Ebola on a Plane: A Joke too Far?

                                       

Carlo Allegri/Reuters

Article Link

       Today on a US Airways flight from Philadelphia to the Dominican Republic, a 54 year old passenger allegedly yelled out "I have Ebola. You're all screwed," causing panic amongst all those on the plane. Soon after landing, the plane was isolated and a hazmat team came onboard to check the specific passenger, who was found not to actually have Ebola. 

      

     Even though the comments made by the passenger on the plane turned out to be nothing substantive,  the topic at hand was still serious. The current outbreak of Ebola is the largest ever recorded, significantly influencing public hysteria as people begin to worry about it rapidly spreading elsewhere, causing more casualties. Though it has not been made clear yet that the passenger was either making the joke or mentally ill, we can still question the fundamentals of humor in regards to prevalent issues.  What is an accepted limit for how far humor can go? Cartoonists and comedians can lampoon nearly everything, but where does "everything" begin and end?

    An event like this is an interesting insight into how we, as a general public, react to such things as in this flight. We laugh at caricatures of Kim Jong Un and presidential candidates. We laugh at the racist jokes made by comedians. But do we laugh at the threat of Ebola? I personally see Ebola as a sort of "flavor of the month" in regards to world issues. Just recently, we were concerned over actions Russia was taking, but now we just sort of don't take any heed to it. I'm not saying that Ebola isn't a threat that we should be wary of, but that we need to lighten up a little bit. Just because of what's happening now doesn't mean that we should be oversensitive to it. 

-What do you think of this incident?

-Do you condone the passenger's actions?

-Do you think this could have been handled better in general?

-Is a story like this even worth media attention?

Are Online Drugs a Good Thing?

As many might remember the Silk Road, an online black market in the darknet, was shut down in October 2013 when the FBI could finally hack through the site themselves and arrest vendors as well as the creator of the site who was in San Francisco at the time. While this was perceived as a large victory against the growing corruption in the virtual world in truth it was barely even a speed bump in the sales of illegal substances and products online, and if anything it raised crime. With almost a year since the incident, there have been almost 18 other sites to take the place of the silk road, with the top grossing site of the Silk Road 2.0 offering a whopping 47,000 different drug listings from vendors. To give a little insight towards the amount of sales that are being made on this site it is estimated that a quarter of the profit is approx 20 million. As this shows, while the name of the site may change or be disbanded the market has not budged a bit and will continue to be strong. But while names come and go, many have thought about keeping the Silk Road 2.0 stay around due to the key aspect of being able to rate each product. By being able to rate each product, it has ensured a quality product, as shown by FBI testing, leading to a safer market and less deaths due to drugs. In addition sites like the Silk Road 2.0 take drug trades off the street and reduce crime levels across the nation. So is it right to uphold the law when it may hurt society in the long run, or do they make and exception and help end both deaths and crimes due to drugs?

The Students' Call for Democracy: Hong Kong Responds

Tomohiro Ohsumi/Bloomberg Bloomberg Article       So, by now, we should have a fairly good idea about what’s happening in Hong Kong regarding the students and the government. If you want to see sort of a preface to what’s this article is talking about, check out Jimmy Lynde’s post from September, linked here. To summarize, China wants to place some stricter restrictions on Hong Kong, formerly held by Great Britain, in regards to how candidates will be chosen for elections there as well as some other specific changes. The public, led by the students didn't like this, so they began to protest, an act that the Chinese government reacted rather sourly to.  This conflict had hit sort of a high point, with militarized vehicles (thanks again Jimmy) being sent in to sort of intimidate protestors. However, conflict is in sort of a lull right now, due to the Hong Kong city government willing to talk with student protestors over the general constitutionality of political changes. This may not be a general solution to the initial problem, but I believe it is a sort of step in the right direction, as discussion may foster some sort of realization for the Hong Kong government; this is sort of extremely hopeful and idealistic though, given the state of the Chinese government as a whole. Based on how these talks go, two radically different results could come out. The first is if the talks do succeed, then protests will quiet down and the public (especially the students) will be happy. The other result is if the talks fail, then protests could continue, and we could see greater, possibly even more forceful government intervention. This whole story brings to mind a few interesting questions: -As the students are an extremely vocal group in pushing for change, are they really reflective of all of Hong Kong? Is this accurate public opinion? -Are there possible dangers with allowing the public to choose their own candidate? Yes, it's more democratic, but is that always necessarily the best thing? Could a government-chosen candidate even be better for Hong Kong? -If protester demands are met, what happens from there? If they are able to get what they want, would they try for more? What if they don't get what they want? Would they try harder or just give up? -If protests were to continue, what do you think China might do? Could we possibly have something reminiscent of Tiananmen Square?

Hacking: A Modern Sex Crime?

                                                (Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia Commons)

                                                         Jennifer Lawrence Article CNN
   
     
            As background to this story, on August 31st, 2014, on the notorious internet imageboard known as "4chan," nude pictures of celebrities were publicly posted for the world to see and subsequently share. News regarding this incident, popularly referred to on the internet world as "The Fappening," spread like wildfire, with news sources and individuals alike eager to their hands on they mystery that was surrounding this issue. How were the pictures even accessed in the first place? Why now? As more details came to light in the coming weeks since the initial release of the pictures, it became clear that the pictures came from hacking into targeted celebrities' iClouds.

           Now, more than a month after the issue first came up, the dust is finally starting to settle around this whole leak, with the release of pictures slowing down as well as tighter internet control with helping stop the spread of them. Just today, a cover story interview by Vanity Fair with Jennifer Lawrence, one of the targeted celebrities, was released. In this interview, Lawrence firmly stated that "it is not a scandal. It is a sex crime," condemning both the hackers who released the images and the people who looked at the images of both her and other celebrities.

         This is interesting on a few different levels. First, it is interesting to see how Lawrence is drawing the line between a "scandal" and a "sex crime." In all honestly, I personally agree with her, as the complete infiltration of privacy that comes from the inherent nature of hacking as well as the sharing of these images by the internet community transcends that of what a mere scandal is. A scandal is something that is more alleged or sort of sketchy. In this situation, Lawrence's private pictures are being completely exploited for money (as they were initially bought) and personal pleasure. Though there may not be a category of sex crime that can currently fit this exact situation, the premise of exploitation still lays inherent. Another thing to keep in mind is being able to trust modern security and storage on the internet. Cloud-type storage systems are quite common now, with such being usually default on lots of current technology such as the smartphone. However, is it really alright for us to put so much faith into something that we don't really know much about? In trying to integrate "bigger and better" technology more and more quickly into our daily lives, we may be sort of failing to see its shortcomings and vulnerabilities.

Anyway, here's a couple questions for you guys to think about:
-What do you think about Jennifer Lawrence's statement regarding the issue. Is is a scandal, sex crime, or something else?
- What do you think of media and public response in regards to the issue? I didn't totally go into it here, but I know that celebrity bloggers like Perez Hilton had shared images (but censored) to his site. Websites like Reddit had entire sections dedicated to sharing the images (though this page eventually banned).
-How does public perception play into this issue? Just because the nudes are of specific celebrities, why does that have to make them any more special than those of non-celebrities? Do we place too much faith into the image of the modern celebrity?
-Do we rely too much on the espoused (and assumed) merits of technology? Do we need to pay more attention to its shortcomings? Is modern technology just an entire market of spin?

the mystery of North Korea

North Korea’s history has always confused and horrified many as it is filled with illogical decisions and inhumane actions, but once again they manage to confuse the whole world. On Friday, top officials from North Korea went to visit the South Korean government with no communication prior to their arrival, as South Korea was only able to even broadcast the North Korean’s arrival one hour prior to arrival. Among the North Korean delegation, was Hwang Pyong So and Choe Ryong Hae, two of the most influential men in North korea whom are thought of as the right hand men to Kim Jong Un himself. While there, the two governments discussed the possibility of increased communication between the two countries. As if this was not odd enough, Kim Jong Un has also not been seen for an entire month and was last shown in a weakened state due to illness.

What does this mean for North Korea and what were their true intentions? Does this reveal Kim’s current weak and vulnerable state, or an achievement for still managing delicate communications with South Korea while feeling under the weather.Is this an event to mark a beginning towards piece, or are there more cynical motives?

(Photo credit given to ABC News)

Is Obama a Misogynist?

Article

Summary of the Incident

Just today, October 3, 2014 Obama came out as hating women. Saying that his wife, of twenty-two years today, had to "be very patient with him," because men just "[aren't] as smart." Obviously he thinks that he's superior to her. The way he "supports" her in her claims about sexism. Obviously his sole goal, as he systematically destroys America is to perpetuate stereotypes about women in the home. He started by supporting his wife in her efforts to help America be healthier. Then sealed the deal by signing a federal mandate requiring equal pay for women on April third of this year. By allowing women to become equal to men he's just trying to highlight the fact that they aren't equal yet and that men should take advantage of that while they still can. Because simply complimenting, and honoring your wife on your anniversary? Ha, nice try Obama, you're not gonna pull this over on me. I still want to see your birth certificate!

This was my bad attempt at satire. Let me know what you think and how I can improve in the future! My point is Obama has actually done so much for women. He mandated, not asked mandated, that women be paid equal to men. And if you think someone who's been married to a woman who has advocated and fought for women's rights almost eight years doesn't think that women are equal in every way shape and form is kidding themselves. Could you see Obama's words as perpetuating the stereotypes of society. Yes, you could if you refused to look at the context and decided only to see Obama telling a woman she has to do something. I think this ties in with my article about over-sensitivity in media really well. I'm not perfect with sexism. I love to joke, and sometimes, many times I don't understand anything. My sister has actually physically beaten me over it, and I'm learning. One could say, "it's not her job to teach you. It's your job to learn." Yeah, and I try. I generally get it wrong, but I try. People who know me know that I believe that women are equal to men, even my sister who said I was a misogynist for thinking Kristen Stewart is a bad actress(she has zero emotion). If one took even a milli-second to see. He's not trying to offend anyone. He has fought as hard, if not harder for women, than Kennedy for signing the equal pay act, , and he was a complete womanizer who said he needed to have sex three times a day to avoid headaches from not having sex. Obama has no such problem that I, or anyone is aware of. I think that while not everything should be said; in no way do I believe that, but I think it is important to see that President Barack Obama isn't assigning another job that women have to perform as their duty as a woman, but being lighthearted with a bride about to go through the biggest change of her life. Leave your comments below. I'm not perfect please let me know where my argument falls short, and how it should be.

How Safe are we???

In today's day and time, we entrust our devices to store almost every piece of information about ourselves, from our name to our social security numbers and addresses. Most recently,  the U.S. has been making large strides in the tech industry further integrating society into technology. Current examples of this would include, further automation of wall street as well as the push in the pentagon for online voting. First, as far as wall street goes, the government now has almost 50% of trades for the US government debt in bonds to give traders a more competitive edge, leaving the prosecution of millions of orders left to a machine. To continue, the pentagon now is investing millions on online voting, giving a voice to those who may be unable to reach a voting poll such as our soldiers in other nations.

But is it really safe? We like to think that our government is impenetrable from any attack, living up to the superpower image that has been created for our nation, but it simply is not true. As of recently, it was made public that JP Morgan Chase-the largest bank in the US- was hacked and that the information of 76 million was breached releasing addresses emails and banking information. While this is one of the largest and most frightening security breaches for America in a while it represents a trend of hacking that is becoming too common in our society. Large companies such as Target, Home Depot, and many more name brands are now being targeted with little to no defense. With so many Issues of security it brings to question, is the government doing enough. Are they providing enough protection for the private sector? Is it right to move forward with integrating society into technology with so much uncertainty in privacy?

Anti-Semitism in America? No Way!?!?!?

Article

This week a coffee shop owner's annti-semitic rants went viral. Yeah, anti-semitic, in the twenty-first century, in America. Basically this man blames "greedy Jews," who function "via greed and dominance," for trying to buy out Bushwick, New York. His rants go on, and I won't post them here so as to not spread his seeds elsewhere, but my main question is; while we should definitelly take offense, and in no way condone such behavior, is it the right thing to do to blow it up? While this is crazy, I hardly think that it's worth front page news, and merely gives him the fifteen minutes of fame he's looking for. It might even be better to ignore it all together. The chance of changing his belief is slim to none. People, especially those willing to put up long facebook essays about his disdain for a group of people is going to need a life altering event in order to change his mind, but blowing him up serves to merely spread what he is saying to where people who can identify with his issue might be subversed into understanding his stance, and possibly believing his beliefs. I think that, especially on a national level, and even a state level, this kind of news should not even be reported on. Should it condoned? No. Should it be stopped? Heck yeah, but I think the way society has been going about it, villifying and shaming for all to see doesn't get the job done. If people have a problem, boycott the store, drive him out of business. Force him to make a formal apology. I would love to read an article about how people came together to fight anti-semitism as opposed to opps there's another racist with a big mouth who figured out how to work Facebook. What do you guys think? How should society deal with people like this Bushwick coffee vendor?

What is Appropriate Anymore?

The Article

This article is a double-whammy. First it hits you with overprotection in our schools. In North Carolina The Bluest Eyes by Toni Morrison was banned from East Wake High School as parents complained that it is too explicit and was compared to Fifty Shades of Grey in that it promotes sex and pornography. While I don't doubt the talent of the author of Fifty Shades of Grey, I highly doubt that the book offers any insight into the America's history of racial and social injustice; and I, without any hesitation, and having read Beloved by the same author, which dips into some of the same topics about ugly humanity, racism, and sex, as well as the added bonus of beastiality, would say that there is no way that this novel read by bored moms in bookclub compares in any way with the pure genius, intricate plots and symbols, or sheer purposeful insanity of Morison's Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winning masterpiece, and anyone trying to banned it from their school for that comparison is ignorant. For a more arguable idea. Should Toni Morrison's works, which could easily be considered innapropriate, be banned? Do their genius and relevance overpower the topics which might not be for kids? I believe that there is too much protection in society. Obviously parents want to protect their children from what they see is bad, but on some level these kids(look at me saying kids when I'm practically/actually their age) need to figure out what they think is okay. For me, reading Beloved taught me a lot about who I am and what I think is okay. While some of the actions in the book are greusome and unbearable, as well as hardly understandable, the work taught me the lesson it wanted to teach about the greusomeness of slavery and the dehumanizing affects of slavery. I won't get too far into my experience with Beloved, but what do you think? Should possibly morally wrong books, with actions deemed wrong for kids be allowed in schools if they have been deemed literary genius? Where is the line drawn? The second part of this article talks about Common Core. Our favorite form of testing. Do you like Common Core? Why or why not?

Facebook's real name requirement leaves drag queens at a disadvantage

This month, drag queens Little Miss Hot Mess and Sister Roma (pictured below) among others spoke at San Francisco City Hall to protest the enforcement of Facebook's real name policy.

(Eric Risberg/AP)

 Facebook policy requires every user to employ their real name, a requirement which perplexes those with pseudonyms. According to the site, using real names allows Facebook to hold users accountable when it comes to harassment or other threats.

Many drag queens however, build a livelihood from spreading recognition of their stage names. When Little Miss Hot Mess got her Facebook taken down, she contended the decision, claiming that Facebook has no right to tell her what defines a "real" name.

Other critics point out that Facebook depends on selling personal information. Having a real name attached to a Facebook account, they say, will enable Facebook to sell this information in a more convenient fashion.

Should Facebook enforce its real name policy? Or is protecting Facebook users more important? What is the real issue here? (Does it really boil down to advertising?)

Can Women Park?

On Wednesday the 24th of September, Eric Bolling and Greg Gutfeld, co-hosts of “The Five” on Fox news, insulted Maj. Mariam Al Mansouri, who was the first woman to be a member of the United Arab Emirates Air Force as well as squadron leader of F16’s that bombed ISIS. They Stated, “Problem is, after she bombed it, she couldn’t park it," Gutfeld said. "Would that be considered boobs on the ground, or no?" Bolling followed up. As if one comment was not bad enough Gutfeld found the need to also harass a war hero and a female role model for all of America and the world. In the following repercussions, both Bolling and Gutfeld apologized twice on national  TV, but still to the dissatisfaction of many, including the armed forces a public letter was sent to Fox News. It followed the lines of ”... your remarks were immensely inappropriate...You are not Funny. You are not clever. You are not excused... We issue an apology on your behalf to Major Al Mansouri knowing that anything your producers force you to say will be contrived and insincere”

(If you are interested in reading the rest of the letter which I definitely recommend the link is here  http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/an-open-letter-to-fox-news)

To continue this theme of women's rights, quite recently actress Emma Watson has been voicing her opinion of Feminism and the rights of women. She has most notably, been raising support for the feminist movement and ridding the movement of its negative connotations that it has had in the past. In addition, she is also bringing to light the support of men on this issue, showing that it is not a single sex fight and many more than a few clichéd radical women stand for their mission.

What connotation does Feminism have for you?

How large of an issue do you think Feminism is if at all?

How prevalent is Sexism in your life?

College Board Weighs in on Jefferson County Student Protesters

This week students in Jefferson County, Colorado have walked out of school in protest of the area's school board. The walk-outs started when the board announced possible changes to teacher pay, but unrest became increasingly apparent when board member Julie Williams proposed making changes to the AP US History program--and the College Board responded.

(Eric Gorski/Twitter)

According to Williams, the current AP US History curriculum encourages "civil disorder" and "disregard of the law." She also incorrectly stated that the course omits topics such as the Gettysburg Address and the founding fathers. Either way, her plan would establish a curriculum overview committee that would decide whether or not to teach certain aspects of the course.

Tensions became even higher, however, when the College Board submitted a statement in support of the students who walked out of school. "These students recognize that social order can--and sometimes must--be disrupted in pursuit of liberty and justice," the organization said. They also threatened to disqualify Jefferson County schools from the AP history program if changes were to be made.

Which side do you agree with? Should the school board be able to alter curriculum while keeping the AP label? Is a walk-out a valid form of student protest? Is it true that the student protest is an example of necessary civil unrest?

Who is the First Lady

Who is the First Lady?

Currently, Michelle Obama has been hard at work campaigning around the country for the upcoming elections, visiting states such as Iowa, Maine and Wisconsin to rally the voters in favor of the democratic Senators and governors running in each of these states. Thus far she has participated in 26 events this year and is far from over, as her current fall calendar  filled with campaigning events will show. Put accurately by DNC spokesman Michael Czin, “The First Lady has -and will continue to be- a tremendous asset for the Democrats on the November ballot.” With this series of events, highlighting her speech at the Democratic National Committee, it marks a new time for Michelle Obama. A new time of advocacy and strong campaigning to strengthen the Democratic party, and less on ratings of the public as she was so accustomed to in her husband's first term pressing issues such as child obesity.

With Michelle's role in social issues as well as political issues changing we must call into question what truly is the role of the First Lady? Is she a trailblazer for social reforms, a support for her husbands role and position in government, a  key campaigner for her party’s control in congress or merely a figure to give us a false sense of security. Looking back most recently to Laura Bush, her role of First Lady took that of one focused on social changes such as: literacy, education, gender equality, and after the event of 9/11 most notably took the role of comforting and aiding the country through a hard time. While not a strong example of a politically active First Lady, she is a perfect example for an advocate of social reform. A bit further back, one of the most powerful First Ladies this country has ever known, Hillary Clinton, was known for her strong influence in politics taking on ambitious tasks such as the National Health Reform as well as a hefty background in politics far before her husband’s presidency. Even After her husbands Terms she took the position of senator of New York and now is seeking a presidency of her own.

Conclusion Questions:

What do you think the role of the first lady is?

Do you believe the First Lady should be politically active, and if so do you feel she should voice her opinion even if it is in disagreement with her husband?

If Hillary Clinton were to be the next president, what would the role of her husband be?

The 3 hudred thousanth of the 1%

New York Magazine

We've all fantasized about being rich. About doing whatever we want; buying a nice car, drinking champagne on board our yatch on a way from your spring home in Sveti Stefan, Montenegro, to our summer home in Côte d'Azur, France. The sun can never set on our day, and the can never rise on our nights. In today's day and age there are two-thousand three-hundred twenty-five billionaires in the world right now who hold seven point three trillion dollars, otherwise known as four percent of the world total wealth. Those numbers shocked me. So few people 0.00003% of the the world's people owned 4.00000% of the worlds worth. The author of this article definitely didn't aprove of those numbers. The way he generalized these people with the pronoun "they;" "they love watching athletic competitions." The author generally comments on how these super-rich may give millions of dollars to charity, but are they really philanthropic? To them these hundred million are nothing compared to the sixty-three billion dollars the subject of the article has in the bank. That's not even twenty percent of the money he has in cash right now. That's one and a half percent of their worth. Here is my question of the night. Should the uberwealthy of the world be more generous? Obviously it's their money, and nobody can make them spend it in any certain way, but given the large economic disperity do they have any sort of obligation to society to help more than they do?

The Washington Redskins(!?!?!?!?)

South Park

The Colbert Report 

Well as people, especially those in sixth period, will know South Park, season 18 began tonight with a bang. Episode 1 titled "Go Fund Yourself" took some stabs at the things like the name of the Washington football team, as well as the incidence with Ray Rice. I'm not going to go too far in depth because most of these have been covered in previous posts. The basic plot line goes that to get out of school the boys try to start a start-up in order to avoid going to school. With the trademark being pulled the boys decide to use the name the Washington Redskins as their name to be able to "bro down." As I watched the episode one thing Mr. Silton said really stuck with me, when he recounted a his story about oversensitivity-run-amuck. My question goes in the oposite direction. Seeing how far the Southpark episode went I wondered how far is is too far, and how far is far enough? Where does the line stand between insensitivity and joking? Also where is the line between
being politically correct and overly sensitive? I myself believe that many things(I see it in my older sister) have become overly sensitized. By making these topics "too hot to touch" can anything actually be achieved? By radically protecting an issue no discussion can be made. The Colbert Report, on July 31, 2014(a link will be provided at the bottom), touched on this with the Gaza crisis.In the mini-sketch Colbert tried to report on the event without using any "trigger words" or loaded language. His final sentence ended up being, "More on the latest in these shooty-places..(many mistakes)...Today things occured...You know what let's forget it this entire thing is complete f***** b******* anyways." While it obviously isn't a perfect example it does show how if one is so unable to talk about things nothing can be said and then no one will know what's going on.

In Summary:
Where is the line between jokes and insensitivity?

Where is the line between oversensitivity and politically correct?

What side of the scale, overly-sensitive, insensitive, just right, do you think South Park is on? The

Colbert Report? The Daily Show? The nation? And discuss a little on why and how we can improve.

How do you think we can, as a nation, make things more discussable?

Which is your favorit? The Daily Show? Or the Colbert Report?

UN Climate Change Summit 2014

(Source: Reuters)

In New York yesterday, dozens of high profile leaders of many nations throughout the world were present as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli also made statements. This meeting was crucial because since the Kyoto Protocol's expiration in 2012, no new measures or promises have been made to combat the rising dangers presented by climate change. 

The biggest point that needed to be made in this meeting was the assertion that significant changes, enough to reverse the effects of climate change, will not happen if we are unable to acquire the participation of every country in the world -- NOT just developed countries. In the past, developing/undeveloped countries like China and India received a free pass from participating in the Kyoto Protocol and promising to reach certain goals of cutting their annual emissions by a certain date "because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate change." However, today's circumstances require that all countries must participate and make a conscious effort to reduce carbon emissions and operate on a much more efficient track than ever before, including developing country's. China is especially important in this, as the country with the largest population and fastest growing economy in the world, as well as one of the most heavily polluted countries, despite its "developing country" status.

Mr. Zhang has assured us that China will make an effort to cut its emissions of carbon per unit of GDP by a substantial 45%, marking one of the first times that China has promised to make an effort to take action against its emissions. As positive as this is, it is undercut by the fact that Chinese President Xi Jinping was not even present at the summit. As someone who took APES last year, it hurts to hear that despite significant evidence supporting the presence of climate change and the danger that it presents, many countries are still refusing to take this threat seriously. 

Here are my questions: 

1) Do you think that the problems addressed in the summit will be addressed soon? 

2) What are some viable solutions that you can think of to help cut emissions?

3) Is there any significance behind the absence of the Chinese president and others?

4) What is your general opinion on climate change and the actions (or inactions) that have been taken by countries around the world?

Airstrikes in Syria: Brace Yourselves

(Source: US Navy)

Media centers everywhere are chock-full of the latest news regarding the Syrian conflict: on Monday, the U.S. led airstrikes on ISIS targets. Apparently, the U.S. warned Syria in advance not to interfere with the American aircraft, a warning which it promptly heeded. According to Army Lt. Gen. Williams C. Mayville Jr., director of operations for the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, these airstrikes are the beginning of a prolonged campaign to put a stop to the actions of ISIS. The goal of this campaign, as described by Mayville, is "'to degrade and ultimately destroy' the Islamic State, first by directly attacking the group in both countries, severing its supply lines and disrupting its sources of arms and money". 

The U.S. will also be employing the use of proxy forces in order to further hurt ISIS and succeed over the long term, forces such as the Iraqi military and moderate Syrian rebels. By themselves, these groups have failed to make an impact, but combined and with U.S. military backing they will stand a chance of gaining some territory. 

However, there are some definite issues with this method of "dealing with" ISIS. Ross Douthat made a good point when he pointed out that an escalation of aggressive campaigning in Syria could (1) prompt Islamic extremist groups to unite against the U.S. and become even more hostile, and (2) alienate civilians against the U.S. as more of them are injured as innocent bystanders by the airstrikes. It's exactly like he says: "Things could always get worse, and we should never forget it."

Here are some questions:

1) What is the right kind of American response to ISIS's actions? Must we have a response? Why?

2) Do you think that the bombing will work?

3) What are some past examples of times when we should've heeded the Founding Fathers' warnings against entangling alliances?

Takeaways from the Annual Report on Income and Poverty

On Sept. 16, the Census Bureau came out with its annal report on income and poverty. One of my favorite columnists, John Cassidy, penned a nice post outlining some takeaways. The report showed some very minor positive changes (a slight downtick in the poverty rate, and a slight downtick in the Gini Coefficient, probably the most common measurement of inequality - a higher Gini Coefficient means more disparity in income, though the metric has sometimes been criticized as inaccurate in some respects).

Furthermore, Cassidy talked about a modest rise in the medium income, which signifies a "steady, if unspectacular, recovery from the Great Recession." However, he noted that these gains were not fast enough (many measures of economic health were still worse than they were in 2007, before the Great Recession), and the United States continues to be an extremely unequal place.

What I thought was most interesting was Cassidy's characterization of what poor economic conditions mean for political systems. In general, when spending power is on the rise (people have more real money in their pockets), compromise is easier. However, in an unequal economic system, when spending power is too little (people don't have enough real money in their pockets), the working and middle classes try to enact progressive/redistributive economic policies (tax the rich, give to the poor) that will bring money from the folks at the top down to them. This gives those people at the top an extra incentive to oppose these redistributive policies, setting up a political conflict and increasing polarization.

To sum it up in John Cassidy's words, "To oversimplify a bit, income stagnation paired with rising inequality is a recipe for political polarization and, under the American system of divided powers, political gridlock, which is what we have."

I think Cassidy makes an excellent point about country's political economy. I would add that I think this process is cyclical; the increased political polarization and gridlock that is a byproduct of poor economic conditions reduces the government's ability to govern and create sensible economic policy, which in turn worsens our economic conditions and leads to more gridlock and polarization all over again (which in turn leads to poor economic conditions, which again leads to... you get the point). Though, to be fair, some libertarian economists like Dan Mitchell wouldn't agree with me that gridlock leads to poor economic conditions, as they have the mindset of "That government is best which governs least" mindset, and think that when we have gridlock, the government isn't able to do much, which is good for the economy.

I have some questions:

1. What governments actions (or inactions, I guess) do you all think should be taken to reduce the poverty and inequality that Cassidy says is so harmful to our political system?
2. Do you agree with Cassidy's thesis ("income stagnation paired with rising inequality is a recipe for political polarization and, under the American system of divided powers, political gridlock")? Why?
3. Do you agree with me that this process is cyclical, as political gridlock -- and thus less sensible government action -- creates poor economic circumstances? Or would you agree with the certain economists like Dan Mitchell who think gridlock -- and thus less government action at all -- creates good economic conditions? Why?
4. Maybe you can come up with a concrete example of poor economic conditions and inequality creating political polarization and gridlock to elucidate Cassidy's thesis to everyone on the blog?

Demographic Domestic Violence Trends

 

(Source: The New Yorker)                       (Source: LA Times)

Ray Rice, former Ravens running back, currently faces criminal charges after the release of the most recent video of him punching his wife, Janay Palmer, in an elevator, causing her to hit her head on a rail and rendering her unconscious. Rice was already in hot water last February when an abridged version of the above video was released by TMZ, showing him dragging his wife out of the elevator. TMZ released the latest video on September 8th, which shows the full knockout.

When the first video was released, it received a significant amount of media coverage, especially when Rice was arrested and then indicted on one count of aggravated assault in March. Despite all this, Rice was kept on the Ravens. After the most recent video was released, however, Rice was immediately cut from the Ravens and has been indefinitely suspended from the NFL (he will be appealing this suspension). All of these events have been widely publicized and public outrage has exploded over Rice’s violence. 

On the other hand, another sport and another league - not the NFL this time, who knew? - has just proved once again the notoriety of national sports teams in turning a blind eye to domestic violence. A high-profile athlete has been outed for punching her half-sister and nephew, and is facing charges of domestic violence: Hope Solo, the best US goalkeeper the world has ever seen. The most notable difference between this incident and Rice’s situation is how each league has responded. The NFL has suspended Rice, true, yet US Soccer has essentially ignored these events and is even applauding her and allowing her to continue to play. The response to Rice’s case was huge, but where was the outrage during Solo’s arrest? All we heard were crickets. There are some significant differences between these two cases, but we can all agree that they definitely both qualify as domestic violence. So why the discrepancy?

There are two factors here that could’ve easily led to the prominence of one case versus the blindness of the other. First of all, Ray Rice is African-American. As we’ve all learned in the past eight-plus years of studying US history, this particular race has just about never had it good in this country, and I don’t think I need to remind everyone why. I’m sure that we can all point out many, many instances where racism is still prevalent in today’s society, and this looks like another to add to the list. And hey, if you’ve all been doing the reading (which I am sure you have), then you’re aware that ethnicity and current events can have a significant impact on the political views of a certain demographic, as seen in the graph below, which is on page 385 of our textbook.

(Source: American Government textbook)

Secondly, there’s another very important difference between these two cases: gender. Ray Rice, Greg Hardy, and many other male players faced almost immediate consequences from their actions, yet Solo has been awarded a spot on the national team AND has been made team captain. I’m seeing a serious issue of sexism here, and not the kind that feminists rant and rave about. Where’s the equality?

Here are a few questions for you to think about, in addition to any opinions you may have:

1. What factors "inherent in the system" could be prompting these different attitudes to the same actions from high-profile athletes, and why? 
2. What kinds of motivations would the owners of each team and/or officials of each league have to prompt them to either take action or turn a blind eye?
3. Why has the public and the media glossed over Solo's incident?

I appreciate any and all thoughts on these incidents.

Bonus 'Murica Points if you can tell everyone why Ray Rice can’t be convicted again, this month. 

Happy commenting!

Washington Redskins controversy puts spotlight on the plight of Native Americans

Last June, the US Trademark and Patent Office canceled the trademark for the Washington Redskins. In general, the issue over the team's name, which some consider offensive, has caused a lot of controversy ever since its beginning. Recently, human rights activist Kerry Kennedy (daughter of Bobby Kennedy, former wife of Andrew Cuomo) wrote a column in the Boston Globe that shone some light on the plate of Native Americans in the present-day US.

The point of the column was to say that Native American issues cannot be solved by simply changing the name of a football team; there are deeper, more ingrained issues at hand here. Native Americans face an extraordinarily high poverty rate (28% vs. 15% for the rest of the US population), and 8 of the 10 lowest-income counties in the US are predominately Native American. Ultimately, the column argues that the US should give tribes more autonomy over their land and encourage the preservation of tribal cultures.

The way Native Americans fit into politics and public policy has always fascinated me; I think that one of the underlying issues is that the Native American vote isn't given that much attention in places other than Arizona, the Dakotas, and Montana, where they vote heavily Democratic. The fact that few politicians don't have a large incentive to care about issues important to Native Americans (they represent a too small amount of the electorate, but there are still 3 million Native Americans who live on reservations), has been apparent in public policy. Kennedy's column briefly talks about how federal budget cuts in 2013 were devastating for tribal governments. Another example would be how Native American women were left out of the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Furthermore, mental health services for Native Americans are nowhere near adequately funded, which is especially troubling due to the alarmingly high rates of suicide and alcoholism on reservations.

Kennedy also mentions cultural preservation as another way to help the Natives, which got me thinking about this OpDoc I enjoyed from the New York Times about the difficulty of preserving tribal languages.

I have some questions (not meant for everyone to respond to every question):

1. This is going back a little bit, but how important/offensive do you think the name "Redskins" is for Native Americans?
2. What do you think our priorities should be when addressing Native American issues (health care, mental health, education)?
3. Why do you think Native Americans vote solidly for Democrats?
4. What is the importance of preserving tribal traditions?