Three workplace shootings in 24 hours

Officer a scene of shooting at Rite Aid in Aberdeen, Maryland. (Jose Luis Magana, Associated Press)

Over a 24 hour span, there have been three workplace shootings: one at Rite Aid in Aberdeen, Maryland, one at a software company in Middleton, Wisconsin, and a municipal building in Masontown, Pennsylvania.

Aberdeen Rite Aid:

A 26-year-old woman open fired at a Rite Aid in Aberdeen, Maryland. The woman, Snochia Moseley, killed herself after, leaving four dead (three co-workers and the shooter) and several wounded. Moseley was a temporary Rite Aid employee, and, according to CBS, “got into an argument at work Thursday morning and began shooting colleagues.” However, authorities don’t have a motive yet. The gun used in the shooting was a 9 mm Glock handgun, which was registered to Moseley.

Middleton:

A 43-year-old employee open fired on his co-workers at WTS Paradigm (a software company). Four were wounded and three are in serious condition. Police shot and killed the man at the scene, but have not yet released his name. The man, who had worked for WTS for about a year and a half, was armed with a semi-automatic pistol and extra ammunition.

Masontown:

A man open fired and shot four people outside a judge’s office in the lobby of Masontown Borough Municipal Center.  The shooter, Patrick Dowdell, 61, was shot and killed by police on the scene. All four victims were taken to local hospitals and are in non-life threatening condition.

Dowdell was scheduled for a hearing on domestic violence the same day (Wednesday), but neither the judge nor any of the judge’s staff members were targeted.

An anecdote + my thoughts:

When trying to decide on a blog post, my mom said, “There was another shooting. How about that?” I went to go do some research and, much to my dismay, I couldn’t figure out which shooting she was talking about. That made me pause. It’s horrific, really. While each of these cases alone is awful, the fact that they all occurred within 24 hours is unbelievable. Shootings becoming a common thing. The fact that we say “another shooting” is disheartening.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/us/maryland-shooting-aberdeen.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-harford-shooting-20180920-story.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-other-workplace-shootings-20180920-story.html

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/20/17882414/aberdeen-maryland-shooting-rite-aid-harford-county

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/us/masontown-shooting-judges-office.html

Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh accused of sexual assault

Photo: Chip Somodevilla (Getty Images)

What's going on:
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of sexually assaulting Christine Blasey Ford, a professor at Palo Alto University. Ford to the Washington Post Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her when they were in high school while he was drunk, pinning her to a bed, groping her and covering her mouth. Kavanaugh has denied the allegation; however, there’s now some uncertainty surrounding his Supreme Court nomination. Kavanaugh and Ford will appear before the Senate in a hearing that has the potential to impact his nomination.

Another angle/my thoughts:
The midterms coming up put a certain time pressure on this situation. If the Democrats take the Senate, it’s less likely Kavanaugh (or any conservative) will replace Justice Kennedy. If Kavanaugh is not appointed by the midterms and the Democrats win the Senate, the “lame duck” Congress pushing Kavanaugh through would be somewhat hypocritical since the Senate never voted on Obama’s SC nominee Merrick Garland, who faced resistance from a handful of conservative members of the Congress (including Mitch McConnell who adamantly declared Obama’s appointment void) because the appointment was so close to the 2016 elections.

Sources:
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a38a0f613d65
https://www.axios.com/brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accuser-christine-blasey-ford-dd51d886-ed72-47dc-96f3-e07ef8e838bc.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/17/brett-kavanaugh-is-accused-sexual-assault-heres-why-republicans-are-hesitating-pause-his-nomination/?utm_term=.45efe8d47240
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kavanaugh-accuser-willing-to-testify-her-lawyer-says/2018/09/17/21db2860-ba6c-11e8-9812-a389be6690af_story.html?utm_term=.dcb09c5196ca
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/us/politics/kavanaugh-allegations-ford-palo-alto.html

The majority of victims of Hurricane Florence are at risk of crippling debt

Summary:
The devastation caused by Hurricane Florence continues, having already tragically stolen seventeen lives in the last few days and washed poisonous coal-ash from a landfill into nearby waters, but fortunately, many thousands of other lives have been kept safe due to widespread evacuation efforts, and environmentalist groups like the Environmental Protection Agency have been assisting the state in monitoring and containing the pollution caused by the hurricane. However, one issue remains: an appalling lack of federally provided flood insurance for countless homeowners. Analysts and actuaries have calculated that there is an awfully high percentage of people who are underinsured, with less than 10% of people having flood policies or flood coverage, possibly due to overestimates of governmental disaster aid and the severity of damage caused by Hurricane Florence. Ignorance about the fact that standard homeowner insurance does not account for flooding and the declining rate of flood insurance policies over the years also play a large part, according to researchers and insurance experts. Combined, all of these factors spell out an alarming reality that homeowners might be forced into debt once the natural disaster passes; costs for Hurricane Florence could go as high as $20 billion and as low as $10 thousand, which is not very low at all.

Opinion:
Personally, I think that the various misconceptions about Hurricane Florence's impact and the ability of the federal government to compensate for damages and losses can be chalked up to the tendency of the Trump administration to make many optimistic campaign promises and the fact that the executive branch seems to prefer the removal of any fines associated with not taking up any insurance, as seen with its partial dismantlement of the fine associated with the Affordable Care Act, which lessens pressure on the populace to get needed insurance for themselves. Since this is the case, I believe that the country should work on improving and advocating for life-saving flood insurance even further in order to convince people to trust the federal programs that provide it and ensure the wellbeing of American citizens that are affected by Hurricane Florence.

Questions:
Do you think that states should provide flood insurance themselves instead of leaving it all up to the federal government? Why?
What should be done to lessen the economic pressure on homeowners who might not be able to afford to rebuild their lost homes?
Is there any conceivable way to convince the general public that buying flood insurance is a good investment and in their best interest?
Does the political issue of climate change affect who might be interested in purchasing flood insurance? Why?

Sources:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/09/16/florence-and-flood-insurance/1327854002/
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/florence-expose-gaps-flood-insurance-57857843
https://www.wsj.com/articles/florence-washes-away-portion-of-coal-ash-landfill-in-north-carolina-1537137771
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/09/hurricane-florence-rain-climate-change-science/
https://abcnews.go.com/US/major-river-flooding-threat-posed-florence-heavy-rain/story?id=57857204

Georgian voters sue their state over suspected election hacking

Summary:
In light of potential election fraud concerns after accusations about foreign interference in the presidential election of 2016, voters from both the Republican and Democratic parties have sued the state to overturn the results of its potentially compromised elections, arguing that its results could not be legally certified as the voting system fails to comply with state security testing requirements, even as state officials note how a previous lawsuit regarding the same issue concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the election process had been tampered with and that their system has been significantly improved. Paperless voting has proven itself to be flawed after twelve years of repeated experiments from cybersecurity experts, but other spokespeople such as a previous Secretary of State for Georgia and the executive director for the Center for Election Innovation and Research argue that changing from a paperless voting system to one with paper ballots in time for the upcoming election in October would be exceedingly difficult in such a short timeframe anyways, regardless of what the federal judge rules for. Besides, the cost of printing and extra equipment would burden the counties in Georgia and cause confusion, frustration, and then low voter turnout, they conclude.

Analysis/Opinion:
Considering how the power to conduct elections has traditionally remained with the states and the states only and how vehemently the state officials in Georgia continue to deny and dismiss concerns about possible security flaws in their current voting system, I believe that the ongoing court case is most likely to end in the states' favor. Indisputable evidence of the voting system's security failures still has not been provided even after the first lawsuit about Georgia's election methods failed; only evidence of the voting system's security successes have been mentioned time and time again by Georgia state officials who have overseen such experiments. While the chance of this second lawsuit succeeding is not zero when you consider how negative public opinion about election security has skyrocketed since the revelations about Russian hackers infiltrating the U.S. presidential election have been brought to light, I think President Trump's support for the Secretary of State in Georgia gives the state more backing from the executive branch and thus more influence on the federal court case's outcome. Even if the court case does not pass this time, I believe attempting a third lawsuit at a time when implementing changes might be better for the voters who are suing the state, especially since voter confidence is extremely important in elections and not a minor consideration.

Questions:
Are paper ballots or paperless ones best for state and federal elections? How would you attempt to negate its flaws?
Is a voting system that is completely secure and easy to use possible? What other potential voting methods are there?
Do you think that the federal judge will rule in favor of the state of Georgia or the voters? Why?

Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-georgia-a-legal-battle-over-electronic-vs-paper-voting/2018/09/16/d655c070-b76f-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.8e27472e1989
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2017/08/24/election-hacking-lawsuit-over-heated-georgia-race-could-sign-whats-come/574313001/
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/the-voting-technology-we-really-need-paper/524820/
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/12/646808300/federal-court-asked-to-scrap-georgias-27-000-electronic-voting-machines

White house begins planning next visit to North Korea

This June, President Trump met with Kim Jong Un, the first meeting between the leaders of the two countries in history. Despite promises of denuclearize and President Trump's claims that "There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea," U.S. intelligence has since concluded that since the meeting, North Korea has continued developing its nuclear arsenal in secret. It briefly looked as if Trump was responding to the lack of denuclearization when he cancelled the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo's, visit to North Korea three weeks ago. However, today, the white house has announced a new trip for the president himself to visit in the near future. The president gave no explicit reason for his change in approach, but his personal motives seem clear from what he does say. "[Kim] said some terrific things about me," Trump said. "He said very strongly that we want to denuclearize North Korea during President Trump's tenure," Trump told his supporters in Billings. Clearly, flattery goes a long way with our current president, but the consequences are yet to be seen. North Korea has requested a formal end to the Korean war as a reward for their steps toward peace, and considering Trump's unpredictable nature, they may very well get it while having done nearly nothing to lessen their own nuclear threat.

Sources:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/13/politics/trump-north-korea-nuclear-threat/index.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-coordinating-second-trump-kim-summit/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kim-jong-un-sends-letter-to-trump-seeking-second-summit-white-house-says/2018/09/10/97b36246-b52b-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7a72f0df7de5
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-preparing-for-second-trump-meeting-with-north-koreas-leader-1536607841

California is against Trump's offshore oil drilling plans

Joe Sohm | Getty Images

Back in January, the Trump administration decided to expand oil drilling in the United States by issuing federal leases that will allow oil drilling to take place in a majority of the oil reserves off the American coastline. However, California Governor Jerry Brown has created new legislature that will prohibit the building of new oil drilling infrastructure within state waters, which includes all of the water three miles off the coast. Still, the federal government owns the water 3 to 231 miles away from the coast, but without the ability to build within the three miles to shore, pipes cannot be built to easily transport the oil.
In California, legislators are much more environment-conscious and invested in protecting the beaches and marine wildlife, leading to an interest in renewable energy instead of dirty energy from oil. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, 69% of Californian residents are against drilling for oil nearby. Californians are not alone, as all three west coast states are against offshore drilling.
Drilling in the ocean brings up a long-term environmental concern of pollution, energy, and conservation.
Is it a good idea to drill for short-term economic gains?
Is it better to invest in renewable resources?
Is this oil drilling conflict a good example of a good balance of states rights and federal power, or do you think that either the states or the federal government has too much power in this circumstance?
Sources:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/08/california-gov-brown-signs-legislation-to-block-new-offshore-drilling.html
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-offshore-drilling-20180908-story.html
http://time.com/5088449/donald-trump-oil-drilling/
http://www.ppic.org/blog/majority-opposition-drilling-includes-coastal-republicans/

Opioid Crisis & The Sackler Family

Source: The New Yorker

Summary and Analysis:

The Sackler family, who many blame for fueling the deadly opioid crisis in the United States, is coming out with a drug to combat opioid addiction.

Background: Purdue Pharma is a privately-owned pharmacy company that has been owned and operated by the Sackler family for decades. The company, which was worth 3 billion dollars in 2017, built its fortune by selling highly-addictive opioids, specifically OxyContin. "Purdue launched OxyContin with a marketing campaign that attempted to ... change the prescribing habits of doctors," wrote the New Yorker. "Purdue launched a multifaceted campaign that misinformed the medical community about the risks [of their drugs]."

Because of misleading advertisements and marketing, Purdue and its executives were forced to pay over 630 million dollars in 2007. Since then, they have faced multiple lawsuits.

Update: According to Newsweek, over 63, 000 people died of drug overdose in 2016,  almost 70 percent of these deaths being opioid-related. Today's opioid crisis is undeniably tied to doctors over-prescribing highly-addictive drugs, something that Purdue Pharma encouraged. In the past few days, the Sackler name has been in the news for a variety of reasons: it was uncovered that they owned a second pharmaceutical company, one that, combined with Purdue, totals to 14.4 million opioid prescriptions in 2016, according to the Financial Times. Also, Purdue is now being sued by Colorado's attorney general for its "significant role in causing the opioid epidemic."

But that's not the biggest news. Sackler, who owns Purdue, recently patented a mild opiate that supposedly eases the symptoms of opioid addiction and makes it harder for them to be smuggled and delt.

While some may be celebrating a possible cure for opioid addiction, many speculate the intentions of the Sackler-owned company. Said the Chicago Tribune, "Some are expressing outrage that the Sacklers, who have in essence profited from opioid addictions, may soon be profiting from the antidote."

Sources:

https://www.ft.com/content/a3a53ae8-b1e3-11e8-8d14-6f049d06439c

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/9/7/17831710/richard-sackler-opioid-epidemic-buprenorphine

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-oxycontin-purdue-pharma-richard-sackler-20180908-story.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-oxycontin-purdue-pharma-richard-sackler-20180908-story.html

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/30/the-family-that-built-an-empire-of-pain

Elizabeth Warren wants to remove Donald Trump from Presidency

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Elizabeth Warren has stated that the 25th amendment should be used to remove Trump from presidency because he is unfit for presidency. Trump has broken many norms and implied many alarming things. For example, he stated that he had a bigger nuclear button than Kim Jong Un, demonstrating a lack of professionalism. If that were to happen, then the Vice President and the Presidential Cabinet would have to declare that the current president is unfit to stay in power. If the Trump declares otherwise, then both the Senate and the House of Representatives would have to have a 2/3 vote to give the presidential position to the vice president.
The chances of this succeeding are very small. Vice President Mike Pence still supports Trump and probably would not try to declare himself president.
According to Vanity Fair in an article from last year, Trump said "What's that?" in response to a discussion about the 25th amendment. At that time, former chief strategist Steve Bannon believed that "Trump has only a 30 percent chance of making it the full term."
At this point, however, it is already halfway through his presidency anyways. Removing Trump is not very convenient, and I doubt that making Mike Pence President would be that much different from Trump.

Should the Vice President use the 25th amendment? Is that even a good idea? Would it even be possible considering the current congress?

Sources:
https://www.salon.com/2018/09/07/elizabeth-warren-thinks-it-could-be-time-to-invoke-the-25th-amendment-on-trump-after-times-op-ed/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/05/could-25th-amendment-used-remove-trump-office/1012979001/
https://www.businessinsider.com/25th-amendment-trump-definition-section-4-cabinet-2017-10
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/donald-trump-is-unraveling-white-house-advisers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHUkMUpAgT0&ab_channel=CNN

Alex Jones and Infowars Permanently banned from Twitter

Source: Youtube

Summary and Analysis:
Alex Jones, a conservative radio host recently had his account and his Infowars account permanently banned from Twitter. While he was suspended before, there were no other consequences to his actions. Both accounts posted conspiracy theories with no evidence, and misinformed the audience, including claims that the Sandy Hook mass shooting was a hoax and the survivors were paid actors. Twitter is not the first social media platform to ban Jones, as Apple, Facebook, Spotify, and Youtube have already taken action to suspend or remove the accounts. Twitter at first did not consider Jones' posts to violate their policies. On Wednesday, Jones live-streamed a video through Twitter-owned Periscope app that showed him confronting a CNN reporter, Oliver Darcy, in Washington D.C., yelling about Darcy's support for censorship and calling him a rat for ten minutes.
At the same time, Republican officials have been complaining about the liberal bias of social media websites, citing the Russian election interference issue and various instances of attacks on free speech. Although net neutrality has been repealed during Trump's presidency, it is actually now exactly what some Republicans need. According to Quartz, the repeal of net neutrality "ended strong protections against any online provider selectively discriminating against content." While Republicans claim that social media sites are discriminating and censoring right-wing content, Facebook and Twitter say they "filter for abusive behavior, not ideology."

Opinion:
I believe that people should not be spreading misinformation especially when they have an audience as large as Alex Jones (900,000 followers on personal Twitter, 430,000 followers on Infowars Twitter). However, this brings us to how a misinformer could even reach that many people. How was Jones able to garner such a large following? How could his trolling thrive for such a long period of time? If the 1 million+ followers are just well informed citizens that want a laugh, then there is no problem. However, that is most definitely not the case and there are probably people who believe what Jones posts. Is that purposeful ignorance or a lack of education? Or both?

Questions:
How would you define censorship? Is censorship a good thing, to a certain degree?
Does the current political landscape affect how information is spread online?
Should Alex Jones have been banned on Twitter long ago?


Sources:
https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/06/technology/twitter-suspends-alex-jones-infowars/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/06/twitter-permanently-bans-alex-jones-and-infowars-accounts.html
https://qz.com/1380495/trump-ditched-net-neutrality-now-he-wants-it-back-for-conservatives-on-social-media/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-permanently-bans-alex-jones-after-new-violations-1536269663
https://www.npr.org/2018/09/06/645352618/twitter-bans-alex-jones-and-infowars-cites-abusive-behavior
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-twitter-bans-alex-jones-20180906-story.html
http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/09/twitter-bans-alex-jones.html

Anonymous op-ed written by senior official exposes Trump and Republican "resistance"

Source: VICE News

Summary & Analysis

An anonymous op-ed published Wednesday has shocked people across the country. Not only is it basically unheard of for a major newspaper like the New York Times to publish an anonymous op-ed, but the article itself is almost unbelievable: according to the source, a senior official in the White House, many of his top officials and closest confidants, fed up with Trump's “amorality,” and “anti-democratic impulses” have been part of a quiet resistance against him.

While the descriptions of Trump's beliefs and behavior are, at times, alarming, the op-ed attempts to reassure a country divided by Trump’s presidency: “Americans should know that there are adults in the room,” said the source. “We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.”

The source goes on to describe a “two-track” presidency -- one "track" being that of a president who admires dictators, frequently flip-flops on important issues and betrays Republican ideals; the other being a cabinet of officials constantly desperately attempting to “walk back” his “ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions.”

This article paints a picture of a White House we haven’t heard of before: one where Trump’s top officials complain about him in private and his staff hurry to try and keep his disastrous comments and actions contained in the White House.

Of course, this has created a rift in the White House, with many of his cabinet members (including Vice President Mike Pence) claiming they didn’t write the article. Trump went as far as accusing the author of the op-ed of "treason". The author and other top officials mentioned in the article certainly don't see it that way: “We believe our first duty is to this country,” the source said. “The president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.”

It seems as though President Trump and many of his top officials have different interpretations of the phrase “America First.”

Sources:

Read the op-ed here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

Opinions / Reactions from the left & right:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/donald-trump-mystery-op-ed/index.html

https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-s-guess-who-s-the-trump-official-behind-the-anonymous-op-ed-1313906755514?v=raila&

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/us/politics/trump-anonymous-reaction.html

https://www.theroot.com/you-are-not-part-of-the-resistance-if-you-are-hiding-be-1828842931

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/06/judith-miller-anonymous-op-ed-in-ny-times-merited-publication.html 

Nike's new ad campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick ignites nationwide debate

Source: NBC

Summary & Analysis

Yesterday, Nike debuted its new ad campaign featuring former NFL player and activist Colin Kaepernick. Around the country, people shared their anger, approval and surprise. Since first kneeling during the national anthem back in 2016 to protest police brutality, Kaepernick has been mostly ostracized by the NFL and its partners, like Nike.

Not surprisingly, the campaign was met with an overwhelming amount of condemnation. According to the New York Times, in the first 24 hours after the campaign was released, there were over 100,000 posts that contained the hashtag “#BanNike.”

Much of the criticism surrounding the campaign comes from the far right, who also criticized Kaepernick when he peacefully protested during the anthem.  Tyler Merritt, veteran and CEO of Nine Line Apparel, told Fox News that the campaign was “pathetic”: “This is likely to be the single most disastrous marketing decision in the history of sports.”

President Donald Trump, of course, commented as well. “It’s a terrible message,” he said, though he acknowledged that Nike has the right to run whatever kind of ad campaign they want.

Nike’s stock dipped by 3 percent after the campaign was first released, but it is safe to assume that choosing Kaepernick to star in its 30-year campaign was a deliberate choice both politically and economically. Marketing experts at Nike surely know their audience: nearly 70 percent of their customers are younger than 35. And 60 percent of millennials are “belief buyers,” according to a 2017 study -- meaning their personal (and political) beliefs are an important factor while making purchases.

The campaign also comes less than a month after four female Nike employees filed a lawsuit against the company for ignoring sexual harassment and paying their female employees less, which violates the Equal Pay Act.

While there has certainly been a negative reaction, the New York Times reported that there has been many more positive ones on social media."Critics of the NFL protests are deliberately trying to change the narrative to deflect away from discussing the realities of violence against African Americans,” wrote the USA Today in an opinion piece. “This is why it’s necessary for critics of Kaepernick to try to spin the protests into a ‘disrespecting the troops’ narrative.” 

Sources:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/09/04/as-nfl-offers-measured-response-to-nike-s-kaepernick-ad-other-reactions-range-from-support-to-outrage.html

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/04/news/companies/trump-nike-kaepernick/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/sports/nike-colin-kaepernick.html

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17818148/nike-boycott-kaepernick

https://www.businessinsider.com/nike-colin-kaepernick-deal-strategy-2018-9

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/04/nikes-colin-kaepernick-campaign-gets-todays-talker/1192486002/

Roe v. Wade could be reversed with Judge Brett Kavanaugh joining Supreme Court

Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Zach Gibson/Getty Images and Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

Summary and Analysis:
After the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, abortion became legalized throughout the United States to a certain extent. However, There has been a constant conservative push against the legalization of abortion ever since. In recent years, the Trump administration has banned abortion for illegal immigrant minors living in government run facilities. These immigrants must either carry through with their pregnancy and find an American sponsor who will take care of the baby, or leave the country entirely. With the addition of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, a majority of the Supreme Court will be conservative and the they will be able to vote with a majority of 5-4 to get rid of the abortion rights that Roe v. Wade provided. This event can happen as early as next year and is nearly guaranteed considering the judges involved. Without this federal case, abortion rights would be up to individual states to decide. Of course, women living in liberal states will not be directly affected by this change, however some believe that with this victory, the removal of abortion rights may become a trend. Some believe that the lack of reaction from the democratic side is partially responsible for this event, where "Their anger will snowball once they see the grim reality of abortion bans... For now, though, they are watching the disaster unfold in slow motion, and few seem moved to even call their senators" (Slate).

Opinion:
Abortion definitely should be legal in some cases, and the mentality that all stages of fetuses can be considered living individual humans seems strange to me. When a fetus does not have a developed brain or a human shaped body, can it even be called a human or is it just a bundle of fast growing cells? If abortion does become illegal, then women will just find other ways to get abortions, whether dangerously doing the procedure themselves or traveling to another state. While we may not be affected by the reversal of Roe v. Wade since we live in California, I do believe that the vote against abortion could be a catalyst for a decline in women's' rights in the years to come. Because Supreme Court judges stay judges for such a long period of time, it is unlikely that legalization of abortion at a federal level could come back any time soon. There is still a small chance that Roe v. Wade will not be reversed, as abortion rights is a topic that can be agreed upon for both Democrats and some Republicans, however as time goes on the chance gets slimmer.

Questions:
What can be done for abortion in the United States at this stage?
How can we ensure the safety of women's reproductive rights if Roe v. Wade is reversed?
Is there anything that can be done to keep Roe v. Wade or is it pretty much gone already?

Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reversing-roe-v-wade-will-be-just-the-beginning/2018/08/17/02ea11cc-a18b-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7271b9e07047
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/can-democrats-stop-brett-kavanaugh-from-overturning-roe-v-wade.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/03/politics/roe-v-wade-kavanaugh-collins/index.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/09/kavanaugh-will-give-roe-v-wade-deference-but-could-vote-to-overturn-the-ruling/569203/

California Schools to start after 8:30am just in time for Seniors to complain that good things happen to their schools after they leave

Aragon Senior protesting unfair timing of new law                                 Aragon Outlook

In a cruel and ironic twist of fate, California lawmakers moved to require all middle and high schools in the state, public or charter, to start after 8:30am on the last day of California's legislative session and in the last year of high school for seniors across the state.

The bill, SB328, passed the State Senate and Assembly by a narrow margin after an intense debate with arguments that drew comparisons to those used in the SMUHSD's decision to have a late start rather than an early release on 2/4/6 block days.

Proponents of the bill pointed to research that showed that later start times could lead to better student performance and mental health while opponents of the bill claimed it would hurt students with extracurriculars and working parents. The California Teachers Association and California School Boards Association were among those opposed to this bill.

For those in extracurriculars and wishing to be home before the sunsets, there is still hope as the bill still needs Gov. Jerry Brown's signature before becoming law.

Sources:

https://aragonoutlook.org/2017/10/2017-halloween-rally/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/01/california-votes-to-bar-schools-from-starting-before-8-30am-to-help-give-students-more-sleep.html

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Middle-high-schools-can-t-start-earlier-than-13198460.php

Head of Student Loans Watchdog resigns

Mick Mulvaney, acting Director of the CFPB              Joshua Roberts | Reuters

Benjamin Franklin once said, "an investment in knowledge pays the best interest," but I don't think he would have predicted the student loan crisis in the US today. In the US alone, there are over 44 million people with student loans, totaling $1.5 trillion dollars of debt.

After the Great Recession in 2008, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was passed in 2010 with the intent to strengthen financial regulation in the US. In this legislation, a student loans ombudsman ("an official appointed to investigate individuals' complaints against maladministration") position was created within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The position had been held by Seth Frotman, who helped the CFPB protect borrowers from predatory lenders, for-profit colleges, and other bad actors, "return[ing] more than $750 million to harmed student loan borrowers."

Frotman resigned earlier this week, and in his resignation letter, Frotman claimed that acting director Mick Mulvaney, a member of Trump's cabinet, had "used the Bureau to serve the wishes of the most powerful financial companies in America" by undermining the bureau's independence from the Presidential administration, crippling the ability to enforce the law, and by "shielding bad actors from scrutiny." You can read the full letter here.

Sources:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2018/08/28/student-loans-cfpb-resign/#3dd05d381a14
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/27/642199524/student-loan-watchdog-quits-blames-trump-administration
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/27/seth-frotman-cfpb-resignation-student-loans-758036

"Don't Distort Her Death": Father of Mollie Tibbetts Speaks Out

Source: CBS News

Summary/ Analysis:

Rob Tibbetts, father of the late Mollie Tibbets, spoke out on Saturday in a column in the Des Moines Register, demanding that politicians stop using his daughter's death as part of a “racist” debate.

He apologized to the Latino community and denounced the way many politicians have used Mollie's death as anti-immigration rhetoric: “The person who is accused of taking Mollie’s life is no more a reflection of the Hispanic community as white supremacists are of all white people.”

Donald Trump Jr. also wrote a column in the Des Moines Register this past weekend. Trump Jr. criticized the far left for downplaying Tibbets’ death in order to preserve their “love for open borders”: “Mollie was murdered by an illegal alien and her murder would never have happened if we policed our southern border properly.”

Tibbetts’ words come at a particular tense time. Latino festivals in Iowa were postponed out of “respect for Mollie” and a fear of racially-motivated incidents. “Deport Racists” was recently spray painted on the street of a predominantly-Latino city near Des Moines. A white supremacy group, “Road to Power,” sent out a robo call to multiple Des Moines residents calling for a “whites only” country and the death of Latinos: “Get rid of them now. Every last one.”

Opinion:

I think that Tibbetts speaking out is very admirable. I have a lot of sympathy for their family -- they have not gotten a chance to mourn because the death of their daughter was almost immediately politicized.

Even though Tibbetts alludes to Trump Sr. and other politicians who are using her death to promote anti-immigration policies, he also encourages people to look beyond the divide of political parties and understand that one murderer’s actions are not a reflection of their entire race or ethnicity. I found his statement on white people and white supremacists particularly powerful.

While the timing of him speaking out is slightly delayed -- news outlets on the far right, and even the president himself, have already used her death as the basis of their fear-mongering -- they are still extremely relevant. Tibbetts’ mention of McCain and Franklin and the way he connected it to the search for his daughter hopefully resonate with Americans, and remind them of the importance of cooperation and acceptance rather than separation and xenophobia.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/02/us/mollie-tibbetts-father-trump.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/after-arrest-of-undocumented-immigrant-in-mollie-tibbetts-case-iowa-town-tries-to-escape-the-inescapable-politics/2018/09/01/4ed60274-aa16-11e8-8a0c-70b618c98d3c_story.html?utm_term=.84e78507ffa1

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2018/09/03/mollie-tibbetts-missing-found-robocall-racist-white-nationalist-brooklyn-iowa-trump-immigration/1181614002/

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/02/us/mollie-tibbetts-father-op-ed/index.html

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2018/08/31/donald-trump-jr-democrats-reaction-mollie-tibbetts-death-heartless-illegal-immigration-border-wall/1143005002/

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2018/09/01/mollie-tibbetts-father-common-decency-immigration-heartless-despicable-donald-trump-jr-column/1163131002/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/aug/24/iowa-latino-festivals-canceled-over-safety-concern/

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/01/us/iowa-latinos-tension/index.html

Draft a new NAFTA: Ongoing trade talks with Canada

The North American Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1994 between the US, Canada, and Mexico and aimed to increase trade, create new jobs, integrate the North American economies and curb illegal immigration from Mexico. In essence, it lowered and eventually eliminated tariffs between the nations. Tariffs are taxes put on imports or exports, usually used to raise the price of foreign goods in order to make domestic goods more appealing or competitive in price.

Critics of this trade agreement claim that NAFTA costs American manufacturing jobs and create an evergrowing trade deficit with our neighbors to the North and South. Companies may relocate to Mexico from the US, where the cost of labor is significantly cheaper and sell goods produced without any tariffs to punish moving and costing the US jobs.

However, in a poll by IGM Chicago, 98% of the economists polled thought that the agreement helped the average American rather than hurt. Proponents of the agreement claim that lower costs for consumer goods and increased trade between nations has given the US economy a net gain than a loss. For example, NAFTA has been a huge boost to the US agriculture sector as Mexico and Canada are 2 of the top destination for US agricultural goods.

President Trump has been a harsh critic of NAFTA and has long sought to renegotiate it. In the past few days, the US came to new terms with Mexico on NAFTA which aimed at bringing back more automobile jobs to the US while talks have stalled with Canada.

Sources:
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/trump-nafta-canada-mexico/569134/
http://fortune.com/2018/09/03/new-nafta-canada-trump-mexico-trumka-unions/
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-to-test-high-pressure-negotiating-style-as-u-s-canada-nafta-talks-resume-1535992792
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/30/americas-deal-with-mexico-will-make-nafta-worse
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/02/opinion/trump-nafta-deal.html

Turning Purple to Red: Gerrymandering in North Carolina

In the 2016 Presidential election, North Carolinians voted 49.8% Republican and 46.2% Democratic, while voting 48.8% Republican and 49% Democratic in the gubernatorial race, landing Democrat Roy Cooper the governor's seat. By all accounts, North Carolina is a purple state: it has a mix of both Democratic and Republican civilians. But take a look at the map for how Representatives to the house were elected:

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/north-carolina

North Carolina sends 10 Republican representatives to 3 Democratic ones, despite being a purple state. You might have already guessed from the title as to why this has been possible. 

North Carolina's gerrymandered maps have been addressed in the past: a 2017 Supreme Court case ruled their maps unconstitutional on the grounds that they had been drawn along racial lines. However, as congressional maps are drawn by the state legislature, these maps were simply redrawn with a blatant partisan advantage in mind. In a 2016 House hearing, Republican state Rep. Dave Lewis said: “I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”

This brings us to the present day, where a federal court ruled last week that these redrawn congressional maps were unconstitutional. This is huge as this decision was the first time a court has ruled that a congressional map is unconstitutional because of partisan gerrymandering. Gerrymandered states, such as Texas and Pennsylvania, could follow suit, leading to a lot of changes in the House. However, don't expect these changes to show up in time for the 2018 midterms. The congressional districts in North Carolina won't be redrawn for 2018 midterms with less than two months before elections, and state legislators have already filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. If the conservative Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed, this case may be overturned.

Sources:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/29/17795920/2018-midterms-north-carolina-gerrymandering-case-supreme-court

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/plaintiffs-in-nc-gerrymandering-case-say-new-maps-not-an-option-for-november/2018/08/31/78cd6666-ad64-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html?utm_term=.e529f68fc821

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/22/15676250/supreme-court-racial-gerrymandering-north-carolina

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/north-carolina-gerrymandering/527592/

https://www.azavea.com/blog/2017/07/19/gerrymandered-states-ranked-efficiency-gap-seat-advantage/

Why are Macarons so expensive?

Every time I walk into Draeger's, the first thing I notice is the assembly of macarons behind the display glass. And every time, I balk at the price -- $1.25 for each puny cookie. Why were these french cookies so expensive? So I did a little bit of research.

Apparently, it’s because of the preparation. First of all, macarons require the egg whites to be aged up to five days before getting mixed in -- this is to ensure that the cookie is fluffy and airy. Next, the almond powder and sugar must be refined and sieved multiple times to ensure that the domes of the cookie are perfectly smooth. After all that, chefs must mix the meringue with the dry ingredients. They must be careful; while stirring too much results in flat, hard cookies, stirring too little causes the formations of peaks and spikes. When the batter is finally ready, bakers must concentrate in precise piping; even the slightest slip can result in two atrociously uneven halves. Finally, before the cookies can be put in the oven, bakers must wait once more -- a 15-30 minute resting period is ideal in order for the cookie halves to develop the signature “foot” along the cookie edges.

With this much preparation and required skill, the price tag is kind of justified. In some places, macarons are sold up to $4 per cookie. Draeger macaroons are relatively cheap in that respect, but then again, most of their macarons had peaks, cracks, or dents. It didn’t affect the taste (I like the cafe ones the best), but an imperfection is an imperfection, and I guess that’s the reason why Draeger macaroons are only $1.25 each and not $3.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/going-out-guide/wp/2017/05/16/are-ladurees-macarons-really-worth-almost-3-each/?utm_term=.07328553f4ad

https://www.rachaelraymag.com/real-life/why-cost-macaron-expensive

Questions:

Have you ever eaten a macaron? Favorite flavor? Other thoughts? Do you think they’re overpriced?