The Iranian Hostage Cri-Success

If you were watching the State of Union Address last night, and I hope you were for the sake of your SOU assignment, then you probably noticed the tension due to the ten navy sailors that were captured by Iranian forces. They considered cancelling the entire program! It seems we've all heard this story before, right? 444 days, tons of stress, and it all ultimately ends up in a movie. Well, it seems that part two differs from the original, since Iran released all American sailors within twenty four hours after two small and armed boats experienced mechanical trouble and wound up in Iranian waters. So what does this mean?

Many democrats claim that this outcome is good news. Our sailors were free within a day, and many attribute this to the Iranian nuclear deal, where oil and financial sanctions will be removed from Iran in return for close monitoring of any plutonium or uranium plants that Iran currently possesses. Obama and other Democrats are lauding this interaction with Iran as an indication of how successful the nuclear deal negotiations have been in creating a more stable relationship with Iran, since it seems they are too afraid to incite the US with violence when sanction relief money is coming soon. This quick hostage scenario is evidence to Obama that a more stable global interaction with Iran is not far away.

Not surprisingly, Republicans responded in the opposite manor. They find Obama's contentment with the quick release of Americans unsatisfactory, and claim that the imprisonment of these people for any time at all displays the failure of the President to actually fix relations with Iran. This was backed up with images of hostages with guns pointed at them, which turned the republican community to rage.  Many also criticize Obama for ignoring this issue at the SOU, as it is of dire national importance.

There is some controversy over an Iranian news video that depicted an American sailor's apology to the people of Iran, yet it is unclear whether this apology was forced or not actually meant as an apology from the US to Iran for this incident. The US declares that no apology was given.

Questions:
1) Do you see this issue as proof of progress in relations with Iran or proof of failed policy? Why?
2) How does ultra partisanship affect daily politics? Even in times of national crisis, everyone still disagrees with each other. Why can't we just agree?                  3) What do you think about the Iranian nuclear deal? Yay or nay? (Go here for a simple guide)

Sources:
NBC: Click Here
Politico: Click Here
CNN: Click Here
ABC and Pic: Click Here
LA Times and Pic: Click here

Clinton v Sanders: The Battle Begins

In the last few days it seems Hillary Clinton's campaign may be reaching a bumpy spot due to Bernie's new popularity.

With primaries slowly approaching, candidates are focusing on the two first states to vote: Iowa and New Hampshire. Both democratic candidates seem to be upping their game in these states with speeches and brochures galore.                                                         

For a minute there, we all thought that Hillary had wrapped up this primary, right? Well, it's possible we were wrong. Bernie has touched the hearts of many people in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and his poll ratings (shown below) show a new fondness for him. Hillary promised us from the beginning that she was "in it to win it," and she is now attempting to protect her title as #1 by disparaging Bernie, especially on his gun control policy. She points out in the video below that he has voted for many bills protecting the NRA, which obviously seems very conservative. In a recent ad, she has highlighted this flaw as well as the fact that her opponent doesn't support Obama as much as she does, which hits close to home with Obama lovers.

Bernie isn't letting this go; in fact, he is pointing out her strong comebacks as an indication of her campaign failures (ABC). He has attacked Clinton back by pointing out her hesitance to expand social security and other issues. Both candidates are trying to up the heat at the point in the election and it isn't surprising that Hillary is trying to make herself seem like the most qualified person for the nomination. I also guess that Bernie isn't always as sweet as everyone thinks.

Video Worth Watching: Click Here

There is a a consistent pattern of supporters of both Bernie and Hillary worth pointing out here. Many younger democratic voters tend to support the more liberal Bernie while older democratic voters (over the age of 45) tend to support the more moderate democrat, Hillary (New York Times). However, many also believe that Hillary will ultimately win the nomination, since she has slightly higher polls and may seem to be the better choice for the presidency (New York Times).

I think that Hillary is right to campaign hard right before the primaries, even if trash-talking Bernie is involved. Nobody ever said politics was pretty, and she has every right to point out the weaknesses of her competition as he quickly catches up to her, as indicated by the Iowa Poll graph above. I guess we will soon see who is able to out campaign the other in the upcoming months. 

Questions:

1) Do you think that the excess attention Iowa and New Hampshire receive as the first primary vote is unfair? What are the benefits of this to candidates and why do you think that they focus so much on getting those first states?

2) Why do you think younger people tend to vote more liberal (Bernie) and older people more conservative (Hillary)? 

3) Do you think that Hillary has the right to bad mouth Bernie like this? She does still have the lead, is she overreacting or is this a necessary move?

Sources:

The New York Times: Click Here
The Washington Post (and video): Click Here
ABC News: Click Here
CNN: Click Here
Iowa Poll: Click Here

Nikki Haley could be our next Vice President

After the State of the Union address Governor Nikki Haley was given the job of responding for the Republican party to Obama’s speech. Haley the Governor of South Carolina has been making herself known in the past year by taking down a confederate flag from the statehouse in Columbia, South Carolina after the shooting of nine African Americans by a white supremacist, and verbally slamming Donald Trump a couple of times. After her response to the SOTU everyone rushed to google to read up about her.

postandcourier.com

Obviously she would not be Donald Trump’s choice if he wins the primary but for the other possible candidates she would make a strong running mate. Her parents are both Indian so she appeals to minorities and she is a strong supporter of women’s rights which would make some Clinton supporters think about changing sides. She would diminish the anti-minority stigma that Trump has put around the Republican party and give the election the fresh new face people have been waiting for. Overall she has made her mark with her response to the SOTU and is certainly now one of the top options for the Republican candidate’s Vice President.

Questions:
1. What is your opinion on Nikki Haley so far?
2. Would she affect your decision on any of the candidates?
3. If you saw her response to the SOTU do you have any comments on the things she said?

Sources:
http://www.newsweek.com/south-carolina-governor-nikki-haley-republican-response-414890
http://www.npr.org/2016/01/11/462702582/state-of-the-union-response-5-things-to-know-about-s-c-gov-nikki-haley
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/12/nikki-haley-managed-to-capture-americas-attention/

Is Ted Cruz Eligible to Run for President?

The Dallas Morning News

According to the Constitution the President must have three qualifications. He or she must be above 35 years of age, a resident of the United States for 14 years, and a natural born citizen. Ted Cruz has being resident since he was 4 years old, and is 45 years old, however it is being disputed whether he is a natural born citizen.

Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada. However his mother was born in Delaware and was an American citizen so the the Naturalization Act of 1790 which stated that “children born abroad to U.S. citizens were, too, natural born citizens.”(politifact.com) would make him a natural born citizen. Also he moved to the U.S. when he was 4 so should we really hold it over him that he was born in another country when he spent the majority of his life in the U.S.?

However, Democrats seem to want to argue this issue a bit more considering how concerned the Republicans were with Obama possibly being born in Kenya, and then claiming Hawaii where he was actually born is not a real part of the United States. Most Republicans pay little attention to Cruz’s situation and ignore the fact of how passionate they were about the possibility of Obama not being a natural born citizen.

Questions:

1. Do you think that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen?
2. Do you think he should still be allowed to run even if he is not considered a natural born citizen?
3. How do you feel about Cruz’s birthplace being considered less controversial to the GOP than Obama’s clearly legal birthplace?

Sources:

http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/2/essays/82/presidential-eligibility

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/26/ted-cruz-born-canada-eligible-run-president-update/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz

California's New Automatic Voting Registration

A California bill signed by Governor Jerry Brown amends the process of registration previously used in California. Formerly, any eligible voter would have to fill out a semi-tedious form online or on paper in order to register themselves. The problem with this is that it leaves the people up to the task of signing themselves up, something that few other countries attempt since most believe that voting should be the burden of the government, not the people. This issue can probably account for a portion of the blame for such low voter turnouts in addition to mobility issues or general apathy. 

To resolve this issue, the new bill, active on January 1st, allows any person who goes to the DMV to get/renew a driver's licence or to get a state ID to register to vote right then and there. The DMV will send personal information into the Secretary of State's office for verification and then registration. There is an option for anyone who doesn't want to vote to opt-out as well as an

understanding that nobody will be registered to vote without their knowledge. Many voting rights groups and Hillary Clinton have endorsed this bill and others like it in an effort to increase voter turnout by making registration more convenient to the average person.Other states have also considered such laws, Oregon being the first to actually pass one. Oregon's system is similar to California's, without the opt-out option. Seventeen other states also have proposed automatic voting pills.

Many defenders of bills such as this one claim that automatic voting makes for a more secure way of transporting and verifying information, since the information is coming from a reputable source rather than a paper form. It also helps in making voting a little more accessible, especially to the historically low turnout group of 18-24 year olds. This change could have an impact on the young adults going into the polls, even if it isn't substantial. Many teenagers wait until 18 to get their drivers licence now anyway; couldn't it benefit them to be registered right then?

I think that this bill is in the right direction. People must renew their driver's licences every five years anyways, so they will, without doubt, be waiting in that long line at the DMV. With this new system, people can kill two birds with one stone, and I think it will be relatively effective.

Questions:
1) What do you think of this bill's overall ability to increase voter turnout? How could it be improved?
2) Do you think that the new bill could stand to increase the number of young people going to the polls in the 2016 election? Why or why not?
3) Explain some advantages/disadvantages of many states adopting laws such as this one. 



Sources:Huffington Post: Click Here
Image of Governor: Click here
LA Times: Click Here
Poly Post: Click Here
DMV Pic: Click Here

El Chapo to be extradited to the US

After his 2nd escape from prison in the last year, the Mexican drug lord, El Chapo, has been recaptured and is to be extradited or moved to the US to be held in a higher security prison than what Mexico was able to provide. He currently faces drug trafficking charges in many states and wanted by the United States. He was tracked using electronic communications through cell phones with Rolling Stones magazines and his representatives contacting film makers about making an El Chapo Biopic, a biographical movie.

After he was recaptured the Mexican navy raided his home in Los Mochis in his home-state Sinaloa. Many people in the area became supporters of him and protected him on top of his own gunman protection. The people in his home town also viewed him as a Robin Hood figure for helping out the impoverish citizens of the area to survive. He is currently being held in Altiplano Maximum Security Prison in Mexico but is expected to be transferred to the United States for custody soon.

Questions:
1. Do you think people will consider the fact that Chapo was viewed in a heroic light by the people of his home town and if so, how would that affect his treatment in the United States.
2. His multiple escapes and the United State's desire to extradite him indicate that Mexico's prisons are inadequate. Do you think that the anti-immigration republican candidates will use this as a point in the coming race to give a reason to increase immigration policies?


http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/americas/el-chapo-captured-mexico/index.html

'El Chapo' interviewed by Sean Penn

Rolling Stone magazine published an interview with Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman . conducted by actor Sean Penn. Some of the highlights of the interview include that Penn was not blindfolded, unlike the hollywood stereotype of meeting with drug lords, there were many measures taken to keep their location and transportation secret, and Guzman looked as if he were coming for a professional interview being dressed in black jeans and a pressed silk shirt. Guzman also defended his drug cartel saying that the Mexican economy and lack of jobs left him with no other choice. His recent arrest after his second jailbreak may be linked to some communication Guzman had with this interview or his representatives contacting film makers about making a film about Guzman's life.

Questions:
1. How do you think Sean Penn's reputation will affected considering the fact that he and Rolling Stone hid this interview from the public for so many months.
2. Do you think that many people will actually look into and react to Guzman's comments that the weakness of the Mexican government causes people like him to go into businesses like drug trafficking

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/10/americas/el-chapo-sean-penn-rolling-stone-interview/index.html

Self-parking Tesla cars

Tesla has always been considered one of the cutting edge car manufacturers with their full electric sports cars and patented motor and charger design that allows their cars to last longer than other electric cars and have record speeds for 0-60 acceleration.

Tesla has recently published that it allows it's users to download and install additional feature that will allow the driver to step out and have the car park itself. On top of Tesla's AutoSteer program that allows lane changing and common maneuvers this brings them one step closer to having autonomously driving cars for consumers. Tesla's CEO, Elon Musk, hopes to have completely self driving and self charging cars in 2 years.

Questions:
1. Do you think that Tesla will try to make more affordable cars in the near future with these autonomous driving capabilities?
2. Do you think that Tesla will start putting other cars that make gasoline cars out of business in the near future?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/10/autos/tesla-autopark-elon-musk/index.html

Trump calls out Cruz over 'birther' issues.

As the Iowa primaries continues, Cruz leads the GOP polls with Trump in a close second. Trump is calling out Cruz on the fact that he was born in Canada and holds dual citizenship with Canada so he is ineligible to run for office. His claims has swayed some voters as people have reported that they did not know Cruz was born in Canada and definitely make them question whether they will vote for him in the primaries. Trump has also called him on other issues like acting hypocritical about ethanol subsides with first opposing them historically shooting down bills that would allow for corn subsides for farmers that would increase ethanol production. However, now Cruz has advertised that he is all for subsides and Trump is calling this out to make people question his reliability and eligibility to be president.

Questions:
1. Do you think that Trump's claims against Cruz will help him in Iowa and other close states.
2. Do you think that Trump's criticism of the other candidates is the main reason why he is so ahead in the polls? What other factors do you think caused his surge in the polls?


http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-birther-iowa/index.html

China's Market Crash

Last Thursday, stocks in Shanghai crashed 7% leading to a market shutdown for 30 minutes. China's stock markets instituted a "circuit breaker" that was designed to stop crashes like what just occurred from happening after it happened last summer. The "circuit breaker" mechanism pause the stock market for 15 minutes if it changed more than 5% in a day and a full day if it changed more than 7%.  However, these "circuit breakers" had the opposite effect. As a result of the crash, US stocks and European stocks are also crashing. The Dow and similar European counter parts are all down at least 5%, the lowest in decades. China's international economy is also starting to fall apart with the decline in the currency valuation.

Some of the reasons why the crash happened are the devaluation of the currency and the "circuit breaker" mechanisms both of which were direct actions of the Chinese government and central bank. It's clear that China's economy affects the rest of the world as it is a major exchange point with the US and Europe.

Questions:
1. Was the Chinese government and Central bank at fault for this crash because of the circuit breaker mechanism and devaluation of the yuan?
2. Will China's markets be able to recover to their previous status?
3. Will major companies in other countries like the US and the European nations avoid dependencies in Chinese stocks going forward?

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/investing/china-stocks-trading-halted/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/investing/china-markets-circuit-breakers-suspension/index.html?iid=EL

An Open Letter to Gun Control (Story of My Political Socialization)

Storify                                                                                                  US News Cartoons

Oh boy, this opens the can of worms for real.

Like I mentioned in my post on Obama's threat to use executive action to create stricter gun restrictions, I don't really know where I stand on the issue of gun control.

That's not quite true; I know exactly where I stand: I'm conflicted, standing right smack in the middle.

I'll start from the beginning, which is that I used to be completely against guns; I thought that if we just got rid of them all there would be no problem. No guns, no means to kill, am I right? People brought up the points of self protection and for sport, but I couldn't see past the fact that a gun would be anything more than a tool of destruction and death.

And then I heard Dan Carlin's take on the gun control, which sent my left leaning ideals reeling towards the center. He spoke at length about the different values that a gun might bring in a case of self protection. We might be able to quantify the number of cases in which a gun was actually used in a case of self defense, but we will never be able to quantify the number of people for which the gun by their bedside or under the pillow is the only reason they can sleep at night. I couldn't fathom the idea that, for those who grow up seeing a gun everyday, who go hunting on weekends and practice their aim at the firing range, the gun was simply a part of their lifestyle.

If this post stirs some rational debate, great. My point, however, was to provide a small window into my political socialization regarding a topic: my viewpoint was cultivated on a diet of MSNBC liberal media, fertilized by the liberal soil of the west coast in California, and trimmed by this generation's social media.

Feel free to analyze; that's why I put this up in the first place.

Sources:
Carlin, Dan. "Overdue Analysis." Audio blog post. Dan Carlin. Orator LLC, 20 Aug. 2014. Web. 4 Jan. 2016.
Koppel, Ted. Lights Out: A Cyberattack, a Nation Unprepared, Surviving the Aftermath. New York City: Crown, 2015. Print.
https://storify.com/vmbarr89/gun-control-who-does-it-protect
http://www.usnews.com/cartoons/gun-control-and-gun-rights-cartoons
My Political Socialization

Obama Planning on Executive Action for Gun Control

Image thanks to the Washington Post

I think it's kind of gross how numb I've become to mass shootings. When I hear the news, all I can think of now is how the news organizations seem to have the graphics ready; it's all well put together and very clean.

They're expecting it.

And here we are again, with Obama proposing stricter gun control measures while member of Congress continue their staunch opposition. Let me just preface this: I don't really know where I stand on the issue on gun control. I'll explain my thoughts in another post so it doesn't contaminate the main focus: Obama's proposal (threat?) to use executive action to pass said measures.

First things first, Obama's executive actions would be in part focused on forcing individual gun dealers that sell 50 or more guns a year to obtain a license and require background checks on their clients. That being said, it's worth pointing out that the owners of the guns used in both the Roseburg and San Bernadino shootings were both purchased legally, the buyers both undergoing background checks.

There are also some polls that add some interesting background information, mainly a joint poll conducted by ABC and the Washington Post that states that while 42% support stricter gun control, 47% support encouraging people to carry guns legally and 1% volunteered both (at the same time I'm guessing).

Consequences aside, if President Obama does go through with using executive action, it'll provide a contemporary case study on both the power of said legislative method and the current power of the president.

Question time!

How do you believe the balance of power currently falls? If President Obama were to forcefully legislate (is that even the correct verb?) stricter gun control methods, would Congress mount a response? Maybe even the Supreme Court would be willing to grant certiorari to such a case just to exercise their check over the executive branch (although Congress would probably get there first)?

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/01/obama-to-impose-new-gun-control-curbs-next-week/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-weighs-expanding-background-checks-through-executive-authority/2015/10/08/6bd45e56-6b63-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35211294
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/americans-doubt-us-can-stop-lone-wolf-attacks-poll-finds/2015/12/16/bfcaa102-a3ba-11e5-ad3f-991ce3374e23_story.html

Microbead Ban

Image thanks to Newsweek

As I was rubbing in some new acne medication before bed, I notice that the cream carried a strange texture.

Beads?

Apparently they're called microbeads, a cheap cosmetic technique used in creams to add additional exfoliating (brushing/cleaning) capabilities to the cream. Perfect for cleansing creams!

Or so I would've imagined, until President Obama signed the Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, which bans the use of said microbeads in "wash-off" products (including toothpaste) beginning in 2017. The ban stems from the difficulty of cleaning up the beads; by definition, they're beads of 5 millimeters diameter or less. Add the fact that they're plastic, and it becomes an ecological nightmare trying to clean up all those microbeads.

Another win for preserving nature, but what does it say about the government that did it?

Now for the questions:

Is such a measure constitutional? What does that say about ecological goals and how they rate on the level of scrutiny that should trigger?

This is kind of a shot in the dark, but how does it begin to apply to the economy and what kinds of restrictions the government can place on that economy?

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/health/obama-bans-microbeads/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/20/microbeads-exfoliation_n_4815133.html

http://www.newsweek.com/united-states-just-banned-microbeads-those-tiny-plastic-disasters-your-face-410617

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1321/text

Cybersecurity and the Power Grid

Inspired by Emma's post, I've decided to write a bit on something I've read recently: Ted Koppel's book, Lights Out. His novel seeks to reveal many of the nation's gaping holes regarding cybersecurity and defense, both in terms of policy, infrastructure, and mindset. This is my attempt to boil it down to what I found were its more interesting (haunting?) points. Yes Mr. Silton, this is a bit of a preview to my research paper (it honestly barely scratches the surface).

The Power Grids of America (3)

Thanks Prep and Be Ready

No, your eyes don't deceive you. The US is powered by three power grids; one for the East, one for the West, and one for, well, Texas (because why not?). Jokes about Texas seceding from the Union aside, one big what if comes to mind:

What if one of the big grids went down entirely?

Well I sure hope you weren't thinking "The government knows how to handle that!" because the truth is they don't. In Koppel's book, he goes around interviewing top level officials, including Craig
Fugate, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's administrator. In addition to an explanation as to the logistical and resource nightmare that is sustaining several millions of individuals for a prolonged period of time (weeks into months), his overall outlook on the situation is best summed up in his final quote (of the chapter):

"We [would be] trying to hang on and keep as many people [as possible] from dying until the system comes back" (118).

Not exactly a statement of reassurance, is it now?

But perhaps I should back up, because the question that comes before this has even more depressing answers.

The Power Grid's Cybersecurity (and Structural Integrity)

I'm going to preview this section with a brief summary of power distribution. Imagine electricity like a resource that has to be moved from point A (generation) to point B (distribution). Now imagine that the transmission lines (seen above) are like a giant railway system that connects these points. This railway analogy illustrates the need to schedule power distribution (like trains on a line) (37), and helps to make Koppel's point about how important the integrity of such infrastructure is.

If hackers were able to worm their way into the system, they could cause irreparable damage not only by taking out the programs that manage the system, but damage the physical infrastructure itself by overloading both the lines and the transformers. And while the security protocols seem air tight on the surface (nothing is connected to the web that directly controls the power), all it takes is one mistake, one infected USB brought into work, and that "air boundary" disintegrates.

This part gets a bit technical, so I'll leave a TL;DR at the end.


DTE Energy's new, 884,000 pound LPT 

Transformers are important for managing power; in order to transfer power from say Florida to Michigan, it needs be done at an extremely high voltage. The voltage is no joke, as power lines can be seen sagging under the weight of the electricity at peak transmissions. Cue the large power transformers (LPTs), which are used to both "step up" and "step down" said voltages. LPTs, as important as the might be, are custom built to fit each power company and are gigantic in size and weight (400,000 to 600,000 pounds); roads have to be closed, special train carts need to be used, and bridges inspected just to transport ONE of these things. Needless to say, replacing these things is difficult. And while the exact number of these in use is considered a business secret, estimates range in the tens of thousands (95).

Now let's destroy a couple hundred by sabotage, and watch the ensuing chaos.

Oh and the production time? One to two years, "and never less than six months" (95).

TL;DR: Large complicated power transformers are hard to produce and replace; a powerful attack could destroy thousands, and then the government would be floundering as it attempted to restore power by building them.

Summary

This might have been a bit ranty/ based on one source of information. I could be cited for being paranoid, easily swayed, or both. And yet there is something eerie about Koppel's citation from George Cotter's paper Security in the North American Power Grid-A Nation at Risk:

This [electric power] industry is simply unrealistic in believing in the resiliency of this Grid subject to a sophisticated attack. When such an attack occurs, make no mistake, there will be major loss of life and serious crippling of National Security capabilities. [Emphasis added.] (225)

That's enough to make me take pause; what about you?

Sources:
Koppel, Ted. Lights Out: A Cyberattack, a Nation Unprepared, Surviving the Aftermath. New York City: Crown, 2015. Print.
http://www.walbridge.com/projects/dte-energy-fermi-2-transformer-interchange
http://www.prepandbeready.com/?p=489

CISA and Cybersecurity

Image thanks to Kitguru

On December 18th, President Obama signed into law a large "omnibus" funding bill. There were many celebrated parts of the bill, such as the $19.3 billion dollar budget for NASA and nearly $700 billion in tax breaks. It also plays host to a bill that goes by the name of CISA.

The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) is far from popular on the internet; many sources such as Kitguru and Reddit denounce the bill, saying that it threatens the privacy of all individuals on the internet.

The gist of the bill is that it allows businesses to share data with the government that was affected/targeted by a cyberattack. Now understand that it isn't that simple; for example, participating companies would need to attempt to "scrub" the data of customer ID's before handing it over to the government when it is not required to identify the threat. Yay for vague wording.

It's not explicitly stated, but the government has promised not to prosecuted non-cyber crimes based on the information they receive.

 As Benjamin Franklin states, ”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”

And yet I don't think it's that simple. It seems too easy to hop on this bandwagon, beseeching big government trying to meddle in things like the internet, using the whole "PRIVACY" slogan and what not. I don't agree with Franklin's statement, mostly because it tries to have its cake and eat it too; security and freedom both share the same space, draw from the same well of human resource. In addition, our cries for deregulation and smaller government seem awfully reminiscent of the days leading up to the Great Depression. 

In Ted Koppel's book Lights Out, he outlines a terrifying image of the state of cyber warfare in today's world. Gone are the days where weapons of mass destruction were confined to the great superpowers of the world, who grew to understand the gravity of the powers at their disposal. Now, in a world in which everything and anything relies on the internet and electricity to some extent, every single computer becomes a nuclear briefcase. CISA, as poorly written as it might be, at least attempts to address the gaping holes in our national cyberdefense by sharing information about the attacks with the government. 

But let's hear it from your perspective:

How far should government be allowed to go with such a bill? Does the breach in privacy represent a compelling government interest? Is it the least intrusive method of the achieving it? Would this act be upheld as constitutional under the review of the Supreme Court?

How big of an issue is cybersecurity? Should be focusing on other issues?

What is the role of government in that delicate balance between security and privacy? Does this overstep the boundary, is it right only in concept, or should the entire idea of the bill burn in the fiery depths of Big Brother ideas?

[And please ask if something here doesn't seem backed up / an idea confuses you.]

Sources:

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/82894.html

http://www.wired.com/2015/12/congress-slips-cisa-into-omnibus-bill-thats-sure-to-pass/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/18/460281572/congress-sends-1-8-trillion-tax-and-spending-bill-to-president-obama

http://www.kitguru.net/gaming/security-software/jon-martindale/why-does-the-u-s-cisa-cybersecurity-bill-keep-resurfacing/

http://thehackednews.com/2015/10/cisa-cybersecurity-information-sharing-act-breakdown/

http://mic.com/articles/130690/congress-new-budget-for-nasa-is-huge-and-secretly-contains-hated-spying-bill-cisa#.a4MubjZpf

Koppel, Ted. Lights Out: A Cyberattack, a Nation Unprepared, Surviving the Aftermath. New York City: Crown, 2015. Print.

United States Spying on Israel Post NSA Leaks

Following the 2012 and 2013 leaks by Wikileaks that exposed the US's surveillance of foreign heads of states and governments, the US stated that they would cease surveillance, or "spying", on foreign governments. However, recent discoveries have proven otherwise. Of course, with most generalizing statements, there were exceptions. One of which was Israel. 

Recently, news has come out of the US's continued surveillance of Israel, causing tensions between tensions to rise once between Conservatives and the current administration. It's not clear exactly how much information has been taken compared to pre- Wikileaks levels, but nonetheless "spying" has not ceased.  

This has led to criticism of the current administration by Republican candidates for the 2016 presidential race. Candidate Carson has said, “once again, (Hillary) has shown that her experience in government is merely an indication that she is unfit to lead," citing her time as Obama's former Head of State, and explaining "No doubt President Obama's former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew of the administration's spying efforts on Israel. It is shameful that she participated in undermining the U.S.-Israeli relationship."

The presidential race on 2016 will be one of even more polarized politics than seen in much of elections before. Carson is taking a firm stance against the spying of our "only ally in the Middle East". At the same time, one has to realize that in the interest of national security, spying is an integral part of acquiring intelligence. 

Questions:

1. Do you think that the US needs to stop all their surveillance of other nations and heads of state completely, and would it impact our national security, or would it have no real effect?

2. How will this event affect candidates for the 2016 election, and is this issue important enough to change the opinions of Americans enough to make an impact?

3. What is the limit when it comes to NSA eavesdropping and spying? Is there a common ground other than cessation completely?

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/politics/2016-nsa-spying-israel-congress/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264476-carson-obama-admin-spying-on-israel-truly-disgraceful

Climate Deal Reached at COP21

What is the COP21?
The COP21 stands for the "Conference of the Parties 21" which in other words means most countries in the world will meet up for 11 days to reach a consensus on what is the best way to keep the world from getting hotter.

Read a little more about here, courtesy of Kristen's post:
http://aragonhitchhikers.blogspot.com/2015/12/chinas-clever-political-move-at-paris.html

What was the deal?

The Paris pact aims to limit the global temperature to a 2 degree Celsius increase from pre-industrial times, but aim for only a 1.5 Celsius increase, by the end of the century. 195  countries in the world have agreed to this pact which will start in 2020. The other main goals of this pact are to peak greenhouse gases as soon as possible,  make sure there is a balance between sources and sinks for greenhouse gases, and developed countries will give 100 billion a year to developing countries so that they have funds build an energy efficient industry.

Why 2C? That does not seem like a lot?

Not many people think they would feel a difference between being out in 75 Fahrenheit(24 C) than 71.6 Fahrenheit(22 C) weather. Although that is most probably true, this is not about your local weather but the entire Earth's. A global 2 C rise in temperature means that the entire world, atmosphere, water and land, would get that much warmer. It would take a lot of heat for the entire world to get that hot. In fact, it is not something humans are used to for humans have never lived on a planet that's two degrees warmer than it was it was before 1870. Still don't believe that such an increase is not drastic enough? As NASA has stated, "In the past, a one- to two-degree drop was all it took to plunge the Earth into the Little Ice Age. A five-degree drop was enough to bury a large part of North America under a towering mass of ice 20,000 years ago." A 2C different is a lot and could cause the earth to become hotter than any of us really want it.

Why is our world getting hotter? What is the greenhouse effect?

The greenhouse effect is when the Earth's atmosphere absorbs some of the energy from the Sun and then radiates it back out in all directions. The energy that gets sent back to the planet warm both, the lower atmosphere and surface, it is a much-needed effect because without it the Earth would be about 30 C colder. Gases from industry and agriculture are adding to these natural gases which have caused more energy to become trapped, this is also called global warming.  As seen in the graph below, CO2 seems to be what we, everyone on Earth, are adding the most of by burning fossil fuels or destroying something that would absorb CO2.  

I like warm weather so what's the problem?

Well, there are serious repercussions of the Earth getting warmer. There would be a 400-800% increase in wildfires across the United States. Floods and droughts will become more common. There would be an increase in sea level by as much as 10 feet. Global warming would damage our precipitation patterns which would result in a decrease in food supply. Species that depend on one another may become out of sync. Fresh water will not be as readily available. Ecosystems will change and those animals that cannot adapt or move to a more desirable environment will become extinct.

Right now our Earth is at a .8 C increase from the global temperature of the 1870's. Together, I think that we can start the healing from the damage we have done to our Earth. 

Questions:

What are your thoughts on global warming?

Should more funding go into efforts for a greener industry?

Have we done/are doing enough to prevent global warming?

What are ways we can help stop global warming?

How does the car industry play into this?

Bibliograpghy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pierce-nahigyan/what-is-cop21-and-why-doe_b_8683312.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24021772

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-effects/

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35086346

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/12/459502597/2-degrees-100-billion-the-world-climate-agreement-by-the-numbers

The Last Antibiotic Has Fallen

Bacteria resistant to polymyxins, a last resort antibiotic for some kinds of common infections like E. Coli, if they resist all other types of antibiotics.

The discovery of this gene means that some bacteria are now able to become "pan-resistant", or "superbugs". That would mean that these bacteria are resistant to all types of antibiotics, and cannot be treated unless new types of antibiotics are developed.

Worldwide Circulation
Back in November, bacteria resistant to polymyxin had been discovered in China. However, this recent discovery of this bacteria in Denmark has lead to worries that it has gone global, and will soon be widespread.

According to Frank Aarestrup of the Danish Technical University, the genes found in Denmark and China are the exact same, suggesting that the mutation had traveled instead of popping up separately. Although they don't know where it originated, it is suspected that it originated from China, where the majority of polymyxyin is used.

The Role Lifestock Plays
Antibiotic resistant bacteria arises when a certain bacteria develops a resistant to an antibiotic by chance, and remains the only bacteria to continue to proliferate due to antibiotics killing off the rest. Thus, the more antibiotics are used, the more likely it is that superbugs will develop.

However, farmers currently use 12 thousand tons of colistin a year with agriculture. Such widespread use of antibiotics greatly increases the risk of superbugs like the one discovered developing.


Questions:
1. What do you think should be done about the increasing abundance of superbugs?
2. What do you think should be done about the abuse of antibiotics in agriculture?

China's biggest business tycoon is missing?

Recent news about the disappearing act of Guo Guangchang, the Chairman of Fosun Group, one of China's most successful private-sector firms, have raised eye brows around the world. Chinese leadership under President Xi Jinping has been relentless in its effort to crackdown corruptions that have plagued China's economic rise. Mr. Guo was a role model among China's many aspiring enterpreneurs. He started his company with just a few thousand of dollars and help from three fellow students of Fudan University in Shanghai. His success was likened to that of Warren Buffet in the US.  Social media was abuzz with news and reports that Mr. Guo was "whisked away" by police as he got off a plane in Shanghai, but it's also possible that he was taken for questioning about bigger fish in the corruption investigation of Shanghai's Communist Party leadership.

The 4th Amendment protect Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures, a right that Guangchang was not guaranteed to in China, exemplifying the differences in guaranteed rights by the laws of the nations of the US and China.

What do you think of the nature in which the Chinese government cracks down on corruption among its party ranks, among some of the most successful citizens of China?  Do you think these types of government"hunts" could happen in the US? How would you feel if some of the most successful business men such as Marc Zuckerberg of Facebook, were detained without public news and simply "disappears" because of potential links to illegal activities? What would be repercussions if the government simply seized people, without hard evidence? How would the public and the media react?

http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21683933-his-whereabouts-are-unknown-shares-firms-linked-him-are-suspended-guo-guangchang-one

Supreme Court's Comments on Affirmative Action are Negative

As many of us may have heard during the court presentations, Fisher vs University of Texas was meant to be the last word on affirmative action for a while. Justice O'Connor wrote "We expect 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary." For supporters of affirmative action, this was a great victory. Affirmative action was decided to be constitutional in theory, but some restrictions were placed on it. Yet, barely 2 years later, the Supreme Court looks to decide on the case once again.

Why do Courts revisit cases?
The court doesn't often revisit cases. Once a decision has been made, it's typically unlikely that justices will have changed their mind. Often, the only time a a court will revisit a case is when at least 4 justices think that they have the votes needed to overturn the case. So does this mean affirmative action is about to be overturned? Many supporters are worried that the answer is yes.


Source: Associated Press

Negative Comments:
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether racial diversity had educational value, asking "What unique perspective does a black student bring to a class in physics?"

Justice Samuel Alito suggested that by seeking even more minority students, University of Texas is belittling its current minority students.


Questions:
1. Do you support affirmative action? Why or why not?
2. What do you think will be the result of this case?