Trump drug czar nominee accused of hindering opioid crackdown

Article

Trump’s newly appointed drug czar Tom Marino has been accused of failing to enforce new opioid laws. While nothing has been confirmed, these accusations are certainly troubling and need to be looked into. According to the article, he “pushed a bill that reportedly stripped a government agency of the ability to freeze suspicious painkiller shipments.” Many people believe that Marino seems to be more inclined to help companies rather than fulfill his job.

Opioid addiction has been cited as America’s biggest health crisis in recent years. Heroin, morphine, and other painkillers are opioid products, and some of the most dangerous drugs in our country.

When asked about the allegations against Marino, Trump responded, “He’s a great guy. I did see the report. We’re gonna look into the report.”

In addition, it seems to be that corrupt businesses and companies have discouraged the crackdown on recreational drugs, something that is troubling to the United States.

Trump appointed Marino to be the drug czar, but he has been accused of going against what he was entrusted to do in his job. Does this reflect badly on Trump?

How should the government handle corrupt companies and officials?

Trump Falsely Claims Obama Didn't Contact Families of Fallen Troops

In a joint news conference with Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, President Trump was asked a question regarding his lack of response to the death of the four soldiers in an ambush in Niger last week. Instead of answering the question, however, he described how he had personally reached out to the families through letters and assured that he was planning to make calls, all while comparing himself to former presidents, especially Obama, claiming that "A lot of them didn't make calls. I like to call when it's appropriate."

However, Trump did not consider the fact that Obama had held hundreds of meetings with the families of fallen soldiers throughout his two terms as president. Although Obama has declined to make a comment, this lack of acknowledgement has been noticed and criticized by many of Obama's former advisers on Twitter, including his former national security adviser who called out Trump's feud with the parents of fallen soldier Humayun Khan last year. 

When the President was later asked a follow-up question about his response regarding Obama, he seemed to take a lighter note with his opinion by claiming that he was unsure whether or not he did or did not make the calls. "President Obama, I think, probably did [reach out to families] sometimes and maybe sometimes he didn't. That's what I was told. All I can do is ask my generals."

I personally believe that it was unprofessional of Trump to try and switch up the question as a means of putting the blame on somebody else. I don't think anybody should point the finger at someone else for not giving condolences to a fallen soldier's family, especially if accusation was false.

What is your opinion on this situation? Do you think that Trump purposely made this "claim" up in order to call out Obama or was it actually a fact that Trump flat out did not know?

NY Times Article

Ireland and Britain Brace for Unusual European Hurricane

NY Times Article

Hurricane Ophelia is headed toward Ireland and Britain. Although it started off as a Category 1, it quickly became a Category 3, breaking the record for the easternmost category 3 hurricane in history. However, it’s growing strength adds to the urgency for Britain and Ireland to prepare. While Ophelia is of a lower category than some of the other hurricanes we have suffered this season, it will still bring unusual forceful winds and rain for these countries. Both countries must prepare for the oncoming destruction.

There has been an unusual amount of hurricanes this season, and Ophelia is one of the strangest. Do you think this is a coincidence, or a sign of climate change?

What do you think political leaders could do to further help their citizens after natural disasters? How could we better prepare?

Venezuelans Vote Peacefully, if Not Hopefully

Article

On Sunday, Venezuelans voted for the governors of their country’s states. While Venezuela has been plagued by recent violence, and its citizens doubt that their vote will even make a difference, some citizens still participated in the recent election. However, there are some conspiracies that the government is trying to deter Venezuelans from either voting for a candidate they don’t want, or to keep them from voting altogether. Nicolas Madura, president of Venezuela, has been accused of running a dictatorship, a statement he strongly refutes. He cites elections as proof that he is not a dictator, but many Venezuelans believe otherwise, as evident by the government’s hesitance to help people vote.

The turnout for this past election was much lower compared to others in the past. Many believe this is because Venezuelans are losing hope and trust in their government. Some citizens urge others to show opposition--else let the government continue its tyranny.

Many Venezuelans believe that there is no point in voting, because their government is just going to do what it wants anyway. I think this is a very sad perspective to have, and obviously a less than ideal situation. It is my opinion that a government should listen to and respect its citizens in order to prevent injustice.

Some Venezuelans believe the only way to achieve a just government is through revolution. Do you agree with this?

Venezuelans are losing trust in their government. Why is it important for governments to have their citizen’s trust?

In America, one thing we value is political participation. Why is political participation important as part of a democracy?

Do you think it is important for people to vote, even if a corrupt government may prevent a vote from meaning anything?

Trump to end Obamacare subsidies amid strong critism

Trump plans to cut subsidies to health insurance providers which will greatly affect low income families.  This cut comes as a response to Congress repeatedly voting against repealing Obama. Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were outraged and said that this was, "spiteful act of vast, pointless sabotage". Even some Republicans are outraged. Florida Republican Rep, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen believes Trump is going against his campaign promises as many in her community will lose access to affordable health care. Trump will not only receive backlash from many democrats but also from medical companies. They will likely challenge his executive order in court as they've done with his early repeal efforts. Trump claims that this move is the start of his repeal and replace process and this BBC article claims that many believe this move could mean the beginning of the end for Obamacare.

Do you believe cutting subsidies was just? Was it a good idea? How should those who are critical of Trumps views on health care act going forward?

bbc article

Funding for War vs. Natural Disasters

As the US has been battered with natural disasters, the costs of aid are soaring. Hurricanes Irma, Harvey, and Maria are projected to cost the US economy nearly $135 billion, and the recent California wildfires will cost $85 billion. All this combined is $220 billion which is minuscule compared to the $700 billion the country will spend on its military in 2017. According to this Huffington Post article, Congress appropriates 70 times more money for the military as it does for FEMA ($700 to $9.9 billion). This difference in money that Congress dedicates has led to costly outcomes. First, in Puerto Rico, 85% of people still don't have electricity and 40% don't have running water. These stats are extremely high as Hurricane Maria started nearly a month ago. Another outcome of only $9.9 billion going to FEMA is that many firefighters have worked for 70 straight hours at minimum wage. Though natural disasters are inevitable and its hard to bring communities who experience them back on their feet, it seems that $9.9 billion may not be enough money.

How do you believe the US can better prepare for future natural disasters? Do you believe that military spending should be decreased and that natural disaster relief spending should be increased?

article

Woody Allen Warns of ‘Witch Hunt’ After Weinstein Allegations

Article Link

Following Harvey Weinstein's expulsion from the Motion Picture Academy, the BBC published an interview of director Woody Allen, who had worked with Weinstein on several films in the past. Allen called the wave of allegations "tragic for the poor women that were involved," but "sad for Harvey that his life is so messed up." Allen maintained that he never knew anything about any misconduct by Weinstein on any of their movie sets and that no one ever told him any "horror stories with any real seriousness." However, Allen also emphasized the dangers of a "witch hunt atmosphere, a Salem atmosphere, where every guy in an office who winks at a woman is suddenly having to call a lawyer to defend himself."
In 1994, Weinstein allowed Allen to produce a film through his company Miramax Films despite recent accusations that Allen had sexually abused his 7-year-old daughter, saying that "shunned by Hollywood means nothing to Miramax."

Is Allen right? Is there truly a present danger of a witch hunt or are predators finally being held accountable for their actions?

Poll: 46% of Republicans Support Preemptive Strike Against North Korea

Article Link
Article Link

According to a poll by Quinnipiac University published on Thursday, 46% of Republicans would support a preemptive strike against North Korea, while 26% of the general population would support such an attack. However, this figure is significantly different from the findings of Washington Post and ABC News poll from three weeks ago. The Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 30% of Republicans say that the U.S. should strike North Korea first, compared to 23% overall support of a preemptive strike. 

On the subject of North Korea, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stated on CNN on Sunday that "those diplomatic efforts will continue until the first bomb drops." Tillerson insisted that Trump "is not seeking to go to war" despite Trumps previous tweets suggesting that negotiating with North Korea would be a waste of time.

What could explain the discrepancies between the messages of Tillerson and Trump? How about the public support of these two very different strategies?

Tillerson: US trying to stay in Iran deal

After President Trump threatened Iran that the US may pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told CNN's Jake Tapper that this isn't the case. While Tillerson does want to stay in the deal, he says that him and Trump are going to make efforts to better the terms. The Iran nuclear deal was put in place under Obama and the deal involves Iran, America, the UK, the EU, Russia, France, China, and Germany. The deal lifted sanctions which were devastating to Iran's economy in exchange for Iran to limit their nuclear energy program. For the next 15 years, Iran's uranium stockpile is supposed to be reduced 98% (to 300kg). Trump wants to pull the US out of the deal because he claims that the deal is "too lenient" and that Iran has been violating the terms of the deal. The violations Trump speaks of come because Iran has made it tough for inspectors to check their stockpiles now and in the past. Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, says Trumps decisions are "directly related to North Korea". She says that Trump doesn't want our current deal to allow for Iran to become the next North Korea. While Trump advocates for the US to leave the deal, both Haley and Tillerson want to keep the Iran deal and just make changes that can fix its problems.

Do you believe that the deal is too lenient and the US should drop out if no changes are made? Do you think that Iran has the potential to become similar to North Korea in the future?

article 1: cnn
article 2: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655

Pro Football Losing Fans; Other Sports Holding Steadily

Link to article: http://news.gallup.com/poll/220562/pro-football-losing-fans-sports-holding-steady.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles

A recent poll shows that professional football's fanbase has declined in the last 5 years. In 2012, 67% of Americans reported that they are fans of pro football, but in 2017, 57% of Americans reported that they are fans. This drop is the most significant in relation to other famous professional sports, besides the Olympics, which does not occur in 2017. The best explanation for this drop unique to football would be the recent protests done by football players during the national anthem of each game. This poll could support the idea that as more football players start to protest, less people will continue watching. Other evidence that could support this conclusion is a poll showing the decline of fans based on political party. This poll presents that there is a much steeper drop in Republicans and Independents that are fans of football than in Democrats. As Donald Trump and other Republicans and Independents seem to be most uncomfortable with the recent protests, this poll would support the idea that since players continue to kneel, less and less Republicans and Independents want to watch the game.

Do you think that football players should continue protesting the national anthem, even if potentially risking a further declining fanbase? What do you think the NFL organization should do about this potential issue? Do you think football players are at fault for protesting the anthem? And lastly, do you think it is fair for fans to stop watching the game because of these protests?

Boy Scouts of America to become fully inclusive for girls

MSNBC video: link
Washington post: article link
Girl Scout response: article link

For the first time since its founding in 1910, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) will be fully inclusive for girls as well as boys. The BSA board voted on this decision unanimously, after years of requests from girls and families. Chief Scout Executive Michael Surbaugh stated their goal to bring more families into the Boy Scouts, explaining that "the values of Scouting...are important for both young men and women." Girls have been previously allowed into some BSA programs, but not the most popular ones, like Cub Scouts. This new development will also now allow girls earn the Eagle Scout ranking, the highest achievement attainable in the Boy Scouts program.

In response, however, President Kathy Hopinkah Hannan of the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) wrote a letter to BSA President Randall Stephenson, stating that "Girl Scouts believes in meeting the needs of America's youth through single gender programming by creating a safe place for girls to thrive and learn." The letter also accused BSA of making this move in order to increase their membership, which has been decreasing over recent years.

BSA has recently taken other actions to increase its membership, including ending the ban on openly gay scouts in 2013 and the prohibition on gay troop leaders in 2015. Earlier this year, they also announced that BSA would allow transgender boys to join.

What is your opinion on BSA's decision and reasoning? What is your opinion on GSUSA's response? Should girls be included in the Boy Scouts program, and to what degree?

Trump to Withdraw Support from Iran Nuclear Deal

Article Link

President Trump is poised to withdraw support from the nuclear arms deal with Iran this Friday. He has been a long-standing critic of the deal, but many at home and abroad urge him to maintain the deal as Iran has been following the guidelines of the agreement. It is not likely that Trump would abandon the deal but rather use withdraw to renegotiate guidelines. Many people, including many Republicans, agree that totally scrapping the deal would leave the US in a weakened position in negotiations because Iran has been complying with the terms of the agreement. Both British Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron have recommended that the deal be upheld.

Trump is expected to argue that the deal is not beneficial enough to merit the deal as it currently stands. He is also expected to attack the deal on the grounds that according to US law, Iran is actually not fulfilling their end of the agreement. However, both Congress and the International Atomic Energy Agency agree that Iran is in fact upholding their part of the deal.

Is it wise for Trump to argue against the opinion held be many at home and abroad? Will his tactics end up hurting or helping the US?

Trump Voters Say They Choose Trump Over The NFL

Link: https://deadspin.com/trump-voters-say-they-choose-trump-over-the-nfl-1819413744

When NFL players started protesting the national anthem, the number of Trump voters who view the NFL as unfavorable increased. When President Trump explicitly condemned the NFL, this number skyrocketed further. In fact, statistics show the same results with other instances of negativity regarding President Trump, such as the numerous athletes who have spoken out against him publicly. The opinions of Trump voters on these athletes have become more negative the same way they have with the NFL. These patterns show that many of Trump's supporters support him to the point where they show distaste to anybody who is negative towards him.

I don't approve of all the NFL players disrespecting the national anthem. However, this is not a huge deal to me, and I think it is important that these players are allowed to protest if they want. I also don't agree with many of the athletes speaking out against President Trump. Even still, I respect their opinions and believe that it's essential that they are open about what they believe. I support our President, but I believe it is highly irrational when some of his supporters show hate towards certain people simply because they don't support him.

What do you think of NFL players protesting the national anthem? Are they justified in doing this? Should they be allowed to do this? What do you think about influential figures who speak out against President Trump? Is there rationality in the way many Trump supporters show disdain for people who disapprove of him?

Eminem releases takedown of Trump

Link to article: https://www.yahoo.com/gma/lebron-james-ellen-degeneres-more-respond-eminems-takedown-183107723--abc-news-entertainment.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_06

Link to roast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LunHybOKIjU

Eminem recently released freestyle that expressed his ideas regarding President Donald Trump's presidency and policies. He called out Trump for intentionally and inappropriately "causing a Twitter storm" and "[supporting] the Klansman." Many famous celebrities have utilized Twitter to react to this video, mostly in a positive manner. However, one especially famous celebrity who regularly uses Twitter to express his own feelings and beliefs, Trump himself, has yet to respond to this roast.

I personally believe that Eminem did a great job in conveying his emotions and letting the people know what kind of person Donald Trump is in his eyes. However, I know that people all over the world are also probably disgusted by these actions. They may claim this inappropriately takes advantage of free speech and is direct treason to the government, or they may claim that Trump simply is not the guy Eminem is talking about and should not be the person that takes the blame for these sentiments.

What do you think about this video? How would Donald Trump react to this? Is Eminem abusing his right to free speech, or is he rightfully expressing how he feels?

Utah policeman fired for arrest of nurse

Link to article (+additional video): http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41584187

Detective Jeff Payne and James Tracy, his watch commander, were involved in an exchange with a nurse at the University of Utah hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah, that harshly affected their occupation. Payne had forced Nurse Alex Wubbels to take a blood sample of an unconscious patient that was involved in a car accident with a suspect in another vehicle. The patient himself was not accused of any wrongdoing, but the police department required Payne to take a sample of his blood. Moreover, Payne did not present any warrant of any sort that allowed him to take a blood sample from this patient. When Wubbels refused to take the sample for Payne, he pushed her onto a wall and forcefully handcuffed her.

These actions were condemned by Chief Mike Brown, and Payne was fired from the department and Tracy was demoted by two ranks from a lieutenant to an officer. Both officers have lawyers that plan on appeal this decision. The University of Utah decided to pass a policy that prevented police officers in the future to be able to come into the hospital and ask for a blood sample in person.

What is your reaction to this news? How do you think people generally view police officers right now, and how will this event affect this general view?

The possible end to NAFTA

Links to articles:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-trump-nafta-20171011-story.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-trump-nafta-poison-pills-20171011-story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/business/economy/nafta-trump.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/close-to-killing-nafta-trump-warms-to-new-deal-with-canada.html?utm_source=nym&utm_medium=f1&utm_campaign=feed-part

On Wednesday, October 11th, President Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met in the Oval Office to engage in the fourth round of NAFTA negotiations. The president indicated after the meeting that it is entirely possible that a new deal won't be reached and that the US would drop out of NAFTA altogether. Other negotiations, like the "sunset provision" that calls NAFTA to expire in five years unless all countries renew it, were also discussed.

The end of NAFTA could potentially be beneficial, as the deal led to the loss of many manufacturing jobs, hurt Mexican farmers, and was troubling for the environment. However, NAFTA also lowered the prices of goods, increased trade between the countries, helped GDP, and improved diplomatic relations. I think that since NAFTA clearly shows significant advantages, new negotiations and changes to the deal are more reasonable than completely eliminating the agreement altogether.

What do you think? Is NAFTA more beneficial or detrimental? What should happen to the deal?

First Amendment Advocates Push Back on Trump’s Licensing Threat

Washington Post: article link
NBC story: link
Gallup poll: link

In response to an NBC story reporting Donald Trump's interest in increasing the U.S. nuclear arsenal by "tenfold," Trump sent out two tweets: one denying the NBC report and one implying his desire to revoke the licenses from NBC and other news networks. In response to Trump's tweets, Jessica Rosenworcel, a member of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, pointed to the fact that networks do not have federal licenses, so the president does not have much power over this in the first place. Others recognized Trump's lack of power over networks and cable channels, but noted that his statements threaten the essence of the First Amendment right to freedom of the press.

A Gallup poll from July 2017 shows that in disputes between Trump and the media, 36% of Americans side with the news media, 32% side with the president, and 29% side with neither. Personally, I think that a lot of media networks are very reliable, especially over Trump's tweets. Nevertheless, although Trump's two tweets here were empty threats, I think his constant bashing of the media is dangerous in that it teaches his sympathizers to distrust the news altogether. I also oppose any moves to revoke licenses from news networks, as the freedom of the press should be defended.

What do you think of Trump's reaction to the NBC report? Who do you side with in media vs. Trump disputes, and why? Does Trump's criticism of the networks pose any threat or should it just be treated as empty words?

Poll: Majority backs stricter gun control laws after Vegas shooting

About a week and a half after the tragedy in Las Vegas, polls indicate that the majority of Americans want stricter gun control laws. In a poll run by Morning Consult, a nonpartisan company, it was shown that 64% of voters support stricter gun laws, which is a 3% increase since June. This uptick conveys the constant increase in the issue of gun control in America. Though the majority of Americans have strong opinions on the issue, only about a quarter of voters believe Congress will act on the issue. Behind health care and other issues, people don't think Congress will put gun control at the top of their priority list. Along with that, even if Congress were to pass stricter gun control laws, only 40% of voters think the laws will be effective.

Florida Rep. Carlos Curbelo is leading 20 members of the House of Representatives in an effort to ban bump fire stocks. These devices are used to fire automatic weapons more efficiently and were used in Vegas. In a statement alongside the legislation, Curbelo said,"For the first time in decades, there is growing bipartisan consensus for sensible gun policy, a polarizing issue that has deeply divided Republicans and Democrats". 

Personally, I side with the 40% who believe that gun control laws would be effective. I don't think that there's really any way to halt gun violence in America completely, but there definitely is a chance we can shrink it. It's good that Americans are starting to come together on the issue as Curbelo said, but there still is a divide which hurts the process of creating solid gun laws.

Do you believe Congress should put gun control towards the top of their priority list? And how much should the laws restrict?

article link
article link 2

Supreme Court to Weigh if Firms Can Be Sued in Human Rights Cases

The accused Arab Bank's main offices, in Jordan

NY Times: article link

Washington Post: article link

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC Oyez summary: link
KIobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Oyez summary: link

On Monday, October 9, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether corporations may be sued in American courts for violating human rights abuses abroad. This case, Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, involves several alien individuals who were abused or killed by terrorists in attacks against Israeli citizens overseas. The surviving aliens and their families accused Arab Bank, PLC of financing these terrorists. They reference the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a law from 1789 that allows federal courts to hear "any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." However, due to the ambiguity of this law, the Supreme Court has made clarifications and continues to do so with this case.

For example, in the KIobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum case of 2011, the Supreme Court wanted to answer two questions: (1) Under the ATS, are corporations liable for violations of the law of nations? (2) Should American courts hear disputes involving nations other than the U.S. in the first place? The Supreme Court answered the second question by ruling that under the ATS, there is "presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. law." In other words, no—cases abroad can only be heard if they have a significant connection to the U.S. However, the first question remained unanswered until now, with the pending results of Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC.

What are your responses to these two questions? Should American courts have to hear cases of human rights abuses in foreign nations? If so, should corporations be immune from liability for violations of the law of nations, such as executions and torture? Should the ATS stay as it is, be revised, or even abolished completely?

Fake news is still here, despite efforts by Google, Facebook

Fake news: article link
Conspiracy theories: article link
2014 Annenburg Public Policy Center survey: link

Online media services like Facebook and Google continue to struggle with eliminating misinformation and fake news on their platforms. Following the Las Vegas shooting, Facebook's "Crisis Response" page featured an article misidentifying the shooter, and many videos on Youtube claimed that there were multiple shooters. Although neither of these stories are true, their prevalence was largely due to Facebook's and Google's algorithms, which "just look for signs of popularity and recency at first, without first checking to ensure relevance." In response, both Facebook and Google have taken action to incorporate more "human review" in the assessment of their content, rather than relying on algorithms.

With the media becoming a dominant facet of political socialization in current culture, it is clear that online sources play a major role in influencing the political mindsets of the public, especially the younger generation. However, as polls have shown, public knowledge about politics is still very low; only 36% of respondents to a 2014 national survey were able to name the three branches of the U.S. government. Thus, there is a discrepancy between the high amount of information we have access to and the low amount of information we know.

What is the best way to combat fake news? Why is public knowledge still so lacking, even in an information-rich society? What actions should be taken to help the public be more informed?

Jemele Hill Suspended for NFL Tweets

On Monday afternoon, ESPN announced that they had suspended Jemele Hill from her position as a host for two weeks. Her suspension followed her tweets regarding Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’s statement that if any of his players “disrespect” the flag, they will not be allowed to play. Hill stated in her tweets that those who disagree with Jones should target his advertisers rather than his players, clarifying that she was not advocating an NFL boycott. ESPN stated that her tweets were the “second violation of [their] social media guidelines” she had made. The next day President Trump put in his two cents, tweeting “With Jemele Hill at the mike, it is no wonder ESPN ratings have ‘tanked,’ in fact, tanked so badly it is the talk of the industry!”

Hill’s position as a host on ESPN is to commentate on sports and the industry surrounding them. While many argue that it is up to ESPN to use their discretion in what they punish as unacceptable employee conduct, others see  Hill’s comments as a mere statement of facts. She did not advocate for a boycott of the NFL but rather correctly stated that pressuring advertisers would be the most effective way to challenge Jones.

Were ESPN’s actions justified? Were Hill’s?

Article

Article

Article

Article

Article

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