Is Trump exceeding his presidential powers?

President Donald Trump greets Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh after the State of the Union address on February 5, 2019, in Washington, DC.

 Alex Wong/Getty Images

Original Post 

If you are interested, here is the pdf of the case

       On Tuesday, President Trump asked the Supreme Court if they could look into the case Selia Law v. CFPB or Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The content of the case is whether or not a federal team (or agency) can be led by one director that the President cannot remove under no circumstances. Moreover, this relates to the concept of the powers listed in the Constitution and the type of government it permits (checks and balances system).  

    Ian Millhiser, the author of the article, predicts that there is a small chance that the Supreme court will not allow federal agencies to have the immunity of not being removed by the president.  However, on the other side of the issue, it means that the president can remove this person from their position. This, in turn, relates to the amount of power the president can have and the idea of a "unitary executive," where all the control is in the president's hands; however, if there should be another lower official, who is answerable to the president, to take the decision in their hands as well. But this concept goes against this theory, making the court either give safety to the director position or simply be under president will. 

    The other interesting aspect is that this agency, CFPB, is led by one person and not a board of people. The president only has the right to remove the director if they show “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" (Vox). Other conservative perspectives indicated that the CFPB cannot stand due to it not representing the "consent of the governed." 

This relates to our class discussion/lesson about what the Consitution tells what each branch has power to and uses the checks and balances systems to make sure that each branch has limited power. But by Trump being able to fire the director, does it tip the balance? Sure, the president has the power under the "unitary executive" but what if one person having this much power in one branch is simply too much? Should we break up this large power into smaller parts? I think it would be beneficial, but it would raise the question about the importance of the presidential position and what powers are deemed to be on the lower or higher end of the spectrum. 

     Also, has the CFPB director demonstrated qualities that should make him be removed from the office? I think not. Therefore, in my opinion, I believe that even if Trump wanted to remove this person from office, he would have a hard time since this goes against the law even if he holds all the executive power. This is where the concept of checks and balances or where the judicial branch limits the executive branch's power in order to not create a tyranny of the government. 

   

What should the supreme court do? Do you think that the CFPB should be under one person? Usually, however, many federal agencies have a group of people rather than one person. Is Trump trying to exceed his powers under the executive branch?

Felicity Huffman sentenced to 14 days in prison with shame and regret

Felicity Huffman sentenced in 'varisty blues' sandals

Original Article

Since a lot of people are doing their last blog post about something non-related to govt. I decided to do it as well.

Actress Felicity Huffman was sentenced to 14 days in jail on Friday for paying thousands of dollars to have one of her daughters  SAT scores inflate. She is the primary parent to be sentenced in the huge school swindling embarrassment that has shaken the U.S.higher education framework. 

Furthermore, U.S. Area Judge Indira Talwani said Huffman must serve a year of administered discharge, 250 hours of network administration and pay a $30,000 fine. 

In an announcement issued after the condemning, Huffman stated, I accept the court's decision today without reservation. I have always been prepared to accept whatever punishment Judge Talwani imposed. I broke the law. ... There are no excuses or justifications for my actions. Period."

She additionally apologized, "to the students who work hard every day to get into college and to their parents who make tremendous sacrifices supporting their children."

"I can promise you that in the months and years to come that I will try and live a more honest life," Huffman added. There are many speculations on the criminal justice system. Many people are stating that Huffman should be serving 5 years or 10 years minimum for the amount she bribed the SAT administrators for her daughter to get into an IVY league.

While Felicity Huffman just got sentenced 14 days in federal prison, 250 hr community service, a 30k fine and 1 year probation for paying thousands of dollars to bribe her daughters way into an IVY league school, this homeless woman in CT was charged with larceny and sentenced 5 years in prison for enrolling her then 5-year-old kindergarten bound son into a PUBLIC school outside of her district. People do not want to admit, but when a famous white woman gets 14 days in jail for paying to get her child into college, yet an African American gets 5 years for providing an incorrect address to get her child into a better school, this is called #whiteprivilege. We have homeless, low-income women in one arena and an extremely wealthy high profile celebrity who can afford amazing lawyers, in another. This becomes racial and financial disparity. I know someone is gonna argue that Mcdowell's sentence also included drug charges, however, the initial 5 years is because she changed her address so her son can go to a decent school. Siutuaions like this just reaffirm what we already know. The criminal justice system very rarely distinguishes people as humans but rather as a race, income or social standing? 

 What kind of resources is helpful for a person to have when facing the prospect of being put on trial? What kind of discriminations and social stratification tend to bar certain classes of people from getting access to legal resources?

Oil could rise $10 per barrel after drone attack in Saudi Arabia

Smoke fills the air from the oil facility in Abqaiq on Sept. 14, 2019

Original Article

Ten drones attacked one of Saudi Arabia's biggest oilfields in Hijra Khurais and the world's greatest unrefined preparing office at Abqaiq on Saturday, causing lost 5.7 million barrels of rough creation daily. Oil costs could bounce as much as $10 per barrel after a few drones strike hit the focal point of Saudi Arabia's oil industry, compelling the kingdom to slice its oil output down the middle. Yemen's Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility regarding the attack, probably the biggest attack ever inside the kingdom. The Houthis have been behind a progression of assaults on Saudi pipelines, tankers and other foundation in the previous couple of years as pressures ascend among Iran and the U.S. furthermore, accomplices like Saudi Arabia. Early Saturday, the Khurais oilfield worked by Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil giant, and the Abqaiq oil preparing office was destroyed by a few drones. The office at Abqaiq is essential for worldwide vitality supplies

"Abqaiq is perhaps the most critical facility in the world for oil supply. Oil prices will jump on this attack" Jason Bordoff, director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, said in a statement. US Secretary Mike Pompeo stuck the assault straightforwardly on Iran. He expressed Iran dispatches an exceptional assault on the universes vitality supply. There is no proof the assaults originated from Yemen. In any case, experts say the attack is probably going to excite strain in the district and could rise U.S gas costs

 My thoughts, at the point when oil costs rise, purchasers will in general cut back on optional spending, to have enough cash for food and gasoline. These cutbacks in spending lead to lay-offs in optional areas of the economy, for example, vacation and visits to restaurants. The lay-offs in these areas lead to more reductions in spending, and to more obligation defaults. Government funds are particularly influenced by high oil costs. With higher unemployment rates, governments are looked with paying greater unemployment benefits and making more upgrade instalments. On the off chance that there have been numerous obligation defaults (as a result of greater unemployment or due to falling home costs), the government may likewise need to bail out. Simultaneously, charges gathered from residents are lower, as a result of lower business. A noteworthy reason (however by all account, not the only reason) for today's debt issues of the government of enormous oil merchants, for example, US, Japan, and a lot of Europe are high oil costs.


In your opinion, what are the effects likely to be on the global economy?
What possible reasons does the US have for blaming Iran other than "exceptional assault with vitality supply?"

Virginia removes the requirement to declare race on marriage forms after three couples took a stand

Samuel Sarfo and Ashley Ramkishun have lived in Virginia for 10 years

Original article 

Second source on the same topic

        Recently, three couples in the state of Virginia have filed lawsuits stating that on marriage forms, there should not be a question asking for one's race in order to receive their marriage license. The couples stated that this is "unconstitutional" and "reflective of [America's] racist past" through having some of the race options being Aryan, Moor, Octoroon, and Mulato. Some of these phrases are from interracial descriptions of Africans and English, each describing a certain percentage of each race. Some of these categories have left couples, such as Brandyn Churchill and Sophie Rogers, uncomfortable and have made them leave the licensing office. Now, this mandatory question has now become optional in Virginia, allowing couples to gain marriage licenses without the need to categorize/identify themselves in a specific racial manner. Couples can write "decline to answer;" however, the lawsuit is still being filed.

     Now, the argument is if in reality this law is deemed as "unconstitutional." The attorney defending these couples, Victor Glasberg, quoted that in the Virginia law, it stated that “for each marriage performed in the Commonwealth, a record showing personal data, including but not limited to age and race of the married parties . . . shall be filed with the State Registrar.” It is true that the 14th amendment was added to provide equality to all African Americans and is interpreted to mean that no individual is discriminated through race in this day and age. Also, the 15th amendment was added to prevent people from not have voting rights due to their racial background, but does stating one's race on this form lead to one's rights being infringed upon? So is it constitutional or not? How does this relate to state power versus federal power? However, allowing couples to not disclose this information is a quick and easy solution to people who do not feel comfortable and brings into question whether or not this case needs to be brought to the courts. This concept arises from the previous court cases we have read in class regarding the interpretation of the constitution.

    The other side of the argument is that the necessity for Virginia couples to state their racial background originally came from the state's banning of interracial marriage, which was overturned in a court case a century ago called Loving v. Virginia. The couple states that this reference to the previous racial discrimination should be removed. Moreover, they argue that it should be one's choice to answer this question and not be mandatory. 

    I think that what these couples did was a great start to having the choice about what an individual wants to share with the government. However, that brings up the idea - how much information should the government know about the people? Definitely, race is a category that is used to have statistical data about how each group is doing and if there is a pattern with one group being on the less fortunate side in the country. 

   Is this a case that is alarming and needs to act with great urgency at the state courts or even the national courts? State your thoughts in the comments below. 

Cyberpunk: The bleak view of our encroaching reality

This blog isn't history related at all so feel free to skip right on by it. I just wanted to write a blog post about something I liked. I'm by no means some sort of expert on this topic though, so feel free to add your own interpretations. (Inspired by Will and Natalie)

Art by Daniel Liang

So, what exactly is cyberpunk? For starters, its a genre of fiction. Many movies, books, TV shows, and game story lines all employ the use of this concept. You may even already know the cyberpunk aesthetic from TV shows such as Black Mirror or Love, Death & Robots or even from books like Altered Carbon or Ready Player one. However, for a formal definition of cyberpunk let's turn to Wikipedia. There it's defined as "a subgenre of science fiction in a futuristic setting that tends to focus on a 'combination of lowlife and high tech.'" That's to say that where cyberpunk differs from other science fiction genres is that rather than focusing on the advancements science has caused it focuses on what happens to the people unable to benefit from the new tech and the subsequent collapse of social order. The nuance that exists in this genre is what makes it both fun to watch and write about, and creating worlds in this genre is very fun to do as a writer.

Screencap from popular Cyberpunk TV show Altered Carbon

However, I didn't just want to talk about the genre of Cyberpunk because I liked to write about it. I feel like modern works of fiction that employ Cyberpunk in their writing, or just works of science fiction in general, are acting like a sort of warning to society as a whole about our use and reliance on technology. Take Black Mirror, one of the more prominent modern sci-fi shows, as an example. When people first began watching it, many were terrified of the way technology was used. There were episodes where people forced to bike endlessly to presumably produce electricity, ones where people's consciousness were cloned and exploited as smart home devices, and even episodes where rogue autonomous robots hunt down the last vestiges of humanity. My favorite episode of Black Mirror, Hated in the Nation, confronted something that I feel is closer than we think, the use of drone insects to pollinate crops. (SPOILERS HERE) In the episode, it is revealed that even though the drone insects were being used to pollinate crops initially, the project was only funded by the government because the bees had built in facial recognition that was being used for nationwide surveillance of England. However, the use of this surveillance tech eventually backfired on the government, and through the use of an online campaign a hacker was able to use the drones to murder 300,00 people across all of England. (SPOILERS END) With out growing reliance on technology, we must also confront the reality that that technology can be used against us just as easily as it can help us. 

This post isn't meant to be something super dark though, as even if the reality created in these Cyberpunk works seems close to our reality they are still only fiction. These works only critique possible repercussions to our total trust and reliance on technology, and are only meant to warn against letting those fictional world becoming our reality. So as our world moves further and further in the future, lets keep Cyberpunk firmly in the realm of fiction and never let innovation be our society's downfall.

Purdue Pharma lawsuit has new revalation

Protesters honor those who died during the opioid epidemic as Purdue Pharma stood trial in a Boston Court in August 2019

Here is the original article

The conflict between victims of opiods and big pharma has come to a head this year, with Purdue Pharma standing trial in Boston court for the production of Oxycontin. The trial had previously reached a settlement of 10 to 12 billion, but a new revelation has caused that agreement to come to a screeching halt. To give context, Purdue Pharma's drug OxyContin is the prime fuel behind the opiod crisis, and is one of the contributors to the over 700,000 deaths across the nation. During the trial, the prosecutors issued nearly 33 subpoenas against both the Sackler family, who own Purdue Pharma, and Purdue Pharma itself. The subpoenas revealed a previously undisclosed wire transfer of around 1 billion dollars. This amount prompted many lawyers that previously endorsed the tentative settlement amount to seek another 3 billion in damages.

This opiod crisis first started out because of the misbranding of Oxycontin opiod painkillers as an addiction free drug. This resulted in the first wave of the opiod crisis, in which doctors prescribed patients opiods like Oxycontin which resulted in widespread misuse of the drug. And even when addiction to OxyContin was running rampant the Sackler family continued to claim their drug was safe for use. This marketing push kept doctors prescribing the drug and resulted in more and more people across the country getting addicted.

This lawsuit is almost reminiscent of another prominent court case this year (Varsity Blue anyone?). However, in this case the opiod crisis has prompted multiple states to file lawsuits against the company, and as such the defendants will likely not be able to get off as easily as those who participated in that college admissions scandal. However, the fact that this crisis was even allowed to continue raises a lot of questions about medical facilities in general. Like our government medical companies have the first priority of protecting the health and well-being of our nation's people. It is when elites control the medical field that incidents like this happen at all. This incident demonstrates that the concept of elitism doesn't just stay in politics, it permeates into all aspects of our life.

What do you think about this incident? Do you think that the company should just have to pay a large settlement, or do you think they should be shut down? Tell me what the correct punishment for this should be.

Lofi: The lazy and calming vibe that's all over the Internet

I want to preface this blog post by saying that this isn't related to anything we're doing in class, nor is it based on a news article. I'm also not knowledgeable in music at all. After reading Natalie's post about origami bombing, I was inspired to write about something that I enjoy and value as well — lofi hip hop.



What does lofi mean to me? Well it's more of a vibe or a mood that's lazy and calming. Lofi literally means "low fidelity," according to Medium. Lofi hip hop is the most well known variation of lofi, where producers make hip hop beats that have an element of jazz and other calming music genres. This new genre of music has blown up in the past few years, originating on Soundcloud and smaller music platforms.

My brother originally introduced me to lofi music, showing me artists like jinsang and nujabes. I soon fell in love with the genre. The beats strongly resembled those in hip hop but were also calming and perfect to listen to when doing homework or just driving at night. I can't really focus when listening to music with lyrics, but the majority of lofi songs are purely instrumentals, making them perfect for me.

 

The rise of "lofi anime" (my made up term) has occurred concurrently with the rise in modern lofi music. Lofi anime are calm looped animations with a Japanese drawing style. Lofi hip hop live streams on YouTube are famous for these types of animations, such as the "lofi girl" on ChilledCow's "lofi hip hop radio - beats to relax/study to" live steam on YouTube. The stream has accumulated 1.8 million likes and averages over 10,000 viewers at any time.

I personally started an Instagram account where I publish short looped videos with my favorite lofi songs playing over it. Lofi music has been a huge part of my life. For one, it reminds me of my brother, who's now working full time in Colorado. It's also calming and puts me into a focusing zone. I'm assuming that the majority of people who read this blog already knew about lofi music, but I hope that I was able to share something meaningful and helpful to me with everyone out there.

Andrew Yang’s campaign to give $1000 to 10 families monthly sparks nation

Andrew Yang giving positive gesture at the start of the Democratic presidential debate in Houston, Texas, September 12, 2019

Original Article

Andrew Yang intends to give each American adult $1,000 every month in all-inclusive fundamental pay, as an approach to balance work misfortune from automation. The pledge now says he will give 1000$ to 10 families off of a lottery system. The first-run through presidential up-and-comer proposes paying for the month to month dispersions, in huge part, by executing another 10 % esteem included expense (VAT) on merchandise and services. A VAT assessment resembles a business charge, yet it's gathered differently. Normally, for a business charge, when you purchase an item,  the tax will be collected. Yet, under a value-added tax, the tax is actually collected in stages along the production process. He stated, “In America today, everything revolves around the all-mighty dollar,” Yang said. “It’s time to trust ourselves more than our politicians. That’s why I’m going to do something unprecedented tonight. My campaign will now give a Freedom Dividend of $1,000 a month for an entire year to 10 American families.” 

With a UBI, which Yang calls a “freedom dividend” no American would need to fear they couldn’t cover their basic human needs. The presidential candidate says this is because when we operate from fear, we tend to make poor decisions and there is typically a cascading effect on our lives that impacts our families, networks, and society at large. Yang plans to use the UBI after being elected president to give back to the families. A UBI would liberate Americans to move from shortage to wealth mode, which would empower more individuals to go out on a limb and take part in a more prominent, progressively broad vision for their future. Yang's opportunity profit would give Americans more prominent office to leave mutually dependent connections, proficient or something else, and work as the CEO or business person of their own lives

  However some experts state, it can be a violation of campaign finance laws. The UB I works where monthly money instalments would go out to each American beyond 18 years old. They'd get the same dollar amount regardless where they live and how much, if anything, they gain by working. The administration charges a 10% worth included assessment merchandise and enterprises to pay for the program, just as raising expenses on high workers and polluters, and discovering investment funds somewhere else, as indicated by Yang's site. Paying $1,000 per month to each American would cost at any rate $2 trillion per year and the weight would be conveyed by everybody, not simply the wealthy.

I think putting 1000$ to families is both right and wrong. It can start maximizing on generating income from the people and businesses that benefit from society most. Once the 10% value-added tax will be imposed it will focus on persons and businesses making a killing in the society and this will help raise the funds that will be needed to fund the 1000$ to families that will be randomly selected. To help rectify wage stagnation, poverty and to respond to rising inequality. Yang wages to help rectify the poverty and the rich gap by empowering anyone that will be selected to get the funds to help him/her be able to do anything with the funds that the government will offer and hence reduce poverty levels and solve the inequality issue. However, slightly higher prices of goods, since the 10% will be imposed on goods and services, then this means there will be an increase in price to be able to compensate on the lost cash to taxation and this will eventually lead to prices rocketing a bit higher. Also, mass job losses as technology will be greatly involved. When taxation is high industries tend to minimize wage bills by doing automation, this will definitely lead to job loss as there will be mass layoffs in various companies as they will resort to automation.

Questions-Every eligible UBI recipient, regardless of location, would receive $1,000 a month, would it be right or wrong to make adjustments to the amount based on where you live?

 Would you say giving out 1000$ per month out of campaign funds and handing it out to individuals violate the personal use prohibition?

Trump administration raids military construction projects for border wall

Original Article

Lindsey Graham said he was confident that money being taken from projects in his state would be restocked

Both the president and the congress can declare a national crisis at whatever point they see fit. In spite of the extreme sounding mark, no comprehensively settled upon "crisis" is really required. Donald Trump announced the crisis not long ago to verify assets for the border wall in the wake of neglecting to induce Congress to dispense cash for its development a similar wall he at first guaranteed Mexico would pay for. Just 12 Republican legislators questioned the move in a Senate floor vote in March, with the majority of the GOP meeting staying with the president.GOP authorities are accusing Democrats after the Trump organization defunded military activities in their states. Democrats have another battleground in their battle against President Donald Trump's wall along the southern border. After the Defense Department divulged a rundown of undertakings it would put on uncertain hold to give $3.6 billion to the divider, Democrats have concentrated on what the nation is surrendering. Republicans who bolstered a crisis presentation on the U.S.- Mexico border are finding the expense of remaining with President Donald Trump: million dollars in government subsidizes redirected away from planned military construction projects in their states. 

Esper established that the utilization of the military development assets was important to help American powers sent toward the southern border with Mexico under the national crisis that Trump announced in mid-February. The formal assurance permits Trump, under the government code directing the military, to tap the assets appropriated for different purposes without close down from Congress. 

I do not think taking funds from the states to be able to build the wall is right. These states have needs and their residents need to be protected. Taking funds from these states to fund the building of the wall, denies these states the ability to provide for their residents. The projects in these states will likely stall and the people in these states will be heavily affected because they will not benefit from the projects that were to be laid out. This will make these states to lag behind in terms of development because of the need to build the wall between the US and Mexico. This is an issue because when the funds are diverted, the people in these states will not get to enjoy the benefits that they expected to enjoy. Most of the projects that would have been done this year, would be pushed to next year thereby affecting the lives of the people in these states. This is not the right move.

Question- What qualifies as a “national government? Do presidents regular declare national emergencies? What can a president do with the emergency powers? Would you call this case an emergency power?

All The Key Moments From The Third Democratic Presidential Debate

The original article can be found here.
You can watch the debate here.

The Third Democratic Presidential Debate took place on Sept. 12.

 

The third democratic presidential debate is upon us, taking place at Texas Southern University in Houston. I only watched the first hour or so, where the debate was mostly comprised of universal health care discussions — and I have quite a bit of criticism.

As the candidates introduced themselves and began discussing issues, one of their main themes was that they were all on the same team — the democrats. Now, since this is a competition for the presidential election, there is obviously going to be some competition. But following Julián Castro and Joe Biden's petty verbal scuffle, Pete Buttigieg voiced his opinions.

"This is why national debates are becoming unwatchable. This reminds everybody of what they cannot stand about Washington. Scoring points against each other, poking at each other," Buttigieg said.

Castro responded smugly and condescendingly, "Yeah that's called the democratic primary election. That's called an election, you know? This is what we're here for. It's an election."

Same team right? Even though they all have different plans, they're fighting for the same thing: universal health care. Why get into an argument and throw cheap shots at each other? The exchange that Castro had with Biden and then Buttigieg after made him immediately unlikable to me. One of the reasons for the continuing divide in the United States is the continued divide in politicians, even those who are on the same side. If they can't set some kind of example and show some respect for each other without being condescending, how are the American people who support these candidates supposed to react?



Two major themes that the candidates' seemed to support appeared to contradict each other: uniting the nation and hating Donald Trump. I get it. Trump's time in office has been questionable (to put it very lightly), and his past and path to presidency was littered with racist comments and his immaturity shown by his tweets also reflected some poor judgment. But nearly half of the voting population was in support of him.

Take Kamala Harris for example. A couple of her opening statements disregarded the issue at hand, and instead took shots at Trump's presidency and him as a person, which appeared to me as a cheap way to gain applause from the audience. Even Buttigieg said that those who vote for Trump are turning the other cheek to racism. That's a quick and easy way to widen the divide between democrats and republicans.

I don't support or endorse Trump. I think he's very unfit for the presidency and politics in general. But a good portion of the country doesn't think so. And if your motto as a candidate is to unite the nation while simultaneously pissing off half the country by bashing their favorable candidate, it just doesn't seem consistent. Rather than discussing everything Trump has done wrong and talking about how bad of a person he is, focus on the future. This is a progressive generation. If you really want to unite the American citizens, then respect all people. You don't unite a country by saying that the voters of the other party are racist — you focus on what you plan on doing and how you're the best candidate.

Judging from last election's debates, these have the potential to be brutal. I hate seeing these candidates avoid questions altogether to throw in some rehearsed statement that doesn't feel genuine, nor do I like seeing politicians being pitted against each other and hurling insults rather than discussing issues. Buttigieg and a few other candidates seem to recognize this, but there's still a way to go before respect is built between democrats and republicans.

Bernie Sanders voter pandering: the Democrat strategy

Since 2016, as the Democratic field has expanded, Bernie Sanders has maintained a significant fund-raising advantage among college student in Iowa

Here is the original piece

In the tight race for Democratic nomination, one nominee has turned to more unconventional tactics to stay in the race. Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, who lost at the Iowa caucus in 2016 to Hillary Clinton, is back for the 2020 race with fervor. Currently, in the race for Democratic nomination, "currently jockeying with Elizabeth Warren for second place, behind Joe Biden, in the race for Democratic nomination.

Since losing the caucus last year against Hillary, Sanders has still maintained the strong lead he had with young voters particularly with those in Iowa that are college age. However, this year Sanders is being much more proactive about trying to get his demographic to vote, and at every stop, during his tailgate tour, he reminded his audience that even with their more progressive views, nothing meaningful would happen if they did not go and vote.

This targetting of a more younger demographic will be very beneficial to Bernie's campaign, as nowadays there seems to be a tendency with younger generations to have more moderate to liberal political philosophies. However, even with this new liberal generation rising up, there is a much larger problem that may prevent their more liberal ideologies from being represented in government. Bernie's criticisms of the government target those that are considered elites, harping on that the economic and political systems in place in our country tend to favor elites. While his criticism is not untrue, and not unfounded, his message merely echoes the sense of powerlessness felt by those he targets with his message. Young voters mark one of the first generations where children are making less money than their parents, and many young voters may feel disenfranchised with the idea of voting because they feel the system they are trying to change is rigged against them. As Sanders himself says, "What we're really fighting against is apathy."

Though Bernie's message about wanting to rework the country's politcal and economic systems rings very clear, it seems that his campaign message emphasizing the unfairness of the system may once again backfire on his young voters. However, with a large percent of voters 65 and over voting more conservatively, Democrats seem to have no choice but to pander more and more to younger generations in order to gain their votes.

What are your thoughts on this new era of politcal pandering to younger generations? Do you think that the call to action will inspire more apathy from millenials and Gen Z voters or do you think this reality check is just what nominees need to secure that last vote.

Trump Administration Plans to Ban Flavored E-Cigarettes

The Trump Administration discusses a flavored e-cigarette ban with the F.D.A commissioner and the health and human services secretary

The original article can be found here.

In light of recent mysterious lung diseases connected to the use of e-cigarettes, the Trump Administration said on Sept. 11 that it would ban the majority of flavored e-cigarettes. One of the biggest concerns is the rise in teenage vaping across the nation.

There has been a rise in vaping related health issues recently, with nearly 500 reported cases and potentially 6 deaths. The majority of these cases involve those over 30 years of age and that use vaping products that contain THC, a psychoactive component in marijuana.

The CDC has strongly urged everyone to not vape, and smokers to consult a doctor instead of switching to e-cigarettes. Major vaping companies such as Juul are new, as is vaping. There is not much research as to the effects of vaping nicotine or THC, and other chemicals found in the aerosol based liquids also have unknown effects.

Various flavors of Juul e-cigarettes in a store in Manhattan.

Secretary of the health and human services Alex M. Azar II said that the FDA is planning to get rid of flavored e-cigarette nicotine products including mint and menthol, which many vape companies did not formerly consider flavors. There have been accusations that vaping companies have produced flavored vapes to deliberately attract teenagers. Although all companies deny these claims, Juul, who recently took flavored pods off of the shelves, still sold their flavored options online for some time.

Michigan has become the first state to ban the sale of flavored e-cigarettes. New York, Massachusetts and California are also considering following suit and banning flavors. This poses the question of state regulated commerce. There has not been much backlash towards individual states banning flavored e-cigarettes, however, it may affect the shipment and transport of vaping products across states. One suggested interpretation of the Commerce Clause suggests that only Congress can regulate interstate commerce, and the state ban could potentially violate that (I'm not too sure).

Regardless of individual states' actions, the Trump Administration is looking to enforce this ban on a national level. Vaping and nicotine products are without a doubt a rising harmful trend. Although they were originally marketed as safer alternatives to smoking cigarettes, the demographic has quickly shifted from hopeful smokers to teenagers.

However, there has been some backlash to the Trump Administration's decisions regarding vaping. Various conservative organizations as well as vaping companies have described the Trump Administration's ban on flavored products misguided, and even went as far as to say they are following "the far left anti-business extremists." It's no surprise that these companies would hurl these claims to protect their businesses and write off the health risks associated with their products.

Aside from the vaping industry's concerns about the new potential ban, there is widespread support for the Trump Administration's new proposed ban. The effectiveness, however, may be questionable. With the ban on flavored products, many consumers switched over to menthol and mint rather than quitting nicotine altogether. But this proposed ban will address menthol and flavored products.

What do you think of this ban? Do you think that the individual states have the rights to enforce their own bans and regulations on vaping products? What do you think the outcome of the Trump Administration's ban might be?

Huawei Has a Plan to Help End Its War With Trump

Huawei CEO Ren Zhengfei hosts a rare media interview.

The original news article can be found here.

In this opinion piece, journalist Thomas L. Friedman shares his experience interviewing Huawei Chief Executive Officer Ren Zhengfei and his thoughts on the U.S. Chinese trade war.

Huawei is one of the largest technology companies in China, producing more smartphones than Apple and trailing just behind Samsung. The company's products resemble those of Apple in both design and name. But the United States has its biggest concerns in the potential espionage of the Chinese government through Huawei products.

It's no secret that China has a suspect history with the media and internet in their country. With major search engines and social media applications blocked, China is mostly dominated by WeChat, a sort of all-in-one application that lets you interact with others, pay for products, and even call a ride. The Chinese search engine, Baidu, along with Weibo, a microblogging website, is heavily filtered.

For example, searching keywords such as "Tiananmen Square" returns no results, which is China's futile method of pretending the June 4th massacre never took place. Despite China's attempts of filtering its past along with their questionable government, the citizens are still aware. The use of VPNs and other firewall bypassing software allows the people to access the plethora of information available on the web. All of the people know that the Tiananmen Square protests were a real thing, but the government still tries to deny it.

Why does the Trump Administration not want to do business with China? Well there are multiple reasons. In the United States, there are no American producing 5G networks. But there are multiple companies internationally that have these services, one of the big ones being Huawei. Huawei has also been previously affiliated with American tech companies such as Microsoft and Samsung, but their relations have been cut off amidst the recent trade war. The Trump Administration is fearful of Huawei setting up their networks in the United States and allowing China to spy on our conversations (similar to what the NSA does?) and potentially turn off our electricity during a war (?).

But in a recent (and also rare) interview, Ren stated that he was willing to work with the United States and namely the Trump Administration to set up these networks and even allow American companies to rewrite the software to ensure that there is no sketchy espionage happening from China. They want to reach some kind of consensus, but are weary because of President Trump's irrational tendencies. Since President Trump seems to treat foreign affairs as a win or lose situation, China and Huawei don't see any kind of win-win situation coming out of this trade war.

It seems that Huawei is offering a solution to benefit the United States with a new and improved 5G network, while also ensuring information and cybersecurity. Why would they do that? They most likely want to reestablish relations with the American companies, who weren't actually given a reason as to why they couldn't do business with Huawei.

Aside from me throwing a little bit of shade in the way of the Trump Administration, it does seem that they have our security in high priority, which is in our best interest. Could they be taking it a little too far, like an overprotective father on his daughter's prom night? Maybe. But as of now, all we can do is wait for some kind of resolution for this situation.

The enduring effects of Trump's foreign policy on national security

A C.I.A. source with access to President Vladimir V. Putin was removed from Russia in 2017.

(This article can be located here)

The New York Times is a an American Newspaper with international acclaim that covers stories in many different fields like politics, economics, and tech

During President Trump's presidency, the United States lost one of its most important assets against Russia, a CIA informant that was able to closely monitor Vladimir Putin's actions and sent information over to America. Around the time Trump's presidency started the CIA was forced to withdraw the agent "in part" due to Trump's closed door meetings with Putin and mishandling of delicate intelligence.

This extraction has opened a whole other avenue of discussion. Why do we have a president that handles politically sensitive information with ham-hands and is able to frolic unchecked on social media at all times? Trump's use of social media has caused or much embarrassment to himself and also resulted in the spread of hate and misinformation.

In my opinion, if Trump's actions with foreign policy and social media have resulted in an integral source being withdrawn from a country with which we have shakey relations, we need to seriously reconsider who we have let become our president. After all, it was because of this source we know definitively that Russia had interfered in our 2016 elections. (And before people try to ask about the validity of the information, the CIA ordered a full review of the informant's record, so do with that what you will).

As we have learned in class our government is plagued by voter misrepresentation as a result of low voter turnout or simply just uneducated voting. So it is no surprise that we currently have a president with an approval rating of less that 50%. Additionally, I feel the other branches of government ought to punish or even just call Trump out on his potentially dangerous actions. After all the Constitution does have the purpose of "ensu[ring] domestic tranquility" and "provi[ding] for the common defense" of our nation. A president that potentially endangered CIA informants goes against both those values.

What's your opinion about this whole situation coming back into light?

Teens Doing Good for the World

Image

Article

      This little boy has a genetic defect that reduces his motor function. He is unable to walk and because of their financial situation his family was unable to provide a customized wheelchair for him as it would cost a lot out of pocket since their insurance would not cover it. His father reached out to the local high school's robotics team and asked if they would build this 2 year old a car. They happily said yes and got to work. They created this chair from a Power Wheels car. They replaced the seat with a bike seat and added a seat belt to keep him safe. Removing the fancy electronics, they replaced it with a simple joystick so the boy would be able to move around easier. For extra safety, they added pool noodles around the base, a very common technique seen at actual robotics competitions to prevent damage. The financial savings from this vehicle was very beneficial to the family. Seeing the joy on the boy's face as he drove around made their hard work and effort 100% worth it according to the robotics team. 

Read more about teens doing good for the world here: Link

Leaving a Mark - Thoughts from an Art Bomber

( This isn’t about Gov or Econ, or anything newsworthy, but I wanted to put something personal on here to hopefully be entertaining and add some levity. Let me know in the comments what you think.)

I started Origami Bombing about five years ago, after I folded a few figures as Christmas gifts for some friends. I had never done origami before that point. I started practicing the figures on bits of recycled paper as a way of memorizing them. I’d dig old hall passes out of my middle school recycling bins and fold them into a variety of animals, flowers, and boxes. 

The problem arose when I couldn’t find the heart to throw them away. Yes, they were disposable, and yes, I could make a thousand more, but at the same time, it seemed wrong to take something I created and toss it in the trash. I’m sentimental that way. So I just left them. Some teachers found this habit annoying, as it tended to confuse the next student to use my desk. Others found it as an entertaining break in their monotonous day. 

The ones in the first picture are from a notepad I found in the lounge at the dorm I stayed at last summer. All the papers were perfect squares and I couldn’t resist. The third is from Mr. Ratto’s daily calendar on his desk. This practice could be considered littering, and most of the figures end up in the trash at the end of the day anyway. Why do I do something so temporary? In a way, everything is temporary. The lifespan of your average origami crane is fairly short, but short life is better than no life at all. There’s a real joy in creating something, even something so simple, and leaving it behind.

The Crochet Bomb is on Hot Metal Bridge in Pittsburgh that might technically be vandalism.  I left it behind on my last day in the city. The city changed me, so I decided to change it, even in the tiniest way. A fair exchange. Maybe that’s why I do the origami, as a way of getting even with the classroom that morphs my mind a little bit every day. Or It might be the narcissist in me experimenting with playing god on a minuscule scale. If I’m being generous, though, it’s more about whimsy than anything else. I do it because it’s fun, it’s harmless, and some people find it amusing. 

So if you find some folded paper on your desk, it was probably me. What do you leave behind? 

Indian Missing Spacecraft Found

Image

Article

      The unmanned Indian spacecraft Vikram had lost contact with Earth over 36 hours ago. It had traveled millions of kilometers but 2.1 km away from the surface of the moon, they lost contact. They were unsure of whether the craft had actually landed on the moon or if it had floated away. When news came in this morning, it seems the craft had landed on the South Pole side of the moon but they are still unsure of what condition it is in. However because it did land, India is now the fourth country to have landed an spacecraft on the moon. The mission was for the craft to explore the terrain of the moon for a few weeks because in one of India's previous missions, Chandrayaan-1 (meaning moon craft in Sanskrit), there was ice spotted on the South Pole of the moon. They were going to measure the ice chunks and see if it was viable for life. If the Indian Space Research Organization is able to work the spacecraft from Earth, this may be the beginning to seeing if there is life possible outside of our planet. 

Top of the Democratic Agenda for the 2020 Election: Climate Change

Image

Article
Image2

        Climate change is happening. It is all across the globe and many people have finally realized the impacts due to it. For the 2020 election, many possible Democratic candidates have put climate change as one of their top priorities. Some of these ideas include a pollution fee proposed by Senator Kamala Harris to help mitigate the issue or simply a budget working towards solving this issue such as Bernie Sander's proposal of 16 trillion dollars. The Green New Deal, a liberal proposal to solve climate change, has a goal of reaching a net zero of carbon emissions in a decade. Obviously this is a very high goal and seemingly unrealistic but many activists say "the bolder the action, the better."

         Though scientists have confirmed climate change and the harrowing impacts of it on the flora and fauna of the world, many are still on the fence of whether or not it should be supported. In fact, only 44% of the people who acknowledge climate change think there should be something done about it. I believe that climate change should be a main priority in the next decade because we need to help reduce the damage it has already caused to this planet. The carbon tax is one of the best ways to help companies reduce their emissions and it can hugely benefit the air quality as well as mitigate the impacts of climate change.

Amazon to Release Movie about CIA Torture.

Based on this Article : https://reason.com/2019/08/23/can-adam-driver-make-americans-care-about-cia-torture-again/

“Can Adam Driver Make Americans Care About CIA Torture Again?” - SCOTT SHACKFORD | 8.23.2019 2:35 PM, Reason

(Reason is a libertarian magazine that leans toward free market and “small government” opinions. However, this post is about entertainment media as a means of social influence, a subject matter with a fairly neutral stance in terms of partisanship.)

Amazon Prime recently dropped a trailer for a new movie, The Report, which will become available in November. (Trailer Here). The film details the efforts of one Senate Committee to uncover and, well, report the brutal interrogation and other prisoner abuses by the CIA after the September 11th attacks.  These methods were used in the early 2000s during the Bush administration and ended during the Obama Administration, but afterward, the Agency and much of the Administration did everything in their power to keep evidence and knowledge of these practices under wraps. It wasn’t until 2014 that the “enhanced interrogation” came to light. (If you’d like, the full report can be found here, pages 11-27 give a good outline of the document. Fair warning, it does get graphic.) 

Five years is not a very long time in terms of “historical Drama.” The movie industry can be hesitant to touch fresh wounds, as the longer you wait, the fewer people are left alive to remember the subject matter and be angry at a misrepresentation of it. From a less cynical view, it can be easier to gather objective information about a subject as more time goes on, as the heat of the moment fades and people get the benefit of hindsight. 

The debate about what is “necessary” in times of crisis is forever-raging. The same arguments always arise, whether it’s dropping an atomic bomb on a civilian population or starting an invasion or burning a village to the ground. “It’s them or us, it’s a total war, a few destroyed lives are worth the price if it protects everyone else.” And on the opposite side: “Nothing justifies this kind of brutality, it doesn’t work, it’s needless, civilians shouldn’t be punished for the actions of a few.” One is more “realist,” (and criticized as cynical) and the other is more idealist (and criticized as naive). But, people will defend both with equal vehemence. 

So why would Amazon risk a public backlash by releasing this film, which criticizes both the CIA and the Obama Administration for their cover-up? Maybe it’s to force people to remember. It’s not just the brutality that’s disconcerting here, it’s the secrecy. How much is the executive branch capable of hiding? How much of their action is outside of our control? And how do we trust people with such low regard for human life that they were willing to commit these atrocities? These questions are too important to be forgotten, especially now, when the world of politics is more chaotic than ever, and the executive branch seems to want to test the extent of its power. 

Words in a report can have an effect, but watching history play out, that creates real understanding. Films are not made to be educational (normally), they’re meant to tell truths that are impossible to find in facts. Films like these, no matter the motivation for making them, force the viewers to think, and to confront dark and ugly things in a way that appeals to their empathy and stays with them long after the credits roll.