed him too. 

Questions:

1. If Cedeno claims his "right to bear arms" and his right to protection, do you think his punishment would be less harsh?

2. Do you think the school needs to have stricter safety precautions to prevent another incident like this? If so, provide examples. Would the precautions violate their right to privacy?

NY Post Article

Trump claims that he may sign executive order on health care next week

Article Link: http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/trump-executive-order-health-care/index.html

Donald Trump in the Oval Office (Image via Wikimedia Commons)

A day after Congress's failure in their "last-ditch" attempt to repeal Obamacare, Trump has announced that he could soon sign an executive order on health care. Specifically, he said that "[he'll] probably be signing a very major executive order where people can go out, cross state lines, do lots of things and buy their own health care, and that will be probably signed next week." 

This statement comes in the midsts of Trump's frustration with the failure of the Graham-Cassidy healthcare bill, which is now causing the president to support new insurance reforms being proposed by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. When commenting on Trump's desire to use executive action to pass these reforms, Senator Paul stated that he believes that "President Trump can legalize on his own the ability of individuals to join a group or health association across state lines to buy insurance."

These new policies would include letting insurers sell their policies across state lines, which in concept is supported by many Republicans but opposed by many insurers, state regulators, and consumer advocates. Essentially, this idea would allow insurers to sell policies in multiple states while only having to meet regulations in their home state; with this, an insurer from a "lightly-regulated" state with policies that offer less benefits and lower premiums could sell their policies in a "highly-regulated" state with higher premiums, resulting in greater profit. Supporters of this policy argue that this would promote competition amongst insurers, but opposers of this idea point out that it would cause the market to split between those who would be forced to remain on more restrictive, comprehensive insurance policies and those who could afford to "skinnier" plans. 

Either way, there is no certainty that Trump would be able to change these insurance policies through executive action, as according to federal law, health insurance is regulated on a state level. This being said, I believe that the piece of news covered in this article is closely related to multiple facets of federalism, which is a topic that we have spent a lot of time on in class. The fact that states have the power to regulate these insurance rules is a product of federalism, as although the national government has the power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, they clearly share some of this power with the states, or just delegate this specific power as a reserved power for the states. It will be interesting to see how this situation unfolds, because since the power to regulate these proposed insurance policies is a state power, there is constitutionally not much of anything that Trump can do. 

Any thoughts?

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg rejects Trump bias claims

Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41423082

Getty Images: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

 "Trump says Facebook is against him. Liberals say we helped Trump"  -Mark Zuckerberg

Recently, President Trump has made claims on Twitter that Facebook, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post are "Anti-Trump."

In response to Trump's statement, Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted that Facebook is working to make a "platform for all ideas." He stated that both sides of the political spectrum were upset with him and his website for allowing content that they disliked and that liberals accused him of allowing fake news to enable Trump's victory. 

Facebook is facing investigation over its influence over the 2016 elections. Just last week, Facebook announced that it will hand over information to Congress about 3,000 advertisements on Facebook that were sold to Russian-linked accounts and contained "problematic advertisements" during and after the 2016 Presidential election.

I honestly do not think that any actions should be held against these "problematic ads." I believe that like we all are guaranteed our rights for freedom of speech, advertisements are just a way to express our views and thus should be protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. I guess this line becomes blurred when dealing with false and deceptive advertisements, however, I believe that since the purpose of ads are to try to persuade you of something, we as consumers and viewers should be able to detect and be dubious of these ads. 

What do you guys think about Trump's accusation and Zuckerberg's response? Do you think that Facebook has favored one side versus the other or are Trump's accusations false? 

Furthermore, what do you think Congress will do with the information about the people who posted these "problematic advertisements" during the election period? What actions do you think Congress should take if any at all? 

The Repeal of Obamacare Has Failed

Article Link:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/obamacare-repeal-failed-some-damage-already-done-n804956

Republicans disagreeing with Trumps attempt to remove Obama care

Obama Care profits have been improving, but many people are avoiding being on it due to the last eight months, there has been several attempts to repeal Obama care by the Trump administration.

The Health Insurance has had to warn customers about their possible price increase, or being unable to offer any type of plan. The insurers are unsure about the future of Obama Care, making providing health care difficult due to all the uncertainty there is now. The Congressional Budget has said that the price of Obama care will increase 15% because of all the confusion this year has brought to the insurance.

Republicans have many options, one is to make a new repeal plan for 2018 into the bill slated tax form, but that might be too difficult for them. An option Senator John McCain is considering is to come to a truce the repeal act, or to make Obama care function in a more effective way. As soon as sen. Lindsey Grahm spoke out about McCain's proposals, she quickly shut the idea down that there was no way they would keep Obama Care and make it more effective.

Questions for discussion:
1) Is Obama care helpful or not?
2) Do you agree repealing Obama care would be the best decision?
3) What should be proposed?

Twitter to Test 280 Character Limit

Link: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-character-limit/twitter-to-test-280-character-tweets-busting-old-limit-idUSKCN1C132A

Twitter is well known for its 140 character limit for writing tweets.  But, Twitter has seen big losses recently; in the second quarter they had a reported loss of $160 million and didn’t seen any growth in users. Twitter’s idea is that by increasing the character limit it will make it easier for people to express their thoughts because some people complain about how hard it is to fit their thoughts in a mere 140 characters, and Twitter’s thought is that if the site is easier to use, then more people will use it. Twitter will assign random users the ability to use 280 characters for an unspecified number of weeks to test the theory.