Trump Administration announces new travel bans

On Sunday, the Trump administration announced an expansion of travel bans on eight new countries. The band will go into effect on October 18th. These new countries are Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yeme and the rules vary by country. This new ban is set to replace the old one signed earlier in this year. Trump stated that these new rules were: "A critical step toward establishing an immigration system that protects Americans' safety and security in an era of dangerous terrorism and transnational crime." Supporters of this act will state that the Trump administrations are just doing all they can to "make America safe again" and preserve national security. While the opposition like The Fourth Circuit court of Appeals,  believes that the ban was "likely unconstitutional" and "drips with religious intolerance"

Do you think that the new travel bans are necessary for national security? How is this beneficial? How will these countries react and what will  the backlash be like?

Washington Post Article

NFL players unite in protests during national anthem

Many NFL players protested during the national anthems of their Week 3 games // via Wikimedia Commons

Hours after President Donald Trump called athletes who protest during the national anthem a "son of a b***h" and request that they be fired, many NFL players used their Week 3 anthem time to do exactly that: protest.

The Tennessee Titans, Pittsburgh Steelers and Seattle Seahawks all stayed in their respective locker rooms during the anthem. On the Green Bay Packers, Cincinnati Bengals, Indianapolis Colts, Jacksonville Jaguars, Baltimore Ravens, New York Giants and Philadelphia Eagles sidelines, players locked arms, with some electing to kneeling. Buffalo Bills running back LeSean McCoy stretched at midfield while the anthem was being sung. While different teams and players may have demonstrated their opinions differently, they made it clear that they are not satisfied with current state of America.

The Seahawks made a statement in advance of Sunday's game, explaining why they would not come out for the anthem: "We will not stand for the injustice that has plagued people of color in this country. Out of love for our country and in honor of the sacrifices made on our behalf, we unite to oppose those that would deny our most basic freedoms. We remain committed in continuing to work towards equality and justice for all."

Other players felt it was important to use their platform to set an example for others. “Lots of people don’t have a voice and I wanted to tell those folks that they’re not alone," said Miami Dolphins tight end Julius Thomas, who kneeled during the anthem for the first time Sunday. "I used my position to try to empower everybody who seeks equality.”

At this time last year, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick began kneeling as a form of political demonstration, citing the oppression that African American people suffer from in the U.S. as his reason for protesting. A year later, Kaepernick still has not been signed by an NFL team, and many analysts have blamed his advocacy, per the Huffington Post.

I can say with the utmost confidence that the extent and magnitude of the anthem protests is great. As Barack Obama said in 2012, ""One of the big unifiers in this country is sports, and football in particular." With such a large following throughout not only the country, but the world, it is amazing to see these athletes, with the platform they have, come together to make such public statements about their political views. Peaceful protests like these are the best way to get one's views across — not through violent protests, like the one we witnessed in Charlottesville a few weeks back.

With the NFL season in action until February, it will certainly be interesting to see how these protests play out. This movement is bigger than football — it sends a message to the millions of viewers each week that peaceful activism is encouraged, especially during this controversial period in American politics and society.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/sports/nfl-trump-anthem-protests.html?mcubz=1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/colin-kaepernick-donald-trump_us_59c67acce4b0cdc77331a0ce

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000691077/article/colin-kaepernick-explains-why-he-sat-during-national-anthem

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico44/2012/11/obama-sports-a-great-unifier-148571

WWE wrestler hurls racist jokes at competitor in live taping, Oakland fans shut it down

WWE Champion Jinder Mahal, who made racist remarks at a live taping of WWE Smackdown // Via Wikipedia Commons

Yuvraj Singh Dhesi, a WWE wrestler (and current champion) better known as Jinder Mahal, made racist remarks against his opponent, Shinsuke Nakumora, at a Tuesday night taping at Oracle Arena in Oakland. Mahal mocked cultural Asian speech, saying Nakumora always "rooks" (instead of "looks") the same. He then told Nakumora, "They [the fans] call you Mr. Miyagi," referencing the Japanese karate master from "Karate Kid." He also accused the Bay Area audience of being xenophobic.

But it didn't take long for the Oakland fans to voice their discontent with the situation. They booed Mahal after his insensitive "rooks" comment, and after the Mr. Miyagi reference, the fans chanted in unison, "That's too far One fan could even be heard on T.V. yelling, "That's too racist."

My response to this situation is mostly shock. What's most concerning is that the WWE is scripted, meaning Mahal's monologue had to pass through and be approved by multiple people before making it to the Oracle Arena ring. Sure, Mahal plays a "villain" role on the show, meaning his job is to be disliked by the crowd, but there are many other ways for him to attract heat from the fans.

It is unfortunate how racism has become so normalized in society that it is now being openly displayed on a family program ("Smackdown" is rated PG, meaning it is typically appropriate for most children). According to WWE.com, of the 11 million weekly WWE viewers, 17 percent are under 18 years old. With such a heavy youth fanbase, the WWE should be promoting equality, diversity and acceptance, not demonstrating racism.

Mahal's words don't necessarily cross any legal boundaries, as his freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment. However, there are limitations to the First Amendment that one could argue were violated by Mahal. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court established that "fighting words" — defined as "words that by their very utterance inflict injury, [and] speech that incited an immediate breach of the peace." But seven years later, in Tarminiello v. Chicago, it was established that denouncing political or ethnic groups is not, in fact, "fighting words," as "[The] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute," the majority from the case said. "It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging."

So while Mahal didn't cross a legal line, he certainly crossed a moral one. While it is great that the Oakland fans called him out for his wrongdoing, it is frankly embarrassing that the WWE let this slip-up happen in the first place. We need to be actively denouncing racism, not demonstrating it on public platforms.

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/09/20/wwe-has-dealt-with-racism-before-but-a-scripted-rant-has-fans-chanting-thats-too-far/?utm_term=.159f1f9ea767

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2734025-wwe-forcing-fans-to-hate-jinder-mahal-for-all-the-wrong-reasons

https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/

http://corporate.wwe.com/faq

The View on Racism in the US

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/blacks-white-racism-united-states-polls/index.html

After the Charlottesville incident last weekend and Trump's responses to it, a lot of question have submerged back into our lives. Trump gave a speech and was blaming both sides. The article explains how most Americans are against white supremacist ideas. In the past few years, there was a realization that different racial background affects the way discrimination is seen. Minorities see discrimination very differently then majorities do. For example, the article says how African American people experience discrimination a lot more than white American people do. African Americans will, therefore, see a lot of discrimination in America while white Americans will believe there is little discrimination in our country. In a research done by the Public Religion Research Institute, they found that 39% of white Americans think that there is serious prejudice against minorities while 66% of nonwhite Americans think the same thing. Polls seem to show that many Americans think that Trump's campaign and presidency are making a difference about the prejudices in the U.S. They think that prejudice is worse under Trump's presidency.

Questions:

1. How big do you think discrimination is towards minorities? 
2. In what ways can we try to stop discrimination in the U.S?
3. Do you think discrimination against minorities has become worse under Trump's Presidency?

Connection: Although the U.S has a lot of discrimination, people use their 1st amendment to speak up against it. Without the first amendment, we wouldn't be so aware of discrimination and how much it really affects others. The first amendment allowed us to read and inform ourselves about discrimination and it allows people to speak against it, and stand up for their rights. 

Trump won't reveal what his decision on the Iran deal is

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/20/politics/donald-trump-iran-deal-decision/index.html

Donald Trump met with Mahmoud Abbas (President of Palestinian Authority) to discuss and decide what he would do about the Iran Nuclear Deal that we had placed with the Obama administration. Although he has decided what he wants to do, he does not seem to want to share his decision just yet. Although we expect Trump to extend the sanctions relief, Trump has hinted that he is more likely to leave the deal. He says: "Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States, and I don't think you've heard the last of it -- believe me,". The Iranian President has threated the US. He said that we will "pay high cost" for leaving the deal. Trump administration is wrapping up a months-long review of US policy towards Iran. Trump has also urged Palestine and Israel to come together and have a peace deal during his meeting with Mahmoud Abbas. Trump seems to be going for a multitude of changes that could go many ways for our country. Although there is not much information about his official decision we can take a guess based on what he has said and think that he wants to drop the deal which may or may not have severe consequences. 

Discussion Questions: 

1. Do you believe it is better for the U.S to leave the deal or extend it? 
2. The Iranian President said that the US will "pay high cost" if we leave the deal; how should we, and our government react to those threats? 

President Trump says Stephen Curry’s White House invitation has been ‘withdrawn’

Article Link

Going to the White House is considered a great honor for a championship team.Stephen Curry is hesitating,therefore invitation is withdrawn!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 23, 2017

U bum @StephenCurry30 already said he ain't going! So therefore ain't no invite. Going to White House was a great honor until you showed up!

— LeBron James (@KingJames) September 23, 2017

          Recently, Coach Steve Kerr of the Golden State Warriors told ESPN that the warriors were going to sit down and discuss whether or not to make the celebratory trip to the White House in light of their NBA title. Stephen Curry and Kevin Durant had already expressed their aversion to going, which Curry reinforced during the Warrior's media day telling reporters, "we don’t stand for basically what our president … the things that he said and the things that he hasn’t said in the right terms that we won’t stand for it. And by acting and not going, hopefully that will inspire some change when it comes to what we tolerate in this country and what is accepted and what we turn a blind eye to." Whether or not Trump ever officially invited the Warriors to the White House, he disinvited them all the same, expressing distaste toward's Curry's aforementioned opinion. The Warriors responded with a statement of acceptance but disappointment, noting that their upcoming visit to Washington will "celebrate equality, diversity and inclusion–the values that we embrace as an organization." 
          Trump had recently mentioned distaste towards other sports-related happenings, specifically the NFL players' national anthem protests. He stated, "Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say: ‘Get that son of a b—-  off the field right now, out. He’s fired. He’s fired!". 
          There are some teams and coaches, such as Patriots owner Robert Kraft, that have supported the president. Others, such as coach Roy Williams of North Carolina – who denied a celebratory visit to the White House, have expressed the opposite. 

          In my opinion, the 1st amendment is involved with each case. With the national anthems it's clear. These individuals are fighting to protect their rights secured to them by the Equal Protection Clause and The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and utilized their freedom of expression to do so – and yet, they're being punished for it. Those that merely chastise the protestors for disrespecting our nation fail to see that the protection that our brave veterans fought for is granted towards all of this country's citizens. Police brutality is a very contentious issue that these brave individuals are willing to address. In terms of Curry, he utilized his first amendment right of freedom of speech in light of the same cause outlined by the anthem protestors. This country isn't distributing its constitutional rights equally among its citizens, and that is what these people are trying to change.

Do you believe that Stephen Curry is doing the right thing, or is he being disrespectful? Is Trump's response appropriate or exaggerated? Is Trump justified in his criticism of the national anthem protests? 

How has the perception of the White House changed since Trump took office? 





  

Trump announces new financial sanctions against North Korea

Tensions between North Korea and the United States have been extremely high over the past few years. North Korea has continuously developed their nuclear and missile weaponry which has become such a threat to the United States that Trump has now decided to take action. During his speech, he went on to say "North Korea’s nuclear program is a grave threat to peace and security in our world, and it is unacceptable that others financially support this criminal, rogue regime...". With that, Trump has officially announced financial sanctions against North Korea and all countries who do business with them. Compared to the United States, North Koreas economy is rather small and countries will most likely go along with the United States. This is Trumps attempt to try and control the situation and gain support from other nations.

Not only have his sanctions angered North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, but his comments have added fuel to the fire. Kim Jong-Un has vowed to get revenge against Trump for the comments made. With the huge nuclear threat that was already present, this could be bad news for America. Should Trump have spoken about North Korea with disrespect? Has this helped the nuclear problem or just added more of a reason for us to become a target?

Boston Globe Article

The Washington Post

North Korea’s Kim Jong Un Calls President Trump ‘a Frightened Dog’ and ‘Dotard’

Article Link

Tensions between the United States and North Korea seem to be heating up as the leaders of both nations continue to verbally assault one another in the public eye.  After President Trump's recent comments made about Un, made at the United Nations General Assembly, calling him "Rocket Man" and threatening to "Totally destroy North Korea" if the situation demanded it, Un has said that these comments have not fallen on deaf ears.  In retaliation, Un has likened Trump a frightened dog, and stated that he will "make the man holding the prerogative of the supreme command in the U.S. pay dearly for his speech calling for totally destroying the DPRK."

This extremely ominous comment has very dangerous connotations.  Could this feud between leaders take us down a deadly path? Will the sanctions made by the UN be enough to halt North Korea's nuclearization? 

Personally, I believe the first step is to quit the verbal attacks made on social media or published.  I think when dealing with a potentially dangerous situation some amount of decorum is needed and we should not resort to name calling and blatant threats.

More than 230 dead in Mexico quake as rescue teams desperately try to free trapped children

Article Link

rescuers looking for survivors in Mexico city (9/19/17)

The recent catastrophic 7.1 earthquake –the second one in the last month– that devastated Mexico city and surrounding areas has been said to have resulted in the death of at least 230 people and destroyed at least 44 buildings this past Tuesday. Mexico City is built on a former lake bed, therefore the soil isn't strong, making the city more susceptible to devastation. Programs such as Save the Children in Mexico and many other volunteers have been trying to help the authorities in their rescue missions. Trump expressed his condolences and offered assistance in deploying search and rescue teams. The U.S. department of state also stated that "we stand ready to provide assistance should our neighbors request our help." One primary school in particular collapsed, causing the deaths 21 children and 4 teachers. Due to the dire efforts of rescue workers, 11 people have been rescued, but 2 students and 1 teacher still remain missing. They also located 5 people 10 feet under the debris using a thermal scanner. Another building that was drastically effected by the earthquake is Mexico city's airport, in which shocked and panicked crowds were running to escape the falling debris.




What do you believe might be the best options toward attending to the psychological detriment that many people are facing in Mexico and surrounding middle-american countries? Do you think the United States should provide more assistance? How long do you think it will take Mexico to recuperate their losses and recover from the shock of the now multiple earthquakes? Do these earthquakes make you more afraid of the possibility of a long-due earthquake happening here in the bay area in the near future?

Puerto Rico in dark, curfew set after island 'destroyed' by Hurricane Maria, officials say

Article Link

The most recent in a string of natural disasters, Hurricane Maria hit the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico and devastated much of the infrastructure of the island.  Puerto Rico's office of emergency management confirmed that 100% of the island had lost power, and although Maria has caused a significant amount of destruction, no deaths have been reported so far.  Abner Gomez Cortes, the director of the office of emergency management and disaster administration agency, provided a relevant connection to what we have been studying recently when he said "We will rebuild our island with federal and state funds, hard work and the spirit of all Puerto Rican citizens."  After this disaster, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has released availability to a number of families in need of assistance.  Grants like this from the federal government show one of the important uses of having two levels of government; in an emergency situation a state (or territory) is able to rely on federal funding as well as the state governments own wealth.  

Do you think any more can be done to help the citizens of Puerto Rico, and all of the other places that have been hit by recent environmental disasters?  Do you think any more should be done?

Three arrested in violent Georgia Tech protests after police shoot student

There was a horrendous nightmare in Atlanta, Georgia, which soon turned into a violent outbreak. Late Saturday night, Scout Schultz, the head of the Georgia Pride Alliance, was shot and killed by Georgia Tech campus police because he had possession of a knife. On Monday, Georgia Tech held a vigil to remember the one they lost anticipating it would be a peaceful way to remember Scout Schultz. Later that evening 50 students left the vigil and headed towards the Tech police headquarters where they physically attacked police and set fire to police cars. In the end, three students were arrested and two police officers received only minor injuries.

This is related to what we are learning in government because according to the second amendment, all individuals have the right to bear arms, constitutionally making what the police did to be okay. Although the police officer may have been defending himself, it doesn’t justify the immediate use of violence. There could have been an alternative way to restrain Scout if he was a threat, rather than shooting him. I believe what happened to Scout Schultz was horrible and the way it was handled was even worse. There needs to be a tight enforcement of the rules in both cases so nothing like this ever happens again. Do you believe both sides are to blame or does one stand out more than the other?

Link to article: http://www.ajc.com/news/three-arrested-violent-georgia-tech-protests-after-police-shoot-student/CVfX0KeBUlTPzYLCf3KnwO/

Trump Tweets Doctored GIF of His Golf Ball Hitting Hillary Clinton

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/17/us/politics/hillary-golfball-trump-tweets.html

On Sunday Morning, (9/16) President Trump retweeted a GIF of him hitting a golf ball that strikes Hillary Clinton.  This isn’t the first time Trump has tweeted a risky GIF; in the past he has shared images of a train hitting a cartoon person with the CNN logo over its head and another of him body slamming a figure with the CNN logo.  His tweet has received a lot of criticism with people accusing him of “chipping away at the dignity of the office.”  On the other hand, supporters address the critics saying: “Get a sense of freaking humor. Everyone on the LEFT defended stupid Kathy Griffin when she held a "severed" head & said it was comedy.”

Do you think the President’s tweets can be compared to Kathy Griffin’s (a comedian) tweets? Does it matter that Griffin is a comedian and Trump isn’t? Should it matter? This connects back to the topic of free speech and hate speech we have been discussing in class.  Where does this fall in terms of free speech and hate speech?  Where do you draw the line between the two?

Irma's damage a reminder of Florida economy's vulnerability

For years Florida's economy has flourished from its range of industries that include tourism, ports, business services, health care and most importantly the people, nearly adding 1,000 individuals to the population every day. However, once Hurricane Irma hit, the realization from individuals that global warming is a real issue that quite possibly can continue and become worse, will ultimately hurt the economy. From the rising sea levels, more individuals will have to move inland, driving the price of living way up and the time waiting in traffic much longer. Nonetheless, there is also a belief that the low taxes and easier living will continue to drive people from all over to live in the sunshine state. Although the costs of fixing the damages will be over 50 billion, the overall impact the hurricane had on the people and their homes may hurt Florida's economy in the long run.

I think the hurricane was a warning bell to Florida for what can come next if nothing is done. I believe it is important for those living on the coast to move inland because of global warming and the melting glaciers. Although the state of Florida is relieved the cost of repairing the state is less than anticipated, many individuals lost their homes that were filled with memories and loved ones, which is something that can't be replaced. Florida will continue to remain a popular destination for vacationers but as for the protection of the people, there needs to be a significant change. 

Article link: 

http://www.wacotrib.com/townnews/economics/irma-s-damage-a-reminder-of-florida-economy-s-vulnerability/article_8afc6d04-b02c-5d2d-bfb7-56cc0879ef6a.html

Cake Is His ‘Art.’ So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple?

Article Link

A small business owner in Colorado denied a gay couple when they approached him for the purpose of purchasing a cake for their wedding.  This clearly relates to what we learned in class this week about federalism because of how the courts approached this issue.  It started out as an issue concerning a states laws on discrimination, that would mean that the baker would have to sell his merchandise to all peoples, or the federal law of the first amendment concerning the bakers right to free speech.  The baker claims it is against his religion and first amendment rights to create something in support of a union between two people of the same sex.

Mr. Phillips, the baker, said that he had no problem serving anyone regardless of their race, sex, religion or creed, but that he was not able to create a custom made cake to celebrate gay marriage because it isn't something he believes in.

In the end, it was ruled that Phillips rights to free speech had not been violated, and it was noted that the design of the cake was not even discussed before he turned them down for being a same sex couple.

My analysis of this case would be that as an artistic business, you should be willing to cater to the needs of your clients so long as they do not harm anyone and that they can pay you for your services. It is the fiscally responsible thing to do, as evident in his decision to of serve wedding cakes to no couples instead of all couples.  Furthermore, Phillips rights to free speech in the expression on his cake had not been violated.  The fact of the matter is that the couple was not able to ask for anything specific on their custom made cake before they were turned down; clearly showing that they were turned down for being homosexual, and not because they wanted something specific displayed on their cake.

Do you think that the government should be able to tell artists what they must create?
Do you think that the baker should have been allowed to deny the couple service? Or anyone service?

St Louis Protests turn violent

http://abcnews.go.com/US/st-louis-police-officers-acquittal-fatal-shooting-ignites/story?id=49872333

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/16/551515974/u2-cancels-st-louis-concert-after-protests-over-police-acquittal

Serious protests started Friday night in St. Louis following the final verdict of another fatal shooting trial. A police officer was just found not guilty for the 2011 shooting and death of Anthony Lamar Smith. The protests turned violent when people started throwing rocks and bricks damaging both private and public property. Police officers had to use tear gas to control the crowds. The protests were declared unlawful assemblies late Friday and over thirty protesters were arrested. Following the violent protests, both U2 and Ed Sheeran canceled major concerts in St. Louis based off of safety concerns.

Discussion questions:

If protests become as violent as the ones in St. Louis, are they doing more harm than good? How can we try to prevent this from happening again while still allowing our citizens the important right to protest injustice? Should extra measures be taken if protests such as this one start to affect major events such as popular concerts that could boost the local economy?

A Potent Fuel Flows to North Korea. It May Be Too Late to Halt It.

Article Link
Second Article

Just recently North Korea has launched another missile capable of reaching places far away like Guam, and even possibly the United States' mainland.  These powerful  missiles are fueled by a technologically demanding and dangerous substance known as unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine.  This chemical compound is highly unstable, and the United States stopped producing it when NASA released a video on it's dangers back in 1966.

The Trump administration has succeeded in having the UN place a modest cut back of standard fuels being imported to North Korea, but this cutback does not include UMDH (the aforementioned rocket propellent).  While details regarding the U.S.'s efforts to disrupt the North's missile program are largely classified, the U.S. still have some vital questions unanswered regarding UMDH's usage and acquirement.  As of now, we are unsure of whether North Korea is receiving UMDH from China or Russia, or if they are capable of manufacturing it themselves.

Alongside the efforts of the U.S. to halt North Korea's missile program, high ranking officials such as president Trump seem to be publicly antagonizing North Korea, in a tweet Trump even referred to Kim Jong-Un as "Rocket Man" and stating that there would be long gas lines due to the cut back imposed by the UN.

While this problem occurs it remains true that civilians can obtain very little knowledge on the U.S.'s actions to halt the missile program.  Do you think that their should be more transparency in government when it comes to foreign military affairs such as this?  To what degree should we be focus our resources on this issue as opposed to domestic issues like the devastation caused by the recent hurricanes?  To what degree do you think antagonistic comments like Trump's and many others have any affect on North Korea's actions?

California may offer third gender option on driver's licenses

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/15/california-may-offer-third-gender-option-on-drivers-licenses.html

California state senate just passed a bill which would allow Californian citizens applying for public identification to choose a third option for their gender. This would most commonly be applied to state driver’s licenses. Instead of having “M” or “F” appear on their identification, people who do not identify with the typical binary genders could choose to have “X” appear. The bill also allows the parents of these citizens to officially change their gender on their birth certificates.  

As a citizen of California and an ally of the LGBTQ+ community, I am extremely proud to hear that this bill has passed through our senate. I think bills such as this that promote equality and inclusion are especially important in these extremely heated political times. No person should be forced to be labeled as a gender they do not identify with. This bill will not only validates everyone who currently does not identify as male or female, but also tells the youth in our state and our coming generations that it is okay to be yourself and identify how you choose.

The bill has been passed through state senate but is still waiting to be signed by our governor, Jerry Brown. If the bill is signed, California will follow Oregon as the second state in the US to allow citizens to choose to have an X appear on their identification.

Mexico Has an Earthquake Warning System, When Will California Have One?

Link:  http://www.latimes.com/world/la-me-mexico-quake-earth-warning-20170908-htmlstory.html

On Thursday, September 7th, Mexico had a magnitude 8.1 earthquake. Mexico has an early warning system which thankfully gave some people up to a minute warning before the shaking started.  It works because the seismic waves from an earthquake travel at the speed of sound, which is slower than our communications systems.  

California is developing its own early warning system, with the help of the U.S. Geological Survey (earthquake monitoring agency).  Trump planned on shutting down development in an effort to reach a balanced budget, but after many complaints from members of both political parties in California, a congressional committee voted to keep funding.

In addition to having an audible alarm component, the warning system is also expected to stop elevators and open elevator doors, stop natural gas in pipelines, and alert surgeons to stop their surgeries.

This is a news clip from Mexico during the earthquake:

If ESPN Wants to Discipline Jemele Hill, She Might Have Law on Her Side

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/sports/jemele-hill-espn.html

Background information: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/sports/jemele-hill-espn-white-house.html?action=click&contentCollection=Sports&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

This issue concerns both federalism and our first amendment rights. Jemele Hill, a host on ESPN, recently posted a tweet accusing President Trump of being “ignorant” and “offensive,” and also claimed that “his rise is a direct result of white supremacy”. The white house quickly fired back, and the current White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that Hill should be fired for such slanderous comments against the president.

Although ESPN has publicly denied any connection to hill’s comments, they do not appear to have any plant to discipline her, and the issue gets tricky as soon as ESPN trying to take action against Hill. The network has its headquarters in Connecticut. Like all other states, the first amendment has already gone through the process of incorporation in Connecticut. Connecticut, however, has gone even farther beyond the rights guaranteed by the first amendment. They have a General Statute that prohibits any company, public or private, from disciplining or discharging employees based exercising their free speech. This piece of legislation is unique to Connecticut and is not part of our federal law, it also protects Hill from losing her job because of her comments about Trump. In Connecticut, the protection of free speech goes beyond the rights provided by the first amendment.

One of the purposes of the first amendments was to protect citizens against punishment from speaking their mind when it came to political matters. This helps or democracy stay strong as citizens are not afraid to share their opinions on our current government. I believe that Hill’s comments were completely justified, and she should not be fired from her job at ESPN or disciplined. Even so, there were probably more respectful ways that Hill could have carried her point across. I believe that in this incredibly heated political environment it is important to remain respectful and level-headed. If we do this, we will be able to have more effective discussions between people with different viewpoints.   

1. Do you think Hill’s actions and comments were justified?
2. Should Hill be punished her her speech?
3. Do you think that Connecticut’s further legislation further protecting its citizens freedom of speech is fair and just?

Manhunt on after homemade bomb wounds 22 on London subway

http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/crime/article/London-police-ambulance-confirm-incident-on-12199878.php

A picture was taken of the bomb on the subway

Today, at 8:20am in London, a homemade bomb went off on the subway. The incident was quickly labeled a terrorist attack by London polices. There have not been any arrests yet, but hundreds of London detectives and police are actively searching for the attacker. The bomb was not fully detonated, so nobody on the subway was seriously injured. When the bomb went off people fled from the subways leading to even more injuries and chaos.

Trump quickly responded to the incident on Twitter, not only claiming the attack was carried out by “a loser terrorist,” but also attacking the Scotland Yard and London authorities for knowing the attacker was a threat but not doing anything. The London authorities have not commented back, but it is unclear if they actually had the attacker on their radar.

This is the fourth terrorist attack on London in 2017. Al-Qaida recently urged their supporters to attack trains, but since the attacker for this event has not yet been found, it is unclear if there is any connection to the terrorist group.