South Korean President Warns of North Korean Collapse

On February 15th, 2016, South Korean President Park Geun-hye discussed the issue of North Korean's nuclear bomb program in front of parliament. A part of this televised parliamentary address was devoted to explaining why the inter-Korean industrial zone at Kaesong was closed.

54,000 North Koreans worked at the 124 South Korean-owned facilities, but the money that the South Koreans are giving to the North Koreans ends up in the hands of leader Kim Jong Un to promote national "security." The South Korean's main liberal opposition party believes that the closing of the industrial zone would only deepen tensions between the two countries.

As of now, Japan and the United States have been introducing more sanctions after the recent North Korean missile tests. China is reluctant to take any action that would "destabilize" its neighbor, reducing the efficacy of United Nation measures.

Throughout the "North Korean attacks on a South Korean naval corvette" in 2010, the industrial zone was still open because the industrial complex is seen as separate from politics. Is it about time that the South Koreans close the industrial zone to punish the North Koreans?

Does imposing more sanctions on North Korea contribute to Kim Jong Un's expansion of the country's military program?

Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/south-koreas-park-vows-all-out-effort-to-punish-north-for-provocations/2016/02/15/f4c6aece-4d3f-4378-b9c0-eccef80c1966_story.html
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/02/15/south-koreas-leader-warns-north-korea-collapse.html

Justice Antonin Scalia Died at 79

On February 13th, 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia died at 79 near Marfa, Texas. Appointed by Ronald Reagan, he is the longest serving member on the Court before he died. Justice Scalia is known to be the man "of God, a patriot, and an unwavering defender of the written Constitution and the Rule of Law," said Texas Governor Greg Abbott. He is a strong conservative who has previously been an opponent of abortion, affirmative action, and same-sex marriage.

With the election cycle at full speed, Marc Rubio announced that the "next president must nominate a justice who will continue Justice Scalia's unwavering belief in the founding principles." Republican senators are reportedly grouping together to block any of Obama's nomination that leans more left that Scalia. This nomination is especially heated because the conservative majority Supreme Court could switch to a liberal majority.

On average, the nominating process of a Supreme Court Justice takes 2-1/2 months, but given the circumstances, the process may take much longer. If the process extends past President Obama's term, the next President will have the nominating power.

Do you think Obama will be able to nominate a liberal justice?
Will Obama purposefully nominate a moderate to appeal to the Republicans in the Senate?
What types of liberal policies might get past a liberal Court, but not a conservative one?

Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-dies-at-79/2016/02/13/effe8184-a62f-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/us/antonin-scalia-death.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/02/13/antonin-scalia-dies-and-obama-can-transform-the-supreme-court/#56fa7b562e62

SoCalGas Fixes LA Gas Leak

Over the past 16 weeks in Los Angeles, 66,000-97,000 pounds of methane have been released into the Porter Ranch neighborhood every hour. It wasn't until Friday, February 12th, 2016 that the gas leak was filled up with cement. As of now, residents of 2,200 homes have been temporarily relocated, and the Southern California Gas Company has paid for the temporary living conditions of these people.

Residents of Porter Ranch are allowed to return home eight days after investigators and authorities rule the area safe. California Senator Barbara Boxer supports the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources to do this type of investigatory work; however, because residents have raised concerns, she is also calling for an independent group to test each neighborhood.

As of now, the total amount of damages from this incident is $250 million, but the number may be higher since the $250 million only includes the cost of relocating residents and filling the well, not the lawsuits of those affected and actions to reduce the effects of the released methane.

What kinds of punishment should Southern California Gas Company receive? How can we counteract the effects of the millions of pounds of methane that were released into the atmosphere? Should there be tighter regulations on natural gas wells since the SS-25 (name of the leaking well) wasn't mandated to have a valve?

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/12/us/southern-california-porter-ranch-gas-leak/index.html
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-dramatic-video-gas-leak-porter-ranch-20160212-story.html

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/11/socalgas-fixes-natural-gas-methane-leak-los-angeles-porter-ranch

Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina Drop Out After New Hampshire Primary

After the New Hampshire Primary on February 9th, 2016, Chris Christie and Carly Fiorina decided to drop out of the presidential race. Chris Christie finished the primary in 6th place, earning 7.4% of the votes, while Carly Fiorina finished the primary in 7th place, earning 4.1% of the votes. 

Many claim that the reason they dropped out at this time is because both Chris and Carly do not have enough votes to attend the CBS Republican debate. In order to qualify, candidates must place in the top five in national and South Carolina averages by Friday and have received "a minimum of 3% in Iowa, New Hampshire or polls in South Carolina or nationwide" (Joyella). The 3% threshold is to ensure that those in the top five still have a reasonable amount of support. 

After dropping out of the debate, Carly made a final statement to address the fact that Hillary is now the only women still running for president, "To young girls and women across the country, I say: do not let others define you. Do not listen to anyone who says you have to vote for a certain way or for a certain candidate because you're a woman." 

What do you think about Carly's last few statements? Does she speak with good intentions? Is she just bitter about the low support from Iowa and New Hampshire?

Even though Chris lost the election, do you think he made an impact on the other candidates and the public? 

Do you think CBS should have hosted an underdog debate? Why or why not? 

Sources:

http://graphics.latimes.com/election-2016-new-hampshire-results/

http://deadline.com/2016/02/carly-fiorina-quits-chris-christie-likely-next-gop-debate-cbs-1201700103/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/new-hampshire-primary-highlights/

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/after-new-hampshire-some-gop-candidates-may-not-qualify-for-cbs-news-debate/284426

Supreme Court Blocks Obama's Climate Change Plan

After the Paris Climate Conference (COP 21), Obama pushed for environmental conservation measures to ensure that US emissions are below the established threshold. On Tuesday February 9th, 2016, the Supreme Court decided to halt the implementation of the clean power plan (one of Obama's proposal), which would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.

The Supreme Court will most likely hear this case after President Obama officially leaves office. Bruce Huber, a professor from Notre Dame Law School, believes, "this is an exceedingly uncommon situation for the court to step in, and it jeopardizes the plan all together from going into affect while President Obama remains in office."

Several proponents of the plan believe that the conservative Supreme Court justices have a very strong opinion on the issue since the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has not heard oral arguments on the subject yet and since industries and states would not have to abide by the new rules for another two years. This raises a few questions because the Supreme Court is supposed to seem objective and nonpolitical. Due to natural biases, the four liberal justices are against the order, while the five conservative justices are in favor of the order.

To what extent should the Supreme Court justices be nonpolitical? Would it make much of a difference if the Supreme Court halted the clean power plan after it reached the high court? If the Supreme Court overturned the constitutionality of the plan, what other proposals should be made to limit carbon emissions?

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/politics/supreme-court-obama-epa-climate-change/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/09/supreme-court-halts-obamas-emissions-rule/80085182/
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/09/us-supreme-court-blocks-obama-carbon-emissions-plan.html

Investigation of Somali Plane Bomb Underway

Last Tuesday, an explosion occurred on a passenger plane after it took off from Somalia's main airport, forcing the captain to make an emergency landing. The source of the explosion was later revealed to be a bomb, the detonation of which resulted in a one-meter sized hole in the side of the Airbus fifteen minutes after it left the airport (the flight was headed from Mogadishu to Djibouti). 

Although a technical malfunction was originally thought to be the source of the explosion, Somali Transport and Aviation Minister Ali Ahmed Jama stated in a press conference that it was due to "a bomb that was intended to destroy the plane and kill all passengers on board" (1). The only death resulting from the detonation was that of Abdullahi Abdisalam Borleh, who was initially missing, then later identified and declared dead. Investigators now suspect Borleh of carrying a laptop containing the bomb onto the plane. The video above, released by CCTV on Sunday, shows two airport workers handling the laptop, then handing it to Borleh. Somalia has reached out to the United States for aid in the investigations, and several FBI agents are now in Mogadishu.

Although the case is still under investigation, some officials believe it to be the work of Al-Shabaab, an al Qaeda affiliate(4). However, no group has claimed responsibility yet, and it is not yet certain whether Borleh was a member of any group. What do you think is the real story behind this event? Do you think it will have an effect on US foreign policy?

Sources:
1. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/officials-blast-somalia-airplane-caused-bomb-160206191753414.html
2. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35521646
3. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35521644
4. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/07/africa/somalia-airplane-explosion-video/

Taiwan Earthquake and The Tin Cans

On February 6th, 2016, a 6.4 magnitude earthquake struck Tainan city, located in the southern part of Taiwan. Currently, rescuers are still trying to rescue more than a hundred missing people in apartments and several other historic buildings. 

There has been a new finding of blue oil tin cans within the walls of an apartment building. Investigations are now attempting to determine if the blue tin cans went against building restrictions. A Taiwanese law established that using these tin cans were in fact illegal, but if the building was created before a certain time period, the tin cans could be used. After construction reform laws went into place, contractors could still use other fillers, such as styrofoam. 

This raises a few questions in terms of safety and security. Given that Taiwan is located near the Ring of Fire, should Taiwan have tighter building restrictions? 

An interesting component of the story is that a few days after the earthquake, many news organizations are giving an update on the progress of the rescue with a focus on the tin cans. Are news organizations overemphasizing this finding? Is this an example that shows that news organizations are businesses?

Sources:

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/world/4-survivors-rescued-collapsed-taiwan-apartment-building-article-1.2523873

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/06/asia/taiwan-earthquake/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/08/asia/taiwan-earthquake/

Bill Clinton Bashes Bernie Sanders

For the past few months, Bill Clinton has stayed relatively quiet regarding the race for the Democratic nomination. For the most part, his speeches have been filled with sentimental stories about Mrs. Clinton's past successes and leadership skills, and few words have been said regarding the opposition.

However, Clinton's latest speech given in Milford, NH quickly turned from a discussion of his wife's attributes to a tirade against Sanders, whose policy supposedly contains numerous double standards and missing details and whose views Clinton claimed to be a "hermetically sealed box" (1). Clinton also criticized Sanders' supporters, accusing them of being sexists and using the Internet to attack those in support of the Clinton campaign, although Sanders had denounced these "Bernie bros" in a CNN interview earlier that day (2).

While Clinton's harshest remarks were reserved for the "Bernie bros," he was also critical of Sanders' free college and universal healthcare plans, calling them impossible to fund. He also addressed the sources of money involved in Sanders' fundraising campaign, stating that "anybody who takes money from Goldman Sachs couldn't possibly be President" (3).

What do you think about Bill Clinton's sudden outburst regarding Bernie Sanders? Could he be frustrated that the very state that made him "The Comeback Kid" in 1992 might now turn against his wife?

Sources:

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-clinton-bernie-sanders_us_56b7d00de4b04f9b57da0d2f
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanders-condemns-bernie-bros_us_56b75a28e4b08069c7a79b1e
3. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bill-clinton-bernie-sanders-hillary-218916
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/bill-clinton-after-months-of-restraint-unleashes-stinging-attack-on-bernie-sanders.html

North Korea Launch

This morning, North Korea launched what they claimed to be a satellite into orbit. This launch, according to the State run news agency, was personally ordered and directed by Kim Jong Un. North Korea claims the launch was for scientific purposes and was entirely peaceful, but many have their doubts. Both South Korea and Japan warned North Korea of the negative consequences the launch would have.

The frightening aspect of this launch, is that the same technology used to put this satellite into space is the same technology used to deliver nuclear warheads (1). If this is North Korea’s true intention with this satellite, most of Western Europe, Australia, and the Western Coast of the US would be in range of a nuclear attack.

The UN has recognized this danger and has called an emergency meeting at 11 am E.T. in New York City to discuss the appropriate response (2). What makes this launch even worse is the fact that this is the second time in the past month that North Korea has done something similar to this. At the beginning of January, North Korea is believed to have tried, and failed, to test parts of a hydrogen bomb (3).

Do you believe this launch was for scientific purposes or to test technology used to transport nuclear warheads? Do you think North Korea should be punished for this launch and why or why not?

Sources:

1. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/06/asia/north-korea-satellite-background/
2. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/06/asia/north-korea-rocket-launch-window/
3. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/politics/north-korea-hydrogen-bomb-test/index.html

The Controversy of Super Bowl City

Most of us are aware of the recently created Super Bowl City that was created to draw crowds to the massive event being held very close to us. While this may seem like an effective way to increase tourism in San Francisco, the reality is not so pretty. The City of San Francisco is paying 5 million dollars to make this happen (1). I personally find it ridiculous that the city would spent so much money on a party for one of the richest companies in the world. According to Forbes, the NFL’s revenue for 2013 was around 9 billion dollars. Should the NFL not be responsible for paying for their own party that is advertising their event that’s not even happening in San Francisco?

The price of the Super Bowl City is not the only concern people are having with it. For starters it has made people’s lives more difficult. My Mom was personally affected by Super Bowl City as she works a quarter mile away from it. Super Bowl City has made her usually hour long commute even longer to a grueling 2 hours.

My least favorite part of Super Bowl City is not the enormous cost or the stress and time taken away from the people who work nearby, but actually how the homeless have been treated. The homeless have been forced to leave the area and some were even given tickets and had their tents taken away (3). This is not addressing the issue of homelessness, but only making it more difficult for the people that are homeless.

So what do you think? Should San Francisco have held such an extravagant event? Was the treatment of the homeless necessary to create an image of cleanliness in the City?

Sources

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/super-bowl-50-further-divides-san-francisco.html
2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2013/08/17/how-the-national-football-league-can-reach-25-billion-in-annual-revenues/#18cfbdb73ad0
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/super-bowl-homeless-san-francisco_us_56b29454e4b01d80b2451c95

Democratic Caucus Results

The Iowa Caucus this past Monday was an exciting race among the Democrats with Clinton beating Sanders by 0.3% of caucus participants (1). Bernie fans do not distress, even though Clinton won a majority of the delegates, a couple months ago even the idea of Bernie coming close to defeating Hillary was a seemingly unattainable dream. To the disbelief of many, Bernie has been able to hold his own and actually now has a 18.4 point lead over Hillary in New Hampshire (2).

Bernie’s main supporters are the younger generation or the millennials. The millennials, ranging in age from 17-29 support Bernie over Hillary by a 70 point margin (3). Hillary has tried to swing this enormous gap back in her favor, but has done so through awkward and seemingly forced appearances like her dancing on the Ellen show where she attempted to perform some  “hip” dance moves like the “whip”. As a millennial watching this cringe worthy attempts at dance made me feel uncomfortable to be honest.

Bernie’s main issue to win the election is to get the millennials to actually vote. While he does hold this massive lead over Clinton in this one demographic, younger generations are notoriously bad at voting. In the 2012 election, only 38% of voters aged 18-24 voted (4) while as an entire population, 62.3% voted (5). This is a substantial gap that could mean the difference in who becomes the Democratic Presidential nominee. Regardless of who you plan to vote for (if you are of age), I encourage you to go and exercise this Constitutional right and make your voice heard.

Sources:

1. http://bigstory.ap.org/
2. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-new-hampshire-presidential-democratic-primary
3. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/iowa-bernie-sanders-won-his-partys-future.html
4. https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf
5. http://bipartisanpolicy.org/library/2012-voter-turnout/

“Poll-ease”… Why were the Iowa Caucus predictions so off?

                                                                                                                     choosetocaucus.com

February 1^st marked the official start of the 2016 presidential election voting season, as Iowan voters determined the number of delegates each candidate would receive. The Iowa Caucus was met with much enthusiasm, as the Republican party recorded approximately 180,000 caucusgoers, which beats their previous record by around 60,000 individuals. 

The Iowa Caucus has become a hallmark event, and some news anchors went as far as to dub January 31^st as “Iowa Caucus Eve.” Prior to the actual caucus, many news media sources published predictions regarding the outcome of the caucus. Many sources like the Huffington Post predicted that Donald Trump would win with a fairly solid margin of 5-15% depending on the source.

It’s fair to say that taking a well-designed and highly accurate poll is difficult given the constraints of reality and the variability of human behavior; however, the results of the Iowa Caucus, which put Ted Cruz on the top of the other GOP candidates and have Clinton and Sanders in an approximate tie, present a couple of questions, which fall under the overarching question “Why were the Iowa Caucus predictions so off?”

Carol Bialik from FiveThirtyEight published an article about some of the lessons from this times polls, one of which is to poll to the end given that voter turn out is everything. Do you agree with this? What other factors could have contributed to the technically inaccurate predictions? Is the Iowa Caucus just to darn hard to accurately poll and predict?  

Moving away from the Iowa Caucus, do you think that the news media and the free media should still report the predictions prior to the caucus, even if the predictions may not be completely accurate? What effect do you think these predictions have on voters and voters of states with impending primaries or caucuses? What standards should the news media be held to when reporting statistics (Should they have to report polling methods? The margin of error? The sample size? The source?) Finally, how do you think the use of polls has evolved with the free media?

Sources: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/us/politics/iowa-caucuses-donald-trump.html

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/iowa-teaches-pollsters-to-poll-until-the-end/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/new-hampshire-primary-2016/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/primaries/iowa-entrance-poll/

Department of Justice Begins Review of San Francisco Police

On December 2, 2015, 26 year-old Mario Woods was shot to death by five officers of the San Francisco Police Department. The police said Woods, a suspect in a stabbing incident, possessed a knife which he would not put down. This supposedly prompted the officers to fire at Woods. Bystanders captured the shooting on video. According to them, as well as the video, Woods was not holding a knife and had his back against the wall.

Since Woods was black and the officers caucasian, many civil rights groups have become involved in protests against the police department. Woods' family has since filed a civil rights lawsuit for wrongful death. Many local residents and civil rights groups, have called for the federal government to look further into the case, particularly the video footage. In response, the U.S. Department of Justice has launched a review of San Francisco's police.

This event is particularly relevant considering how close the shooting was to us. We hear stories of police brutality and discrimination in other states, often across the country. For some, the concept of a corrupt or racially biased police force may seem far-fetched considering the diverse area in which we live. Think about our interactions with police officers up until now. For many of us, the only police officers we've dealt with have been those who work at our schools, be it middle school or here at Aragon. Some of us may have visited a police station for a volunteer exercise or for Boy Scouts—something along those lines. For these cases, the officer was most likely friendly and seemingly harmless. This definitely plays a role in shaping our views of police. This is not to say that we are not influenced at all by the news we hear of police brutality, nor does I mean that we are completely unaffected by events that occur more than a block away from our homes. I just think it is an interesting point to consider.

What about you? What are your thoughts on the matter?

We just learned about the recent growth of the media, particularly electronic media and the use of the Internet as a means of informing the public. What effect does this growth have on coverage of police-related stories? Do you think police brutality has truly increased, or has this issue become more apparent due to the current nature of the media?

First Official Start to 2016 Presidential Primary

The long anticipated Iowa Caucus is set to commence tonight, where hopeful candidates for the Presidency seek to kick off their campaigns on the right foot.

There are a handful of major story lines that will be highly analyzed. Whether Donald Trump can ride his wave of attention and secure a stunning victory in the Republican Party. Or if Bernie Sanders, who early on in the campaign process was down by a wide margin, can comeback and secure the win in Iowa over the longtime favorite Hillary Clinton. Both candidates, being Sanders and Trump, share one common hope for the Iowa caucus; large voter turnout. Recent Quinnipiac polls show Trump leading Ted Cruz 31-24 percent in Iowa, and Sanders narrowly leading Clinton 49-46 percent.

However, among the first time Iowa caucus voters polled, Trump leads Cruz 40-22 percent and Sanders dominates Clinton 62-35 percent. These finding lead various election analysts such as Peter Brown to believe that voter turnout is a crucial point in this Caucus. If it's just the usual voters that vote in every Caucus, then it is really up in the air as to which candidate will win in each party. However, if surges of new voters turnout to this campaign, as many people predict, the advantage will go to Trump and Sanders.

For the numerous amounts of people in our class who are "feeling the bern," you'll be glad to know that the pressure is really on Hillary Clinton right now. Polls in New Hampshire, where the next primary is scheduled for, show Sanders holding a comfortably lead over Clinton. Being down 2-0 in the first two primaries and eventually winning the party's nomination and the overall presidency has only been done by one candidate in history since these two primaries came into prominence in 1972; you guessed it, Bill Clinton.

Obviously winning Iowa tonight is a good start for all of the candidates in the field, however, our recent elections show that the first winner doesn't always secure their party's nomination. For example, in 2008, Mike Huckabee won the caucuses, but John McCain went on to win the nomination for the Republican Party. Likewise, in 2012, Rick Santorum narrowly won Iowa, but Mitt Romney eventually secured his party's nomination.

This topic is hard to tie back to government related issues, so I thought I would just ask an open question as to what do you think about the current state of the candidates so far? I know that this election will be our first to opportunity to vote in a presidential election, and I'm curious to know which candidates you prefer at this point?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-to-watch-2016-iowa-caucuses/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/01/iowa-test-will-first-timers-show-up-to-caucus.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/01/politics/iowa-caucuses-2016-highlights/
http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bill-clinton-lost-iowa-and-new-hampshire-primaries/

Ted Cruz Under Fire for Controversial Campaign Tactic

Ted Cruz is under fire for his use of a controversial campaign tactic. The ad that is pictured above, was paid for by the Cruz campaign and sent out to citizens in Iowa just a couple days before the first Caucus. As you can see, at the top in big bold letter it states "Voting Violation." The print below it states" You are receiving this election notice because of low expected voter turnout in your area. Your individual voting history as well as your neighbors' are public record. Their scores are published below, and many of them will see your score as well. Caucus on Monday to improve your score and please encourage your neighbors to caucus as well. A follow-up notice may be issued following Monday's caucuses."

The tactic has been criticized by a number of people, including Iowa state officials and his other opponents in the election. Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate denounced this move and said it went against the spirit of the the election. Marco Rubio called it a strange move to bash on citizens so close to a caucus while Donald Trump tweeted against the move, stating The Cruz campaign issued a dishonest and deceptive get out the vote ad.

Ted Cruz responded quickly to the critique, stating that he will never apologize for trying to use every tool possible to encourage higher voter turnout . To me, I agree with Marco Rubio's sentiments that this seems like a strange tool to use so close before the first Caucus is scheduled. If I were to receive repeated notices by a politician highliting my poor voting history, it wouldn't make me really want to vote for them. Which makes this ironic, because there might be a higher voter turnout like Cruz wanted, but the response might be negative to Cruz because of this.

What are your thoughts? Is this a good 'get out to vote' tactic and would it influence your voting decisions at all?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ted-cruz-facing-controversy-iowa-voter-violation-mailers/story?id=36631257
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-under-fire-for-controversial-iowa-mailer/

New Satellite Network to Use Laser Communication Technology

On Friday, the European Space Agency launched the first component of a network of satellites called the European Data Relay Satellite (EDRS). The 500 million euro project uses laser communication technology to improve the transfer of images between Earth and other satellites.

Currently images are sent using radio waves. Through this method, it can take hours for a satellite to send data back to Earth. The speed at which data can be transmitted is particularly critical when dealing with emergencies such as natural disasters or illegal activities out at sea. Lasers. on the other hand, can shorten the time it takes to convey information down to approximately 20 minutes. With this improvement, monitoring events like oil spills, floods, and glacial movement will be made much easier. The data transfer is estimated to be around 1.8Gbps. (The average Internet speed in the U.S. is about 12 Mbps.)

Laser communications technology will become more and more important as we attempt to venture farther from Earth. The difference between 20 minutes and a few hours is already significant, but keep in mind that Earth and the satellites it communicates with are between 700 km and 35,000 km apart. Compare this with the minimum possible distance between the Earth and Mars (54 million km) and you can already start to see why long distance communication by radio waves might pose an issue. With lasers, more information can be transferred and at a faster rate.

The EDRS is an intriguing project which offers many potential benefits regarding space travel and exploration. What are your thoughts on this project? Should the U.S. invest in this kind of technology? What other applications are associated with laser communication? To what degree will the EDRS improve activities here on Earth?

Sources:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/12131158/Europe-launches-first-part-of-space-based-data-highway.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35446894
http://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0130/Why-lasers-are-better-for-communication-in-space

Refugees in Germany Must Return Home After War, Says Merkel

 http://www.dw.com/image/0,,19013447_303,00.jpg

Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, stated recently that all the refugees seeking asylum from the conflicts in Syria and Iraq and the rest of the Middle East must return to their home states during peacetime.

According to Reuters, she said: "We need ... to say to people that this is a temporary residential status and we expect that, once there is peace in Syria again, once IS has been defeated in Iraq, that you go back to your home country with the knowledge that you have gained."

Out of all the countries in the EU, Germany has received the most refugees. German officials, according to BBC, claim that over a million refugees have entered the country, with or without applying for asylum. It is difficult to know the exact number, since most of the immigrants enter illegally and over several major routes.

I think that Merkel should continue her open-door policy and try to encourage other countries to do the same. Of course, the political opposition will jump on every new story that paints a bad picture of the refugees and try to use it as evidence of her policy's failure, as they have in the past. Yet, if she cannot let refugees in now in the current state of emergency, the load will be spread out to the other countries and the problem will only grow worse.

What do you think? Should Germany change its open-door refugee policy? Is Merkel's "temporary residential status" far-fetched, or will it be effective? What's the next step in solving the refugee crisis?

http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-expects-most-syrian-and-iraqi-refugees-to-return-home-once-conflict-is-over/a-19013957
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-refugees-idUSKCN0V80IH?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911

Facebook "Guns Down" Sale of Firearms on Site

Gun control has been, and will continue to be, a major issue in the country. Many factors are involved, including who should be allowed to possess a firearm, what types of weapons should be allowed, and what can be done to prevent gun violence. The debate remains active among politicians, gun enthusiasts, and even social media companies.

Facebook has recently announced that it will ban gun sales on the website. This also applies to Instagram, which is owned by Facebook. Previously, users had been able to market and sell guns to other users via Facebook's social media network. This had been made even easier with Facebook's addition of online transactions via Messenger.

Through Facebook it has been possible for licensed or unlicensed dealers to sell guns to people without having to deal with the current regulations regarding guns. Selling guns in this fashion therefore circumvents the process of background checks that are supposed to keep dangerous individuals from procuring these weapons. This is an obvious loophole that can be exploited by those who would not be allowed to obtain guns legally.

The ban mainly affects individuals who wish to sell their guns independently, as opposed to gun retailers who wish to advertise their goods. With Facebook's new restrictions on gun transactions, individuals, as well as retailers, can no longer sell guns on the site; however, retailers are not barred from promoting their business. Advertising is acceptable if transactions are made off the website.

Facebook's action is a further step towards ensuring guns stay out of the wrong hands, but how effective will it truly be? It will take more than one social media site to make significant progress with this matter?

What are your opinions regarding all of this? To what extent does this action prevent gun violence? Was this a good decision by Facebook, and should other companies follow suit?

Sources:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2016/0130/Why-Facebook-is-banning-gun-sales-from-site
http://www.knoxnews.com/business/367040871.xhtml
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/1/30/facebook-announces-crackdown-on-gun-sales.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Facebook-plans-to-ban-private-gun-sales/articleshow/50780786.cms
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-bans-private-gun-sales-2016-01-29-20103136

Final GOP Debate Before Primaries

With the Iowa Caucuses coming up this Monday, the presidential candidates aim to do all they can to set themselves up for a win in Iowa. For many Republican candidates, this included the last GOP debate before the primaries, which occurred on Thursday.

Cruz, Rubio, Christie, Paul, Kasich, Bush, and Carson all took the stage on Thursday to solidify their positions on policy and attempt to sway those last undecided voters. The most publicized issue going into the debate was Trump's decision not to attend due to conflict with Fox, mainly debate moderator Megyn Kelly. The candidates did not hesitate to comment on that fact, with Bush saying he missed Trump, for "he was such a little teddy bear." Cruz gave his best Trump impression by satirically insulting fellow candidates based on issues from appearance to surgical abilities.

But the debate was not all fun and games. In fact, with Trump unable to dominate the stage with his personality and attacks on other candidates, those in attendance were able to express and develop some of their own ideas on policy. Bush, who had not shown as much success in prior debates, demonstrated his strengths through his discussion of immigration, advocating for pathways to citizenship rather than deportation. Paul, whose poll numbers have looked abysmal as of late, was able to give his opinions on criminal justice reform, controlling NSA surveillance, and auditing the Federal Reserve Bank so set him apart from the competition and hopefully give him a boost in the polls.

There was a considerable amount of criticism targeted toward Hillary Clinton. Whether it was Christie promising to "prosecute the case against Clinton" regarding her email scandal or Rubio slamming her statement that Obama would make a great Supreme Court Justice, the GOP candidates made it clear that Clinton is not fit to be president.

It does make sense to criticize Clinton, and not simply because she is a Democrat and not a Republican. With the primaries just around the corner, Republican voters need to decide on who will represent them in the general election, and Clinton is the most likely candidate to go up against the GOP. While the general election is not yet upon us, it is important to consider which Republican candidate has the best shot at defeating Clinton come November. Those who consistently compare themselves to Clinton show voters that the best way to ensure a Republican wins the general election is to vote for them. 

Who knows, maybe the candidates are trying to get voters to subconsciously imagine them as the nominee in some sort of attempt to hypnotize them into voting accordingly during the upcoming primaries. Carson, with his background in neuroscience, would know best. Perhaps that is why he looks so relaxed all the time.

What are your thoughts on all of this? Who performed well in the debate, and who did not? What were some of the more valid points made by the candidates? What effect did Trump's absence have on the debate and the candidates themselves?

Sources:

http://time.com/4199443/republican-debate-rand-paul-spotlight/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/opinions/iowa-republican-debate-opinion-roundup/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/politics/republican-debate-2016-takeaways/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/01/29/the-gop-debate-winner-was-jeb-bush/

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gop-debate-20160128-story.html

http://time.com/4199263/jeb-bush-rand-paul-republican-debate-family/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/28/7th-republican-debate-transcript-annotated-who-said-what-and-what-it-meant/

Two Homeless People Killed in Seattle

aljazeera.com

On Tuesday, two homeless people were shot and killed in a homeless camp in Seattle, Washington. The Mayor of Seattle, Ed Murray, had just declared a state of emergency over rising homelessness in the city. According to Capitol Hill Seattle, at least 45 homeless people died last year in Seattle.

Homelessness follows an interesting trend in the U.S. In the last 10 or so years, homelessness has been on a decline, with a reported 610,000 homeless people in 2013, compared to 763,000 in 2005. However, homelessness has been rising since the 1980s, when several government budgets for affordable housing were slashed. It also rose slightly after the 2008 recession.

I think we need to devote more resources towards creating affordable housing, such as Section 8 housing and other projects to help impoverished people have places to live. Since there are actually very few homeless people as a percentage of the population - only about 0.2% - this is actually a fairly feasible problem to tackle, when compared to a more widespread problem, like unemployment or poverty.

What do you think? How should we approach the problem of homelessness? Can we eradicate homelessness? Will it require us to solve larger problems first (In other words, is homelessness just a symptom of a larger problem)?

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/1/29/washington-lacks-affordable-housing-for-homeless.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/27/murder-in-the-jungle-deadly-shooting-at-seattle-homeless-camp-deepens-crisis/
http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2015/11/45-dead-in-2015-mayor-declares-seattle-homelessness-in-a-state-of-emergency/
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/28/homeless-declineconcernreport.html