UCLA athletes arrested in China thank President Trump for their release

UCLA athletes arrested in China thank President Trump for their release

link 1
link 2

After the three UCLA basketball students were released from China after a shoplifting incident at three stores, President Trump took to Twitter to express how he thought he deserved thanks and gratitude from the players. His tweet stated, “Do you think the three UCLA Basketball Players will say thank you President Trump? They were headed for 10 years in jail!” After the players arrived home on Tuesday they had no comment, and held a press conference today. One player stated “‘I take full responsibility for the mistake I have made of shoplifting,’ Cody Riley said. ‘I know this goes beyond me letting my school down — I’ve let the entire country down.’ ‘To President Trump and the entire United States government, thank you for taking the time to intervene on our behalf.” The three players were arrested the day before Trump landed in China, he said he spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping about the whole incident. The two were able to resolve the issue and Trump said, “He was terrific, and they're working on it right now. And hopefully everything is going to work out." Now that the players have returned home the university has suspended them indefinitely until the school can work through the legal process and issues. They will also have to prove their true characters to the school, and that “they will not be defined by this incident.” In addition, they won't be allowed to travel with the team or practice.   

1. How long should their suspension be? Or should they be kicked off the team completely?
2. Was it appropriate for Donald Trump to exercise his power in this incident?

Cards Against Humanity Buys Land on Mexican Border to Stump Trump’s Wall Plan

Links:
CBS
CNN
Time

Image: Cards Against Humanity website

On Tuesday, the popular card game company Cards Against Humanity claimed, as part of its holiday promotion, that it purchased land on the United States-Mexico border and “retained a law firm specializing in eminent domain” in order to dissuade Trump from creating a border wall between the two countries. The website cites that “Donald Trump is a preposterous golem who is afraid of Mexicans…[and] wants to build a twenty-billion dollar wall that everyone knows will accomplish nothing.” The promotion -- a $15 holiday pack limited to 150,000 customers -- was sold out this morning.

Cards Against Humanity has previously been known for committing similar acts. For instance, in 2016, it announced the digging of its “Holiday Hole,” which celebrated how “everything in America is going really well,” according to its website. The company did not confirm the location of the land that it claimed it purchased. This, in combination with Cards Against Humanity’s previous stunts, makes the validity of the purchase unlikely.

Discussion Questions:

What are your thoughts on Cards Against Humanity’s purchase? Do you believe that the company should be taking a political stance, and why do you believe that they are doing so? Given the game company’s popularity, what do you think attracts people to these stunts and pranks?

Google Docs goes down!

I knew something was wrong when I couldn't open my Eco-Column Data Collection document in APES today. For over an hour this afternoon, people all over the country were confronted with society's new BSOD when they tried to access files on Google Docs (or Doc files on Google Drive).

People seemed pretty upset and frustrated by this. One Twitter user posts, "OF COURSE GOOGLE DOCS DECIDES TO GLITCH AFTER I FINALLY STOP PROCRASTINATING AND START THE ESSAY THAT’S DUE IN TWO HOURS."

Should we be alarmed that people are so dependent on services like Google Docs? If Google Drive was to unexpectedly shut down, I'd lose a ton of stuff, including photos, past assignments, and UC Essays (oh wait can't lose something you haven't written yet).

What do you guys think? Have we become too dependent on (internet) services? Or are they simply tools that enhance our capabilities?

Articles
CNET
BBC
The Verge

Colin Kaepernick is named Citizen of the Year by GQ magazine

Colin Kaepernick is named Citizen of the Year by GQ magazine 

link 1

link 2

link 3

Colin Kaepernick was named Citizen of the Year by GQ magazine. After he started kneeling during the National Anthem before his football games, he has not been able to get hired by any other NFL teams. “[GQ feels] he is ‘one of the most gifted quarterbacks on earth’ and ‘indisputably, undeniably, flat-out better’ than more than 75% of the quarterbacks employed by the league right now. They feel he is being ‘blackballed” by the NFL for his protests.’” Kaepernick decided not to comment on the piece. Instead, he had ten of his closest confidantes comment for him, including rapper J. Cole, former teammates, and social activists such as Harry Belafonte. He thinks that in doing this he will “reclaim the narrative of his protest.” In doing so, Kaepernick has gotten attention from many people, including President Trump. At a rally in Alabama, Trump stated that athletes should be “fired” for disrespecting the flag. Do you think Colin Kaepernick is being treated unfairly by the NFL? Are his methods effective? What should be done?

Four killed in northern California shooting rampage

link

Today four innocent lives were taken by an unidentified man with a semi-automatic gun. His rampage started around his home in Rancho Tehama located 150 miles from Sacramento. He then proceeded to go to Rancho Tehama Elementary School where the Principal immediately initiated a lockdown drill. He rammed his car through the fence and gates and entered on foot. He shot one student, and they are currently being treated for their injuries. Later, the police shot and killed the gunman after four lives had already been taken and ten more injured. The police had been notified of the man a few days before by his neighbors who said that he had been shooting many rounds, and threatening them. The police believe this to be a domestic violence issue after he had been involved in multiple beforehand.

Unfortunately, news like this has been reoccuring the past few months. How can we improve our gun laws to stop incidents like these? What else can the government do?

Jeff Sessions Displays Unsteady Recall on Trump-Russia Matters

Links:
NPR
LA Times
Washington Post
New York Times

Image: New York Times

Attorney General Jeff Sessions was questioned today before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the Trump administration’s ties with Russian officials. Session had previously undergone two other hearings, in which he claimed to have no knowledge of these ties. This was later contradicted by former foreign policy aides George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, who claim that they told Sessions about their connections to Russian officials. Furthermore, he had stated that he “did not have communications” with Russian officials, which was proven to be false by media reports of him speaking to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. These inconsistent or incorrect statements have warranted the need for today’s hearing.

In today’s testimony, Sessions claimed, once again, that he did not know anyone in the Trump campaign who had ties to Russians, and that he “had no recollection” of a conversation with Papadopoulos regarding a possible meeting between Trump and Putin. However, according to the New York Times, he also claims to remember that he had “shot down Mr. Papadopoulos’ idea of Trump-Putin meeting,” presenting a clear contradiction in his testimony.

Although the true extent of the Trump administration’s entanglements with Russia is not apparent, it’s easy to see the damage in credibility that the Trump administration has taken through incomplete or incorrect statements by figures such as Sessions. As we discussed in class, the current American distrust towards the government has its roots in the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War; the Russian investigation will likely only extend this distrust. As the Washington Post stated, “If the person on the highest level sworn to uphold the law is the one you cannot trust, that’s a big problem for the entire Justice Department.”

Discussion Questions:

Over the course of the Russian investigation, Trump has attempted to distance himself from those implicated, such as by dismissing Papadopoulos and Page as “low-level” members of the campaign. Overall, how do you believe the Russian investigation will reflect on Trump’s image? What do you think are the implications of Sessions’s inconsistent claims on the perceived credibility of government officials?

Additionally, Sessions’s inconsistencies have lead some to suspect him of perjury. Do you believe that Sessions should be held accountable for his statements?

Things to keep in mind about college applications

Article link


Source: New York Times

Maybe you've already seen or thought of the topics on this list of factors to consider as you continue applying to colleges in November and December. The ones that stand out the most to me are:

1. Admissions decisions aren't all about you: with the process more competitive than its ever been just put your best foot forward and you'll probably find a good option.

2. Express your authentic self: when you write your essay(s) being authentic will read better than trying to impress someone. Usually readers can tell when someone is doing that so a good story will be helpful.

3. Do (real) good: In the past I've had CP government students do a service learning project, which there isn't time for in AP Gov, however meaningful volunteering experiences make you a more well rounded candidate who can contribute to a college community.

What stands out to you on the list of suggestions? Are there things you are doing or recommend that are not on the list? Are there things that you're trying to avoid in your college application process.

Remember when you're a blog author you can post one of your stories on a topic beyond the scope of our curriculum.

I know this process takes a lot of thought and effort, so hope these ideas help!
Mr. Felder

Trump Tells Republicans to Cut Taxes for the Rich

Trump Tells Republicans to Cut Taxes for the Rich
link

Donald Trump wants to cut taxes on the rich. He wants to use the money that is supposed to help the lower class purchase healthcare. The house and the Senate have each come up with their own plans. The house wants to keep the same tax rate at 39.6%, but it would only be applied for married couples who make over $1,000,000 in income. As of right now the base income is at $470,000. This would help the upper class significantly. The senate wants to lower the tax rate to 38.5% and have the same $1,000,000 base income. Overall, both of these plans would help the upper middle class, and the upper class. “In general, rich households already do well in analyses of the current tax plans thanks to provisions like ending the alternative minimum tax, reducing or repealing the estate tax, and cutting taxes for pass-through entities, all of which could potentially benefit Trump himself.”

Discussion Questions:

1. Overall, this plan would help middle class Americans, but it still favors the rich. Is this right?
2. Is there a better plan?

Donald Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks?

WikiLeaks (left) and Trump Jr. (right)

The first few of the images shared by Donald Trump Jr. on Twitter. Link.

So it seems like Donald Trump Jr. has been having exchanges with WikiLeaks. Both sides seem to be doing what we'd expect, with WikiLeaks trying to obtain/spread information and Trump Jr. wanting to know more about Clinton, but there seems to be a sense of collaboration here. In the first message, WikiLeaks seems to be trying to help out Trump Jr. by giving him information about the PAC, and Trump Jr. followed up on his promise to "ask around," according to The Atlantic.

Additionally, within 15 minutes of WikiLeaks suggesting that Trump Jr. publicize their leaks, Donald Trump posted, “Very little pick-up by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by WikiLeaks. So dishonest! Rigged system!” Two days later, Trump Jr. posted the link on his Twitter account, encouraging people to read about Clinton's "corruption" and "hypocrisy."

Although these exchanges do seem pretty sketch, after reading these reports, I'm still not sure if we can say anything definitive about WikiLeaks or Trump Jr. Was WikiLeaks biased and do they have a hidden agenda? Maybe. But it still feels more like communication between two organizations, each trying to further its interests by collaborating with the other.

What do you guys think? Did you feel the same way after reading about this communication between Trump Jr. and WikiLeaks?

Articles
New York Times
Washington Post
CNN Politics
The Atlantic

Opioid and Drug Abuse Commission Releases Final Report

Links:
Mother Jones
NY Times
The Hill
White House Press Release
Washington Post

Image: Mother Jones

Recently, Trump declared the opioid crisis -- which was responsible for 64,000 deaths nationwide in 2016 -- a public health emergency and announced that the federal government would begin “a massive advertising campaign to get people, especially children, not to want to take drugs in the first place.”

The Opioid and Drug Abuse Commission was originally formed by Trump in early March. This month, the commission released a final report of 56 recommendations to combat the epidemic, which includes Trump’s aforementioned advertising campaign. Other recommendations include block grants to states and allowing emergency responders to use naloxone, an opioid overdose antidote.

Although the national attention given to the opioid epidemic will surely bring some positive change, the true effectiveness of drug advertising campaigns is suspect. Previous efforts to stem drug use in the US -- such as Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign -- are known to have been ineffective. Additionally, as the New York Times mentioned, these campaigns could “create a false sense that drug use is more common than it is, making those who don’t use drugs to feel socially abnormal.” Trump’s proposed advertising campaign also likely won’t be cheap -- for instance, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign took up approximately $1.5 billion total, bringing into question the worthwhileness of this initiative.

Interestingly enough, the commission specifically refused to support the use of marijuana as a painkiller, with Chris Christie claiming in the report that there is a “greater chance that [a] marijuana user would become an opioid user and abuser,” while also asserting that the lack of data on marijuana makes it unsafe. This argument runs counter to studies that suggest that marijuana might decrease the number of deaths caused by opioid.

Discussion Questions:

What are your thoughts on the use of advertising campaigns to combat the opioid epidemic? What other steps could the government take to decrease the number of opioid deaths?

Also, what do you think about the commission’s rejection of the use of marijuana for pain -- do you believe that Christie’s concerns are justified?

The Partisan Politics of Medicaid Expansion

Article link


Source: Kaiser Family Foundation (note Maine has since adopted Medicaid Expansion.

Medicaid (healthcare for the poor) expansion is an incentive offered by the Affordable Care Act that nearly 2/3rd of states have accepted. The 18 states who have not accepted Federal dollars to expand their Medicaid programs are may be leaving $180 billion on the table over the next decade. There is a red state/blue state divide on this issue as some states are rejecting the money because of ideological opposition to Medicaid, others for political reasons to protest the Affordable Care Act, and others because state contributions are being phased in and the state may not be able to afford to expand their Medicaid program. Nearly all liberal states and many conservative states such as AZ, LA, AR, KY, WV, MT, AK, IN have accepted funds to expand their Medicaid programs. Lots of connections to AP Gov concepts in this article: Federalism (Federal aid to states), polarization (blue state support for the ACA and red state opposition), budgeting priorities (an upcoming topic about how the nation and states choose to spend tax dollars), and health care policy (an upcoming topic that is near the end of the textbook). Discussion questions: 1. Should states be expanding their Medicaid programs? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? 2. Should the Federal government waive state contributions from states with the lowest tax revenues to further incentivize participation, since these states are likely to have more residents qualifying for Medicaid? 3. What is meant by this quote: "blue states generally subsidize red states, so this is a notable counterexample to the overall trend"?

Biden 2020 is a no-go?

USA Today

Turning 75 this year, Joe Biden is not looking forward to the 2020 presidential election.  Failing both 1988 and 2008 to win and with the death of his son, he believes that he running for president is not the best course. “I’d much prefer to be helping someone turn it around than being the guy trying to turn it around,” Biden once said.  What do you guys think?  If not Biden for president then who for the Democrats?  Ye?

North Korea’s Nukes May Not Be Its Biggest Threat

Other than nuclear decimation, another type of threat has been looming around in the Korean peninsula.  Ever since the Pentagon has accidentally let loose some anthrax, the North has used it as justification for making their own labs for biological warfare.  The Trump administration has not done anything officially, but several experts has have ran doomsday scenarios.  Several people think that a biological or chemical warhead is just as bad as nuclear one if not worse.  According to the article, “These weapons are easier to produce, to deliver, to conceal and to calibrate, and their use would be less likely to trigger the same international response as a nuclear strike” (Wilner).  What do you think may happen next?  I believe that nothing is going to happen and North Korea will not use the weapons.  In what situation do you think the international community will react to a North Korean attack?

538

Trump complicates his effort to build warmer Russia ties.

CNN

In a complete surprise, President Trump once again goes off his script during an economic summit with Putin in Da Nang.  This comes as a response to Moscow’s own investigation about the allegations of supposed Russian intervention in the 2016 presidential election.  Trump has come out to call these investigations as one of the reasons why the relation-building with Russia has been slowing down recently.  Putin denies any claims of election meddling and seems frustrated with the whole issue.  The American people has had enough.  In a CNN poll, “about two-thirds (64%) now say the investigation into Russian efforts to influence the US presidential election in 2016 is a serious matter that should be fully investigated,” compared to 60% in the past (Liptak).  What do you guys think about the Russian investigation?  Do you think it may be compromised by Putin? What do you think the poll suggests about the American people?

Youtube Reduces Famous Extremist's Presence Online

Article

For 8 years, the online presence of Anwar al-Awlaki has helped to create a new generation of American terrorists. Youtube has allowed for hundreds of hours of jihadist propaganda to be uploaded and remain on their platform. Now, under criticism from the government and other anti terrorist groups, Youtube has decided to remove around two thirds of the jihadist's content.

Do you think that the removal of such videos has occurred too late and that the damage has already been done? What could be some reasons that Youtube did not remove all of his content? Do you think that it is right that Youtube removed these provocative videos?

Self-driving bus involved in a "crash"

Image from CNNMoney

A few days ago, I stumbled upon an article with this headline:

Self-driving bus crashes two hours after launch in Las Vegas.
The bus was touted as the United States' first self-driving shuttle project for the public before it hit a semi-truck.

We don't know all the details right now (the police report is coming out later this week), but essentially there was a driverless bus that began operating in Las Vegas last weekend. A few hours after its debut, a truck backed into the bus, causing "minor damage."

Now, imagine scrolling through your feed and seeing an article titled "Driver bumps into another car, causing minor dent." It seems absurd, but here, since a self-driving vehicle was involved, this incident suddenly makes appearances all over the national news. And it wasn't even the self-driving bus' fault.

This type of coverage inevitably hinders the advancement of autonomous vehicles. In psychology, we learned about the availability heuristic, which influences people's decisions based on how readily examples come to mind. People aren't going to feel safe driving autonomous vehicles when their impressions are based on (misleading) reports of such "crashes."

And again, when was the last time you saw an article titled "Self-driving shuttle bus doesn't crash on its first day in service"? It's not just this incident, but I think that there is a disproportionate amount of coverage that casts a negative light on self-driving cars, painting a picture that is far from reality: "Self-driving technology has been involved in crashes before, but almost all reported incidents have been due to human error," according to the BBC article.

We can't say that self-driving cars are dangerous because they get into accidents. Normal cars crash too. But for some reason, the self-driving ones get all the bad rep.

What do you guys think?

Related Articles
Reporting 1
Reporting 2
More Accurate Coverage
Analysis 1
Analysis 2

"Truck driver bumps into bus." Boring.
"Truck driver bumps into self-driving bus." Omg really!?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Alabama Senate Candidate Called to Leave Race After Sexual Misconduct Allegations

LA Times


Alabama senate candidate Roy Moore has been hit with allegations of sexual contact with a 14-year-old, when Moore was in his thirties. These allegations come in the middle of allegations made against many high-profile individuals, and many GOP senators have called for him to step down from the race. He does not seem to show signs of wishing to step down.

Currently, Republicans hold only a narrow two person majority in the senate, which could lower to a one person majority if Moore steps down. However, if Moore does not step down, his implementation  and Trump's endorsement of Moore could have negative effects on Trump's reelection.

Washington Doctor Fights to Preform Transgender Surgeries

Washington Post



Dr. George Stiller spent months learning, preparing, and practicing gender reassignment operations in order to be able to preform them for his hospital. After asking for permission from the board, one of his colleagues found out, and sent an email opposing the surgery to Stiller's coworkers and other hospital employees. The email drew lots of attention to the hospital and Dr. Stiller's proposed surgery offer, including hundreds of letters and social media posts from citizens who both supported and opposed offering the surgery.

The doctor and the citizens who opposed the surgery stated that the patients who wanted the surgery simply had a body dysmorphic disorder, and the hospital should not reinforce it. Months after first asking for authorization for the surgery, the hospital's administration decided that support outweighed opposition, and the surgery was authorized.

Do hospitals have the right to refuse implementing a procedure if it does not appeal to their values? What part does the First Amendment play in this decision?  Should the hospital have implemented the procedure?

Republican Tax Plan Set to Pass on Thursday

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/12/republicans-tax-bill-house-244821
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/12/tax-middle-class-republicans-244815



Republicans have struggled to secure a serious legislative victory under the new administration, but the new tax plan may change that. Some members of the GOP, such as New York Republicans Peter King and Dan Donovan, oppose the plan, but leaders in the Republican party have not attempted to reach out or attempt to change their minds. If the GOP were struggling for votes, leaders would be trying to pressure representatives who do not support the plan into switching their votes. Since no such pressure is being reported, it is logical to assume that the Republican party has the votes that it needs to pass the legislation.

The new tax plan involves many cuts and reductions to the middle class's taxes, stating that people earning between $20,000 and $30,000 may receive a 10.4% decline, between $50,000 and $70,000 may see their taxes fall by 7.1%, while millionaires would receive a cut of up to 5.3%.

Is is safe to assume that the GOP has all of the votes that it needs to pass the legislation? Are the government's tax cuts enough, or too much? Will this be the GOP's first major victory in 2017? How will the public react?

Comedian Louis C.K. Confirms Accusations of Sexual Misconduct

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html

On Thursday, November 9th, five women came forward and accused famous comedian Louis C.K. of sexual misconduct, including exposing himself in front of them and other inappropriate actions. The women reported being invited to C.K.'s hotel room after his performances, and once in the room, were asked personal questions, and C.K. asked if he could expose himself. The comedian confirmed on Thursday that these accusations are true.

The allegations have cropped up in the midst of many accusations of sexual misconduct or sexist actions taken by famous celebrities. These include Harvey Weinstein, a major Hollywood producer, Kevin Spacey, Alec Baldwin, and now Louis C.K. The statements have raised awareness to the prevalence of sexual misconduct in the entertainment industry, many of the stories surfacing after decades of secrecy. Many of the accused have stated that their behavior was acceptable in the time period when it happened, Weinstein even mentioning that "The 70's was a different time."

Should these celebrities be punished by the entertainment industry, or should their actions be fought solely through the justice system? Do you think these scandals will pass over quickly like most celebrity news, or will they have lasting effects? Does the decade the instances happened in truly have a credible effect on wether they are acceptable? Does this effect how YOU view the people in question?

Sexual Harassment and Legal Fears

With the recent news over allegations of sexual assault, more people are coming out with their own personal stories.  Unlike before, in which allegations would simply just go away, now with the ease of technology, people have the chance for their voices to be heard.  But what comes along afterwards does adds an extra factor for the victims.  That extra factor is proving whether or not that sexual misconduct actually happened.  According to Jaclyn Friedman, a victim of sexual harassment, “I absolutely think it would feel empowering. It would also be terrifying. The reason I don't do it is because I expect that if I named either of them I would be sued”.  How do you think victims of sexual harassment should react to this?  Why do you think that these people (especially celebrities) that have committed sexual misconduct been able to get away for so long?  

NPR

No War Threats From Trump, Who Tells Koreans "It Will All Work Out"

NYT
NY Magazine
BBC

Image: NY Magazine

Trump has been known for his strong language provoking North Korea, usually by threatening to wipe them off the face of the Earth. However, his recent speech in South Korea seemed to bring an unexpected change. Trump mentioned that "...despite every crime you've committed against God and man, we will offer a path to a much better future. It begins with an end to the aggression of your regime, a stop to your development of ballistic missiles." He then urged China and Russia to up the pressure on North Korea. 

I think an attempt to make plans for a diplomatic solution with North Korea is great news, but it's much easier said than done. As a hermit regime, North Korea believes nuclear missiles are their safety against the rest of the world, so I think the odds they would give up their missiles is slim to none. And honestly, I don't blame them for wanting to build up their arsenal. The rest of the world has missiles pointed at this one country, so any sane country in North Korea's place would agree that building up nuclear weapons would be in their best interest. I doubt Kim will attack first- he may be crazy, but he's not stupid. He knows that the moment he attacks, his regime will go down in an instant. So why not build up some nuclear weapons and go out with a bang?

I think the future of North Korea and Rocket Man's plans are interesting topics to discuss. In terms of Trump's speech in the South, I found it to be a breath of fresh air. He made a good impression amongst the liberal South Koreans and mostly kept away from his usual mudslinging at the North. I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Should we be afraid of Trump's mudslinging? Is it in China's best interest to put more pressure on North Korea? Should we have any faith at all in diplomacy?

Democrats Win Big in November Election

Democrats have won two governor's races in Virginia and New Jersey, as well as secured the New York City mayorship once again. Phil Murphy, from New Jersey, and Ralph Northam, from Virginia, each had strong competition from Republican candidates, but ultimately won the elections. In addition to a new governor, Virginians have historically elected Democrat Danica Roem as the first openly transgender elected official. With a Republican-dominated legislature, these victories are more important than ever to the Democratic Party.

After Trump's victory, there has been more of a push from Democrats to acquire as many elected positions as possible, aiming to push back against the majority-Republican and conservative legislature that currently holds the house and the senate. These wins are important for Democrats, but do you think they are enough to move the country away from the path it is currently on? What else should Democrats do if they want to try and secure a Democratic majority? How can individual people help?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/us/politics/virginia-election-democrats.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/07/winners-and-losers-from-election-day-2017/?utm_term=.019edae7d896

Air Force Error Allowed Texas Gunman to Buy Weapons

New York Times
CNN

Image: NYT

On Sunday November 5, a Texan man named Devin Patrick Kelley opened fire in a small community church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. He came with 15 loaded magazines and an assault rifle and shot 26 people (24 plus a pregnant woman and her unborn baby) including his main target, his mother-in-law. After running out of the church wearing a skull-face mask, Kelley was shot by a passerby in the leg and torso, but still managed to make it to his truck. A car chase then occurred, ending with a crash after Kelley shot himself in the head. Trump replied by stating: "If he [the passerby] didn't have a gun, instead of having 26 dead, you would have hundreds more dead." It has also been confirmed that Kelley had escaped from a mental hospital while on the Air Force. He had made death threats to his superiors and had smuggled weapons to his base. According to officers, Kelley "suffered from mental disorders" and "was a danger to himself and others."

The Trump administration is trying to make this shooting look like an issue about the mentally ill when in reality it should be seen as an issue about gun control. I think the number of guns in the US is a serious problem. It has been statistically proven that the number of guns has a positive correlation with the number of shootings, so why don't we do something about it? Yes, the Second Amendment states that all Americans have the right to bear arms, but we desperately need a more secure background check. We can't have the mentally ill walking around purchasing guns wherever they want. And it's not like the gun distributors care who's buying their products; they only care about their profit and they view the mentally ill as just another customer. How to create an extreme background check without compromising people's rights is a mystery to me, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts about it.

Judges Proceed with Execution of Inmate that Forgot his Capital Offense

NYTimes Article

NYTimes Article Image of Vernon Madison

This is an interesting case, which begs some moral questions. Vernon Madison is a death row inmate who committed a murder in 1985. However, after a few strokes, which have left him legally blind, unable to walk independently, and with slurred speech, he cannot remember ever committing the murder. Madison has been psychoanalyzed, and was deemed fully sane. The judges did proceed with his execution in a unanimous decision with some concurring opinions from Justices Breyer, Sotomayer and the notorious RBG. These opinions generally commented on the absence of any solid court decision regarding capital punishment involving someone with no recollection of the crime in question. To many this case might seem pretty straightforward, but it does offer up some food for thought.

What makes this case so interesting is that it kind of calls into question the fundamental purpose of justice among other things. Does the law serve to punish, or does it serve to rehabilitate? If the former is true, Madison should receive capital punishment regardless of his condition, but that sort of blurs the line when it comes to the mentally ill since Madison genuinely believes he "never went around killing folks." If the latter is true, however, then Madison in his current state poses no threat to society and has no malice, therefore rendering capital punishment pointless, which would then complicate many other cases.

What do you think? Any thoughts on this case in particular or the subject as a whole? Perhaps you have an opinion on the earlier question: Does the law serve to punish, or does it serve to rehabilitate?

Tax Credit for Electric Vehicles Would be Eliminated Under Proposed Republican Tax Plan

Bloomberg
The Verge

In the US, it is a nightmare for car makers to sell electric vehicles. Currently there is a $2500-$7500 tax credit incentive for new buyers, but most people are still reluctant to make the switch from gas-powered cars to electric power due to cost-related issues. To make things even more difficult, the new Republican tax plan will terminate these incentives under a tax cut bill. The Trump administration argues that the mandate for car companies to develop electric vehicles is very costly and puts the companies in serious debt. This could be the start of a downward spiral for electric car sales in the US. Eric Noble, president of the CarLab, a consulting company in Orange County, states that "...the credits matter a lot. In states without EV (electric vehicle) mandates or incentives, you'll see sales crater." For the car giants, this is a major problem. General Motors (Chevy, Cadillac, Buick, and GMC) believes that the future of the car industry is electric and is currently attempting to work with the Trump administration to maintain the incentive.

I am astounded by the Republican party's decision. It seems as if Trump is moving away from forward progress by discouraging the sales of electric vehicles. In addition, Trump also wants to lower fuel economy standards in an effort to free the automotive industry of its constraints. If this plan goes through, I predict that electric car sales will fall dramatically and all the automotive progress seen in the Obama years will disappear (this progress being the rise of electric car sales and the average vehicle gas mileage increasing from 25.3 mpg to 35.4 mpg). It will also result in a decreased price range for most gasoline-powered cars, but I think popularizing alternative-fuel cars is more important than improving the affordability of gas-guzzlers.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Car companies are continuing to set goals to electrify their fleets of vehicles by 2025 or sooner, but is this realistic? Should Trump bring back the tax credit or continue to support the SUVs, American gas-guzzlers and Make America Guzzle Again?

New Republican Tax Bill has been Released

CNN Article
CNN Article 2
CNBC Article
NBC/WSJ Poll
CBS Poll

CNN Article Image

The new Republic tax bill has been released, and it doesn't look particularly helpful. To start, this bill lowers income taxes for all tax brackets, which sounds pretty good. However, there will only be four tax brackets as opposed to seven, and the tax cut is significantly bigger for the highest bracket compared to the lower ones. Based on public opinion, cutting taxes for the wealthy has been a particularly unpopular decision (at least it seems to be), so it doesn't seem like a good political move to have that as a part of the bill. According to two polls, Americans have mixed feelings about whether or not the bill would improve the economy, and the majority anticipate a large dent in the budget deficit. Moreover, even with the all-around tax deduction, this will still be a huge problem for those that used to be in a lower bracket that will be moved into a higher one under this bill.

It is true that this bill cuts the income tax for all brackets, so some might say something is better than nothing. But of course, we know that money doesn't grow on trees. The money to make up for this has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere would be repeals to many tax deductions including those on student loans, medical bills, mortgages, alimony, and several others. All these repeals still aren't enough to cover the whole thing though, so there will indeed be a large dent in the budget deficit.

This bill doesn't seem economically healthy, and also doesn't seem like a good political move on part of the GOP. Perhaps I have overlooked something, or maybe you hold a different stance on the bill?

President Trump Frustrated by his Lack of Influence Over Law Enforcement

NYTimes
CNN

NYTimes Image

Last Thursday Trump expressed heavy criticisms against US law enforcement and the Justice Department. Trump stated on the Larry O'Connor show: "The saddest thing is that because I'm the President of the United States, I am not supposed to be involved with the Justice Department, I am not supposed to be involved with the FBI." Trump has become increasingly frustrated with his lack of influence over the continuing investigation of his presidential campaign's involvement with Russia (I wonder why), especially in light of the recent Mueller indictments (apparently there's a chance he'll fire Mueller). Trump instead believes that the FBI and Justice Department should be prioritizing investigations on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign for such crimes as money laundering or violation of campaign finance laws.

There are two ends to the controversy behind Trump's statements. On the one hand, many believe that there should remain some insulation between law enforcement and politics, and that the executive branch should not directly oversee the actions of the Justice Department. In this way, the government can be held accountable by law enforcement. On the other hand, some believe that there should not be a buffer between law enforcement and politics, so that law enforcement can be held accountable by the government in the case of civil liberties violations.

Do you have any thoughts on Trump's attitude and/or comments towards the Justice Department? Where do you stand on this matter? Insulation, no insulation, or somewhere in between? Perhaps there is a solution in which the government and law enforcement can check and balance each other?

Mueller Probe Indictments

Articles:
NPR
NY Times
Washington Post

Image:

     I know my posting week is over but I really think this is an important issue that we should have an opportunity to discuss.

     On Monday (10/30/17) the office of Special Council Robert Mueller indicted former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates. Following these indictments the Mueller team also revealed that they had previously arrested a former Trump national security adviser named George Papadopoulos, who plead guilty to lying to the FBI. They also revealed that Papadopoulos has been cooperating with the Mueller investigation.
     Do you think this is the beginning of the end for the Trump administration? Where do you think this probe will go from here? Will Trump make any moves against council Mueller and if he does what will the reaction be from congress?

Act of Terror in Manhattan

Economist Article
New York Magazine Article
New York Times

Image from NYT

Yesterday, an immigrant from Uzbekistan identified by the name of Sayfullo Saipov drove a rented Home Depot pickup truck onto a bike path along the Hudson River, where he proceeded to mow down pedestrians and bikers at high speed. Eleven people were injured and eight people were killed, five of whom were Argentinian tourists. The truck then crashed into a school bus approximately ten blocks later.

Trump responded via Twitter by stating that Homeland Security must step up the Extreme Vetting Process and also by attacking Chuck Schumer’s “democratic” Diversity Visa Lottery Program. Trump also added that Saipov should be executed and sent to Guantanamo Bay after the immigrant asked to hang an ISIS flag in the hospital he was staying in. In my mind, President Trump is coming off as completely tone-deaf and his solutions are thoughtless.

Is there any way we can efficiently and lawfully single out foreigners who have evil thoughts about the US? Trump believes Extreme Vetting is the solution, but that brings up the question: what is Trump's idea of extreme-extreme vetting? Can the government discriminate who is allowed into the country? Under the 14th amendment, all citizens have equal protection under the laws, so they can't be singled out for race or ethnicity, unless there is a really valid reason. According to the textbook, "it is virtually impossible to show that a classification by race or ethnicity that serves to disadvantage a minority group serves a compelling public interest" (148). Do you think the reason in this case is even remotely valid? Which should be of greater importance to Americans- our national security or our rights?