Trump's Tax Plan Stalls in Senate

Article
        Trump's tax plan has been talked about ever since he stepped into office. However many of the proponents of his bill have met stringent resistance from members of the senate against increasing the current deficit. These "deficit hawks" as the article calls them, such as Senator Bob Corker have made their votes based on how much the deficit would increase. In this process of voting there was a customary vote of sending the bill back to the Senate Finance Committee, which was not favored by many republicans. This has led the republicans in favor of the bill to find other revenue streams in order to supplement the increases to the deficit.
        Although republicans hope that the bill would pass, many remain uncertain due to this trigger voting. This relates to what we are learning as it shows the difficulty of passing a bill that everybody is satisfied with. It illustrates the back and forth discussions and even the possibility of sending bills back to subcommittees when the bill cannot obtain a majority in the senate.

        A potential idea right now is to start at 20% and to increase corporate tax half a percent each year after 6 years. What are your thoughts on this idea and of Trump's tax plan? What are some other factors preventing this bill from being passed? And do you think that the plan may end up helping a majority or does it seem like it will only help a specific group of people?

United States Stores Drones in Niger

Article

The United States Defense Department has received permission from the government of Niger to store and fly out drones from the Nigerien capital. Nigerien officials have allowed the arming of aircraft in Niamey by the African military and it is said to cost fifty million dollars. They also plan to deploy more American troops in Niger in order to counter "violent extremism" or terrorism. This will significant increase the number of American troops in Niger from the current eight hundred. Supposedly, the placement of these drones will decrease the difficulty of gaining access terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Boko Haram. This will be the second time America has stationed military drones in Africa.

I think that helping Niger counteract terrorism is good, but it should not be prioritized over the safety of our country. Additionally, I think stationing troops in Niger could incite more wars and other conflicts that we really don't need right now. Because the investment is so high, I do not think it is worth it.

What do you think? Do you think stationing troops and storing armed drones in Niger is a good idea? How might this affect foreign affairs? Do you think the expansion of America's military is a good idea?

Trump Chooses Conservatives for Federal Reserve Board

Article

Trump nominated Marvin Goodfriend (pictured above) to serve on the Federal Reserve's board of governors. Goodfriend is a economics professor at Carnegie Mellon and a known conservative. This shouldn't come as a surprise following Trump's selection of Jerome H. Powell, a moderate Republican. Goodfriend has long critiqued the work of the Federal Reserve, claiming that its work is counter intuitive.

I think that Goodfriend's placement may bring a positive change in economic policy, as he can bring a level of economic expertise that the other board members couldn't in the past. He certainly seems to have already thought of ways that the Federal Reserve can improve. However, seeing that Trump is leaning towards creating a board of conservatives, I don't anticipate a broad enough spectrum of policy opinions.

What do you think? Do you think that filling the board with only conservatives is a bad idea? How do you think Goodfriend will effect change in economic policy?

Donald Trump retweets far-right group's anti-Muslim videos

Donald Trump has retweeted several anti-islam posts on Twitter, stirring up controversy as to whether this is an appropriate thing for the president to do. These retweets are videos with titles such as "Islamist mob pushes teenage boy off roof and beats him to death!". These tweets reveal actions that radical islamic extremists are doing to other people and Trump claims that retweeting these posts are necessary in order to bring attention to the extreme and violent nature of radical islam. Critics of this argue that Trump retweeting these posts implies that Trump believes that these actions are commonplace in the muslim community and are giving a bad image to Islam by suggesting that all muslims have such behavior. My opinion is that there are a lot of radical muslims and the idea that radical muslims are a "tiny minority" is untrue because in fact there are millions of muslims around the world who believe in radical ideas. Over 90% of the people in several islamic countries support sharia law, a radical system of law where those who insult or disobey parts of their religion have severe punishments. It is important to realize the real danger of radical islam because this sector of the population is not nearly as small as some make it out to be and they have the potential to cause a lot of conflicts and problems. This being said, saying that muslims as a general group are violent and hold radical beliefs would be unfair and inaccurate because in fact there are many muslims, especially in the US who are peaceful and do not have radical views, so suggesting that muslims as a whole are violent and intolerant would be false and places an unfair stigma on Islam itself.

What do you guys think of Trump's retweets?
How do you think we should approach radical Islam and Islam as a whole?

North Korea Fires a Ballistic Missile to Further Challenge Trump

North Korea has fired another ballistic missile as an act of defiance against President Trump after he put North Korea on a list of state sponsors of terrorism. This missile was launched higher and farther than any other missile North Korean has launched before. This suggests that North Korea is continuing it's plan to strengthen it's nuclear arsenal in order to possibly attack the US. Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un have been exchanging insults to each other during this entire struggle. Trump has called Kim "rocket man" and has threatened to use "fire and fury" on North Korea. Kim has called Trump degrading names such as "a mentally deranged U.S dotard". This whole situation between the US and North Korea has been gaining a lot of tension recently and I think that a lot of it is the fault of Donald Trump. I think Trump has a tendency to get too involved in foreign affairs. From attacking Syria in response to their use of chemical weapons to his aggressive handling of North Korea, I think Trump need to have more of a peaceful approach to the world because I think war should be avoided at all costs since war does little to no good if not fought for a worthy cause. Trump's attitude towards other nations I think is threatening to the safety and security of our country as it greatly increases the chance of us getting into violent confrontations with other countries.

How do you guys think Trump is doing with regards to his approach to conflicts with other nations?
What should we do about this situation with North Korea?
Is Trump indeed being a "dotard"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/world/asia/north-korea-missile-test.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

G.O.P Tax Bill Take a Big Step Forward With Committee Vote

Article Link

A huge achievement for the Republican Tax Bill was accomplished today as the Senate's budget committee voted to pass the 1.5 trillion dollar tax package. This instance allows the bill to potentially get a full senate vote during the week. Backtracking towards how the bill was recoginzed, President Trump went down to Captiol Hill earlier this week to lunch with some Republicans claiming, "I think we're going to get it passed". This meeting seemed to push many of the committe members firmly on Trumps side as it was accepted in a party-line vote. The Senate begins procedural motion to begin consideration of the bill Wednesday, and if that passes, it can begin debating and amending parts of the package by Friday. However, this victory isn't fool-proof and the Senate has a long way to go before this bill can claim any real victory.

Questions:
1. Do you think that the bill can/will go any farther than the Senate?
2. If it does move on, and since there are still issues that need to be resolved between the House and the Senate, what are your thoughts on how it will go then?

Data Stolen from Homeland Security

Article

Three employees of a branch Homeland Security have been accused of stealing a computer system containing the names, social security numbers and dates of birth of 246,000 agency employees. It is suspected that the insiders were trying to modify the software in order to sell a "knockoff" to other Homeland Security offices. The branch has been trying to gather hundreds of thousands of dollars from component agencies to monitor the credit scores of the agency employees whose data was breached. The case is currently being investigated.

I think that while it is not known whether or not any of the employees whose data was stolen was affected by the breach, this security breach can negatively impact a multitude of employees and exposes holes in our national security. I think that Homeland Security should do something to increase their security.

What do you think? Should citizens be concerned over security breaches like these? How should Homeland Security resolve this? If the accused are guilty, how should they be punished?

What the Tax Bill Would Look Like for 25,000 Middle Class Families

Tax deduction: reduction of an income that can be taxed and is commonly from a result from expenses.
Itemized deduction: tax deduction from a person's gross income that is made up from money spent on goods and services throughout the year

Article Link

Since its rearing on Thursday, November 16th, the new Tax Bill could spell out many benefits, and troubles, for American middle class families. The article includes an interactive chart, picture shown above, explaining the effects of the bill on middle class families. The vertical axis represent income, the horizontal axis conveys the size of the tax cut/increase. The right side represents tax cuts, the left is tax increase. The article does a better job of explaining the chart so check it out! (For you) Now before one dives in, let it be known that this bill, if it’s passed, will affect different types of families in completely different ways; its effect on everyone however is absolute. First off, mostly everyone who takes a standard deduction gets a tax cut; essentially this means that they’ll have to pay a lump sum of all their deductions wrapped into one. The bill would raise the amount, slightly more for a married couple, and most would not get a tax increase. Those who itemize their deductions, would pay more, a lot more. Secondly, families with children get a greater tax cut. The bill would double the child tax credit to $2000 dollars per child resulting in a tax cut for families that earn higher. Thirdly, those who pay great amounts of money towards state and local taxes could see a big tax increase. One of the bill’s major changes would be the elimination of deduction of state and local taxes. It would affect a majority of people living on the coast- New York, California, Connecticut- states that vote for democrats and have higher tax rates. Lastly, and unfortunately, the future might bring a tax increase for middle-class households; not only will individuals be taxed higher, but households too. All of those benifits- the cuts, child credit, etc.,- is set to expire in 2025. About ⅔ of middle class holder would get a tax increase and none would get a cut. The bill would also cut taxes on business, which would not expire. Congress tax analysts group, the Joint Committee on Taxation, claim that workers might get higher wages from thier less taxed employers, but many aren't agreeing with those odds.

(P.S: There's a pop-up block on the website, sorry!)

Questions:

1. What are your thoughts on this bill, especially now that it has passed Senate budget committee?
2. Are there any foreseeable problems or errors with this tax bill?
3. How do you think it would affect you personally?

Dog Owners Live Longer

Image: Getty

          In a study conducted in Sweden, data illustrated a correlation between owning a dog and "reduced risk for cardiovascular disease and death." In particular, the relationship was stronger with retrievers and pointers. An idea suggests that the relationship may be due to the owner's personality in choosing a certain type of dog, but another is that certain dogs act differently around their owners due to their own personality.
          Having a dog is more motivation to exercise because they need to be walked, but dogs also offer companionship. If your parents are on the border of allowing you to get a dog, perhaps, you could show them this article. Additionally, the study will be linked here.

Questions:
1. I think that dogs release dopamine in the brain. What do you think explains why humans may be healthier when they're owners of a dog? 

If No One Owns the Moon, Can Anyone Make Money Up There?

Image: J. W. Draper—London Stereoscopic Company/Getty Images

Article Link:

          In 1967, the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, or Outer Space Treaty, was created in order to dictate what countries are allowed to do in space. Initially, it halted the nuclear arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States from encroaching into space, but in the world of advanced technology, entrepreneurs are testing their limits in space as well. For example, Elon Musk claims he will have colonists sent to Mars in the next 12 years; Jeff Bozos, CEO of Amazon, has founded the company Blue Origin that is funding the mission to have people working in space. Moon Express, a private company, is attempting to bring samples from the moon back to Earth, a feat that surpasses even that of NASA's. However, in doing so, the company ran into an issue last year because commercial companies "require authorization and continuing supervision of the United States government. In working with the Federal Aviation Administration, Moon Express gained approval for one of their potential launches. Other companies are moving forward with the hope the government, too, will approve the projects.

          The works of another company, Planetary Resources, brings up more questions concerning space rights. Their goal is to "mine the solar system's asteroids." As of now, they wish to mine ice water from the moon. After, the company plants to mine other precious metals, which raises the question of who is allowed to profit from the extractions. In 2015, President Obama signed a law, which Congress passed, stating that "private companies can sell and own what they extract." So far, the House has a written bill dictating the time frame for whether the Office of Space Commerce will approve or not approve a company's application. The bill has not yet passed in the House and the Senate is working on their own.

Questions:

1. Do you think that private companies should be allowed to do whatever they want on the moon? Should they at least be allowed to mine it for materials?

2. If private companies are allowed to mine the moon for materials, do you think they should be allowed to sell it for profit?

3. Will allowing private companies freedom on the moon ultimately wreak havoc upon it?

3. What other thoughts do you have?

Trump Insults Senator with Racial Slur

      GARY CAMERON/REUTERS/FILE

Article

At a White House event to honor World War II veterans of Navajo descent, Trump referred to Senator Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas" because of her alleged Native American descent. His remark has sparked a number of responses, calling it "offensive" and "derisive." However, the White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has defended it, claiming that it is not a racial slur, and even accusing Senator Warren of lying about her Native American heritage "to advance her career."

While the accusations against Senator Warren are plausible due to policies like affirmative action, I think it is still unacceptable for Trump to use racially insensitive remarks. Additionally, I don't understand how referring to a Native American as "Pocahontas" isn't a racial slur. He basically associated her with the first Native American person that came to mind with no other legitimate reason, which I construe as racism.

What do you think? Do you believe the White House's defense of Trump is legitimate? Do you think Trump referring to Senator Warren as Pocahontas is racist?

Consumer Agency head decision headed to court

Photo Source: LA Times, picture of Mike Mulvaney

Leandra English, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, was named to that role when previous Director Richard Cordray resigned on Friday. However, President Donald Trump decided to appoint Mike Mulvaney to the head of that agency. In response, English has filed a lawsuit, attempting to stop the appointment of Mulvaney. She claims that she is entitled to the role based on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law, which was signed by President Obama in 2010, as Cordray had not finished his term yet (he still had 8 months left).

Part of this comes down with the agency, which was created during the Great Recession to protect consumers and their interests regarding mortgages and debts, as well as regulating the finances of Americans. However, Republicans have long opposed it and Mulvaney, a former Congressman, voted to shut down the agency. They believe that the regulations are hindering economic growth. Trump has called the agency a mess and claiming it needs new leadership to bring it back to life.

However, English in her lawsuit, along with many other Democrats, believe that this appointment is only there to bring an end to the agency. They believe that Trump's actions and goals will violate the law.

Who do you think should be the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Do you think the Bureau has been good for Americans? Why or Why not?

Sources:
NY Times
CNN
LA Times

Black Friday Gun Background Checks Reportedly Soar To Record High

Link to Article

According to the FBI, during this year's Black Friday, 203,086 background checks were conducted for firearm purchases. This is the highest number of background checks for any Black Friday in history. The fact is that Black Friday is a very popular day for buying guns. The required background checks are meant to ensure that the guns don't fall into the wrong hands.

However, these background checks are often ineffective. Background checks are quick and deliberate, and not very hard to get around. For example, only licensed firearm dealers require background checks. Unlicensed firearm dealers do not require background checks and will sell their guns to virtually anyone who is willing to pay.

In my opinion, gun violence is a problem in present-day America. However, I believe that it is more of a culture issue than anything else, evidenced by the fact that the most gun violence occurs in the areas with the strictest gun control laws. I also believe that these background checks will not be an effective deterrent to gun violence, simply because they are too easy to get around.

Discussion Questions:
Do you believe that background checks are an effective way to deter gun violence? Why or why not?
What do you believe to be the best way to stop gun violence in America?

Weinstein inquiry: police departments likely to join forces, experts say

Link to Article

Harvey Weinstein has always been a very big man in Hollywood. He's been a producer in many hit movies, such as Pulp Fiction and Good Will Hunting. Over the last few months, however, about 80 women have come forward with allegations that they were sexually abused by Weinstein. Weinstein denies all claims of nonconsensual sex.

Investigators from both the LAPD and NYPD have opened up criminal cases and started to gather evidence of Weinstein's misconduct. They plan to interview alleged victims and gather enough evidence to file charges against Weinstein. Although Weinstein has been accused of this behavior in the past, there was never enough evidence to file charges. However, with all the women coming forward now, New York attorney Jeanne Christensen claims, "I would be shocked if charges [were] not filed".

I believe that Harvey Weinstein is guilty of sexual harassment. The idea of a "Hollywood casting couch" does not strike me as ridiculous, and I would not be surprised if Weinstein was not the only guilty producer. Also, with the outrageous number of women coming out to speak about Weinstein, I believe that most, if not all of them are telling the truth.

Discussion Questions:
Do you believe that Weinstein is guilty of these sexual harassment allegations? Why or why not?
What do you think will happen to Weinstein regarding these possible charges?

Republicans are under pressure as year comes to an end

Image: The future of daca and other issues could be decided in the next month

With a little over 4 weeks left in the year Republicans have a lot on there plate. Issues like the spending bill are of huge importance as it seems likely the government could shut down. Other issues of importance like sexual harassment in congress, tax reform, immigration, Obama care and the children's health insurance program have yet to be resolved.

The events in the next month will test the party's leadership and also force them to make decisions on these issues.

Discussion: If the GOP is unable to find solutions to these issues how will it effect there image?

Article:
CNN

Gay couple, devout baker take cake fight to high court

Link to Article

Five years ago, gay couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins entered the bakery of Jack Phillips, hoping to buy a wedding cake for their upcoming marriage. Phillips refused, as his religion does not support homosexuality. Craig and Mullins decided to sue, and two court hearings took place at different times, both of them resulting in a victory for Craig and Mullins.

Next week, this case goes the Supreme Court. The Court will have to make a tough decision that will likely establish exactly how far the First Amendment goes, by judging whether or not Phillips' actions were acceptable. They will have to decide what goes further, the constitutional right to free speech and religion, or the state law that prohibits discrimination by sexual orientation.

I believe that Phillips should have the right to refuse his services to this couple, because of his inherent right to freedom of speech and religion. Although his beliefs may offend some people, the truth is that forcing him to bake the cake would violate his constitutional rights.

Discussion Questions:
Do you believe that Phillips should have the right to refuse his services to this couple? Why or why not?
What is your prediction on what the Supreme Court's decision will be in this case?

Two people injured in New York mall shooting

Image from Associated Press

Earlier today, a mall in New York had to be evacuated in light of a shooting. It happened around a busy time during the holiday shopping season, with people at the mall doing their Christmas shopping. Local and state police, as well as the FBI had to arrive at the scene to try to find the gunman, which they are still trying to find. Fortunately, only two people were injured and were later released from the hospital. 

With the recent events over the past few months regarding mass shootings in the United States, including one that happened today, with a Florida man being arrested for a highway shooting, many have called for stricter gun control, mostly in the form of harsher background checks. However, more gun control does nothing, as the people, likely those that are mentally ill and are already prohibited from getting a gun, find other ways to get themselves guns, such as through the black market. One of the most overlooked aspects of this issue is mental illness, as it is the root cause of gun violence. Better treatment of people that are mentally ill needs to be researched and implemented by the government, as guns cannot kill by themselves, it takes one person to use it to shoot someone.

What are your thoughts? What can be done to prevent these shootings? How can the government better work together to get things done, since there has been a lot of talk regarding gun control and issues like this, but there has been no new legislation passed?

Sources:
Washington Post
CBS
ABC
Instagram video of what happened

The Partisan Divide in America is widening

Image: Shutterstock.com

Article Link:

          Although there are trends illustrating a generational and partisan divide, there is significant agreement from both parties on a variety of social issues, despite their negative perceptions of each other. 

          According to surveys by Pew Research Center, there is a 57-point disparity in percentage of Republicans and Democrats who believed the government should do more to help those in poverty in 2016, as opposed to the 20-point disparity in 1994. The data reflects a divergence in views about the fairness of the economic system, which makes sense as the gap between the rich and the poor has also increased significantly. For some, working harder doesn't seem to get them ahead and they begin to believe that the economy is solely shaped in a manner that "favors powerful interests."

          Additionally, the negative sentiment members of opposing parties have of each other has grown in the past few decades. In 2016, 70% of Democrats thought Republicans were close-minded and 52% of Republicans felt the same negativity about Democrats, according to the Pew survey.

          However, on social issues, Democrats and Republicans tend to agree. Supporters of both parties tend to agree that climate change is occurring and that health care is too expensive. On how Democrats and Republicans feel about other social groups, the majority of both parties no longer view immigrants as burdens. The majority of both parties also support affirmative action and interracial marriage.

Questions to consider:

1. What do you think drives the growing negative sentiment members of each party have of each other?

2. How do you think it exists when, in reality, the majority of members of both parties agree on significant social issues?

3. What other thoughts do you have?

Cat hair allows officials to locate the perpetrator of bomb mailings

Image: Julia Poff

Last year, homemade explosives were sent to President Obama and Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas. Court records state that Julia Poff, the one who sent the bombs, was unable to gain support from her ex-husband and blamed Abbott for some reason. She also applied for Social Security benefits but was rejected. Furthermore, she was not fond of Obama based on a court testimony. 

Poff sent explosives through mail to Abbot and Obama on October 2nd, 2016. The explosive was dangerous enough to cause burns and death. Thankfully, Greg Abbott opened the package, but there was no explosion due to his opening the package a different way than intended. A salad dressing cap from a bottle and a cigarette box were included in the bomb and helped investigators find Poff. Also, cat hair was found under the address label, allowing the F.B.I. crime lab to link the explosive to Poff. 

Julia Poff has six charges, and two of these counts are for transporting explosives with the intent to kill or harm. Currently, Poff is held at the federal detention center in Houston.

This incident shows that politicians do not get much security to protect them. Even though the president receives a large amount of protection, others are not so important to have guards around them 24/7. To me, this event is an indicator of how politicians need more protection in order to ensure their safety. I think that Julia Poff definitely deserves time in prison for trying to kill two important politicians, but I do not think a lifetime sentence should be given to Poff.

Discussion: With these charges, what punishment should Poff get? What do you think of the lack of security politicians receive?

Sources:

NY Times

TIME

USA Today

Congress Returns to Intense Pressure to End Secrecy Over Sex Harassment

Image: Gabriella Demczuk for the New York Times

Article Link ("Congress Returns to Intense Pressure to End Secrecy Over Sex Harassment"):

          As recent allegations against sexual misconduct in Capitol Hill have flared up, legislators are pressuring Congress to allow for more transparency in harassment cases. Currently, the complaints and settlements are kept confidential. 

          The 1995 law that requires complaints and settlements to be handled secretly was created to "protect the harasser," says Representative Jackie Spier. However, lawmakers are now arguing for legislation that would require settlements to be handled in public. A major question that would result from this legislation is whether those who have previously paid settlements should then have their names revealed. However, in this process, the names of victims may also be revealed, which could pose dangers to their health and well-being.

          The pressure to change the current system of handling sexual misconduct in the government is the result of the multiple sexual harassment cases in the past week or two. John Conyers Jr., Representative of Michigan and top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee received intense scrutiny after allegations of sexually harassing aides. In the Senate, Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat has "been accused of groping several women."

          As the controversy around sexual harassment has augmented, the House is on track to adopt a resolution "mandating that all members and their staffs participate in anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training," which the Senate has already adopted.
          Although I'm uncertain whether this will prevent further sexual harassment from actually happening, I think that the act of Congress requiring its constituents to go through training is a statement of condemnation.

Questions: 

1. How do you feel about reversing the effects of the 1995 law? 

2. Should the names of those who paid the settlements be revealed? What about the names of the victims? Why or why not?

3. What other issues could potentially arise from requiring more transparency?

4. How do you feel about the resolution the Senate has passed, and that the House is on track to pass? Do you think the resolution that requires training will be effective? Why or why not?

Replacing bail with an algorithm

Image: ALAMY

Article Link:

          On January 1st of 2017, New Jersey implemented the use of an algorithm to determine whether or not a defendant would be released until trial or detained. Previously, defendants would have the option to bail out of jail by paying an amount that corresponded to their crimes. Now, in New Jersey, if the result of the algorithm decides that a defendant is dangerous or likely to flee, they are detained without bail. If defendants are considered neither, they are released without bail, but monitored. 

          There has been a significant decline of 36% from September of 2015 to September of 2017 as defendants who have been unable to pay bail, but are not a danger to the public, are released until trial. However, critics claim that this new system allows for dangerous criminals to be back on the streets.
          Ideally, this change would allow people who have committed petty crimes to walk free, but keep defendants who have committed more serious crimes behind bars -- they wouldn't be able to walk away, even if they paid bail.

Questions:

1. What are your thoughts?

2. Do you think this a more effective pre-trial system than the previous one? Why or why not?
3. Controversy arises because this is an unfunded mandate imposed on county jails, and people don't want their tax money to keep the jails running. Do you think the benefits outweigh the costs?

Supreme Court asked by White House to permit travel ban

Image: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco

On November 13th, three judges of the San Francisco 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a part of the Trump administration's travel ban concerning six Muslim countries with no connections to the U.S: Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Chad. Trump's administration argued to the Supreme Court that this travel ban was different from the other bans by being "based on national-security and foreign-affairs objectives, not religious animus." However, the Supreme Court is likely to repeal the decision just like the previous travel ban back in January.

In retaliation to this travel ban, the state of Hawaii sued to stop this ban by arguing that Trump did not have the power to impose federal immigration law on six Muslim countries. Derrick Watson, a U.S. District Judge in Honolulu, ruled that there was a high chance that Hawaii would succeed with its argument.

Discussion: What is your stance concerning the Circuit Court of Appeals' decision concerning the travel ban? Do you think the Supreme Court will repeal the travel ban?

Sources:
NY Times
CNN
Image source

Trump tweets he 'took a pass' at being named TIME's person of the year

Link to CNN Article
We've all heard things about Trump. Good things. Bad things. Mostly bad things I'm sure. At least in the community we live in. Just in the past year, with Trump's victory over Clinton, he became TIME's person of the year. Rightfully so in fact. The victory sparked lots of various feelings and it felt as if he's been all the rage ever since. Anyhow, I am sure it wouldn't surprise you to hear that Trump allegedly took a pass on being TIME's person of the year. In a tweet, he states that " Time Magazine called to say that I was PROBABLY going to be named “Man (Person) of the Year,” like last year, but I would have to agree to an interview and a major photo shoot. I said probably is no good and took a pass. Thanks anyway!" Funny that, because Time responds with "The President is incorrect about how we choose Person of the Year. TIME does not comment on our choice until publication, which is December 6. "

You know, I don't follow politics that often, but you can be sure that I've heard of Trump's ramblings on fake news. Well I suppose Trump is also fake news. Which is really bad for his image I am sure. What I'd like to know is how does Trump lie and get away with it. One would think that he would be an advocate for truth with all his fake news statements. Furthermore, from his tweet, it would seem that from his view, that just because TIME probably would choose him as person of the year equals him declining the opportunity. To me, that seems like a childish sort of "pick me" mentality.

I'm sure we can all agree to an extant that Trump is a representative of the United States. What adverse effects might the United States experience as a result of his actions? Will it be bad in the long run? Has your opinion of United State's image changed?

Older Voters Stymied by Tighter ID Requirements

Photo Credit: Joyce Hesselberth

Link to article ("Older Voters Stymied by Tighter ID Requirements"):

Link to additional voter fraud article:

          Older voters have the highest turnout rates in the United States, but they face physical barriers in the process of voting. Although states that generally adopt new regulations for voting are cautious of voter fraud, that myth has been debunked. However, the new regulations require a photo ID and sometimes access to polling places. For the elderly, who generally do not drive and, therefore, will not hold a valid driver's license, the regulations stand as legitimate obstacles. Furthermore, older people have less mobility, and while voting areas are supposed to be accessible to all, especially those with disabilities, the reality is that the requirements are not enforced. Consequently, voting is deterred. Because the elderly tend to follow a certain voting pattern, if they are physically unable to do so, the votes will "skew Republican." 

          For a group of people that legislation will significantly impact, it seems morally questionable to place additional barriers. If people have a genuine desire to vote, but are physically unable to do so, the representative democracy in practice falters because it becomes even less representative of the population. 

Discussion Questions:

1. What are your thoughts on the voter turnout? Are the voting regulations in certain states significant barriers?

2. Should states ought to be allowed to place stricter voting regulations, even though the argument of voter fraud is invalid?

3. Do these voting restriction hinder democracy as a consequence? Why or why not?

Document Fight Slows Inquiry of Affirmative Action at Harvard

Students celebrating their graduation from Harvard Law
Credit: Brian Snyder/Reuters

Link to article ("Document Fight Slows Inquiry of Affirmative Action at Harvard")

Backstory article ("Affirmative Action Battle Has a New Focus: Asian-Americans")

          In a lawsuit filed by the Student for Fair Admissions against Harvard, the extent to which affirmative action is administered throughout universities is being called into question. The assertion is that Harvard has discriminated against Asian American students during the admission process by "giving preferences to other racial minorities." In Fisher v. University of Texas, the Supreme Court essentially stated that race can be a factor in the admission process under the condition that doing so fosters a diverse environment that is beneficial to all. However, the lawsuit cites studies conducted by other universities that illustrate the average standardized test scores for Asian American students accepted into elite universities is substantially higher than that of both white students and students of other racial minorities. Statistically, the numbers are not in Harvard's favor, but the arguments ignore the purpose of affirmative action in taking race into account -- it is a facet that exemplifies only a part of a person, while the admissions officers must also take into account other factors, like economic standing and the opportunities different individuals have in the environments they were raised in. 

          The university has been asked to turn over records of student applications, but complications have arisen over the university's concern for privacy because the government is asking for records with identification information, which would be problematic should the records turn public. Consequently, the process of revealing applicant information has been slow, an effect that has been attacked as a "strategy of delay." Ultimately, the case is aimed to reach the Supreme Court and the Justice Department is considering on filing an amicus brief in the original lawsuit or to file in its own on the grounds that Harvard has intentionally discriminated against a race or that the discrimination has had "disparate impacts."

          

Questions to consider:

1. My perception of the original issue is that higher test scores and grades are generally indicative of a higher economic status, which is taken into account during the admissions process. Do you think this argument is sufficient support for the manner in which Harvard is defending affirmative action?

2. Is Harvard right to withhold student records over privacy concerns or do you think it's a strategic play to delay handing them over?

3. In class, we have learned that smaller groups will find it easier to challenge certain issues through litigation because the Constitution already exists and individual rights are listed. However, the issue arises in the enforcement of those rights. At the end of the article, it mentions that only the government can file "disparate impact claims," in which only discriminatory effects would be required to be proven, instead of the more difficult discriminatory intent. However, these claims are generally opposed in civil rights cases. What do you think the Justice Department ought to do? What do you think they will do?

NASA Taps Young People To Help Develop Virtual Reality Technology

         

Image: Virtual reality program that can help scientists visualize the magnetic fields around the earth.

           NASA is currently developing virtual reality environments at Goddard Spaceflight Center in Maryland that can be used for a multiple of things, such as geological research and repairing orbiting satellites.
           NASA engineer and manager of the virtual reality program, Thomas Grubb, has high hopes for the program, explaining it could be "extremely useful for NASA scientists." He goes on to explain that the goal of the program is to scale up the use of virtual reality, and go beyond the Mars immersion program. One example is Brent Garry, a NASA volcanologist who is hoping that virtual visits to a rock formation in Idaho can help him to plan real research trips. Another application in development could help technicians repair satellites. If the repairs are successful, then satellites that would have died when their batteries did could continue to function.
          On staff to work on the pilot program are some teenagers that Grubb hired. One intern is high school senior Jackson Ames uses his VR video game knowledge to help him decide what does and doesn't work in VR.
         Grubbs also expresses concern about people's reactions to using VR at NASA because of its usage in the video game industry. He's worried that people will see it as only a game that can't possibly work to advance science.


Discussion Questions:
What are your thoughts on NASA's virtual reality program? Is it the best approach to advance research or repair broken satellites in space? What are some other effects of using virtual reality?

Article:
NPR

United States cuts off supplies to the Kurds

Photo from NPR

President Donald Trump has told the Turkish government that he will cut off aid, mostly weapons, to the Kurds, also known as the YPG, who have been fighting ISIS on the front lines. While the United States view the Kurds and the militias as valuable in the fight against ISIS, the Turkish government views them as terrorists (especially the PKK within its own country) and a possible threat towards Turkey, as Kurds make up between 15 to 20% of the population.

This is likely done as a way to better restore relations with Turkey, as the United States have been at odds and arguing with Turkey about how to deal with ISIS. For the Kurds, who have been seeking an independent/sovereign state and further recognition from the international community, it is a huge blow, as they have been relied upon by the United States as main ground troops in Iraq and Syria in the fight against ISIS. 

What do you think of this decision, as it came as a surprise change in US policy? Do you think it was the right move?

Links:
Washington Post
BBC
NPR

Egypt hunts for killers after mosque attack leaves at least 235 dead

Photo Credits to CNN
Article Link
So, religious fanaticism. What else is new? I suppose it is a topic we are all familiar with. However, I am sure that the number of people who have died is at least somewhat of a surprise. After a coordinated attack on a mosque in Egypt, 235 have died, including women and children.  The reason for the attack is, we assume, is that the mosque is a Sufi mosque. According to CNN, ultra radical Muslims don't really appreciate the mosque. So they found it necessary to remove the mosque's associates. To do so, they utilized automatic weapons and explosives. They even fired upon ambulances who decided to help the injured. The president of Egypt, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi

states,"We will respond to this act with brute force against these terrorists. This terrorist act will strengthen our resolve, steadfastness and will to stand up to, resist and battle against terrorism." Clearly, Egypt has received a brutal reminder of the dangers of terrorism. In a tweet, Trump has expressed his opinions on the subject matter. He does not approve of terrorism either. 

In the wake of this matter, what tools do we need to stop innocents from suffering? Preemptive Strike? Should we be afraid?

GOP tax plan unfavored by voters

Image: House Speaker Paul D. Ryan

Republicans are trying to pass the GOP tax overhaul by spending millions of dollars to persuade voters to support the new tax bill. However, Americans do not seem to like the bill. They believe that the bill would mostly help the rich elite and not the middle-class. A decent amount of Republicans were against it as only 60% approved, while 15% disapproved and 26% were unsure.

 Furthermore, GOP donors are becoming impatient as there have been no huge victories by the Republican party concerning Obamacare and taxes. They told the Republican party to not contact them until it has done something noteworthy in the government.

I think that the people's view on the new GOP bill is good as people started to see the corruption inside the government. The cynical view concerning this new bill could help shape the government up into a better place if there is more backlash from the public.

Discussion: What is your view concerning this new GOP tax bill? What do you think the public should do about this bill?

Source:
LA Times

Image source

Deal made regarding the Myanmar Refugee crisis

Image: BBC
This morning, Myanmar and Bangladesh had reached an agreement to return many Rohingya, a Muslim ethnic minority, that had fled Myanmar after being persecuted by the army there. This comes a day after the United States called the crisis an "ethnic cleansing," as well as the UN condemning the situation. The return will take place in two months, however, the details of the exchange are vague. Bangladesh does not want to take in any more, as it currently had more than 400,000 refugees in the country before a recent influx that increased the total to close to 1 million Rohingya.

Many view this as a step in the right direction to solve the issue. But, many Rohingya refugees are skeptical  and terrified of this agreement, citing the mistreatment by Burmese army. They are also concerned about the ethnic Buddhist majority in Myanmar, as they have been accused of aiding the pogroms from the army. Lastly, many Rohingya want their land back, as the Burmese government had confiscated it, as well as to be treated as citizens.

The Burmese government has vehemently denied the claims, as well as they have not recognized the Rohingya as an ethnic minority, not using the term "Rohingya" in a released statement.

Questions
Do you think that this solution will work? If not, what can be done to help the Rohingya?
What should the international community do? Should there be more intervention/pressuring of the international community?
As shown, with pressure from the international community, the Burmese government has responded by making a deal with the Bangladeshi government. Maybe more can be done to

Links:
NY Times
Washington Post
BBC

US school bullying: Mom charged over hidden recording

In Norfolk, Virginia, a mother was arrested for placing a digital recording device in her daughter's backpack to prove that the school was doing nothing to address bullying. She states that she repeatedly sent emails to the school complaining about the bullying her daughter was receiving, and the emails were left unanswered. In response, she placed a recording device in her daughter's backpack to prove nothing was being done to help her daughter. However, the device was found and confiscated, and the mother, Ms. Sims, was accused of wrongfully using the device to intercept oral communication, and now faces five years in jail.

Ms. Sims shared that she felt "mortified" about possibly facing five years of jail time, and added: "The next thing I know I’m a felon. Felony charges and a misdemeanor when I’m trying to look out for my kid."

As of now, the school has not commented on the case, but a spokesperson for the Norfolk Public School District stated that electronic devices are not allowed on school premises.

Ms. Sims is due in court for a preliminary hearing on January 18.

Discussion Questions:

Is Ms. Sims' punishment justified, or is it too harsh? Considering bullying is such an epidemic, what should be done to combat it?

Articles: 

BBC

The Telegraph

Representitive Jackie Speier withholds the names of two sexual harassers in congress

Image: Rep. Jackie Speier

Congresswoman Jackie Speier made a statement last tuesday about two members in congress that she knows have sexual harassed staffers. She declined to reveal the names but she did say that one was a democrat and the other a republican.

Speier stated, "I'm respecting that nondisclosure agreement and the victims wishes".

Earlier this week she stated that republican representative John Conyers was not one of the people she referred to. Conyers is facing allegations from a buzzfeed report that details harassment from the congressman. Speier feels that the allegations are serious and should be investigated.

Discussion:
Do you agree with representative Speier's decision on withholding the names of harassers in congress? Why or why not? What punishment should these harassers face?

Links
CBS
CNN

The body of the North Korean soldier who defected shows the horrible conditions in the country

Image: Defecting North Korean soldier driving a car towards the demilitarized zone

This month, a 24 year-old North Korean soldier escaped from North Korea by the use of a car. He then started to run across the DMZ but was shot multiple times. However, South Korean soldiers were able to rescue the defector and send him to a hospital for treatment.

When doctors checked the body of the wounded soldier, they found that he had parasites and Hepatitis B. Some parasites were measured to be 11 inches long but were easily treatable. These parasites were likely Ascaris roundworms, and the eggs of these parasites are usually found in the soil. However, the eggs are especially frequent in soil with human waste as a cheap fertilizer. Hepatitis B, however, is a more serious problem as it could cause life-threatening cirrhosis if left untreated.

Studies comparing North Korean defectors and other refugees found that the defectors were more likely to be underweight. One study estimated that one in three North Korean children under the age of 5 are malnourished.

Discussion:
As an enemy of North Korea, should America intervene in this situation? If so, what should America do?
Do you think more defectors will appear because of this event?

Sites:
ABC
USA Today

Zimbabwe's Mnangagwa returns to serve as nation's next leader

Image: Former president Robert Mugabe

After serving as president of Zimbabwe for 37 years, Robert Mugabe has resigned, and his former Vice-President, Emmerson Mnangagwa, is said to assume the position.

For years, Zimbabwe has been in the midst of an economic crisis, resulting in hyper inflation, a near collapse of the economy, and many citizens migrating to nearby countries. In addition to the economic issues plaguing the country, Zimbabwe recently had a military takeover after Emmerson Mnangagwa was fired and fled the country. Many believe that Mugabe fired Mnangagwa so that his wife, Grace Mugabe, could take over the presidency. Zimbabwe's parliament was already moving towards impeaching Robert Mugabe when his resignation was announced in the form of a letter read by the speaker of parliament. After the resignation was publicized, celebrations began all throughout Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe. Many people openly cheered, feeling rejuvenated after being oppressed for almost 40 years. Others responded less enthusiastically at the thought of having someone who worked alongside Mugabe so long come into power.

Zimbabwe is set to start a new chapter, but there is still the issue of the faltering economy that needs to be dealt with before the country can fully start over.

Discussion Questions:
What can/should be done to fix Zimbabwe's economy? Does it seem like the country is finally free, or will endure another cycle of oppression?

Articles:
BBC
Other BBC
CNN

Judge Rules Trump's Sanctuary City Order Unconstitutional

Image: Mural painted in support of immigrants in Chicago neighborhood

In January 2017, President Trump issued an executive order targeting sanctuary cities and counties. These locations are so named because they refuse to comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement requests to detain individuals, and instead protect the rights of all citizens within city boundaries. Trump's order would cut funding from the cities unwilling to cooperate with the federal efforts.

While the Trump administration argued that the order would apply to only a small amount of money no more than $1 million,  U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick disagreed and found that the order pertained to "all federal grants," potentially jeopardizing hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for San Francisco and Santa Clara, known sanctuary cities. On November 20th, Judge William Orrick permanently blocked the executive order on the basis that the order was unconstitutional, and in violation of the separation of powers doctrine and the Tenth Amendment.

Those against the order rejoiced on Monday, including San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera, who commented that he was "grateful that we've been able to protect billions of dollars that help some of the most vulnerable Americans."

Discussion Questions:
What are your opinions on sanctuary cities? Should all U.S. cities comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement orders? Is it right to cut off funding for cities that refuse to comply with orders? If not, what punishments should there be, if any?

Articles:
CNN
Washington Post
NY Times
NBC

FCC Plans December Vote to Kill Net Neutrality Rules

Article Link
The U.S Federal Communications Commission is starting a vote to kill off net neutrality in the following month. Now, you may be asking yourself, what is net neutrality. Well, I'll save you a google search (I'll try). Net neutrality is the concept that all information on the net should be easily accessible. What this means, is that government should not allow companies to charge for access to certain websites. Not denying access per say, but slowing the bandwidth, or the speed to them. To those who constantly use YouTube, Google, or similar websites, we could be charged more.

The article states that the Trump administration wants to roll back these net neutrality supportive rules from Obama's era, stating that they are too burdensome.

Obviously, the damage is clear to us who use internet from home. The article also mentions, that it will hurt businesses who use the internet. As we become more advanced, businesses utilize sites in selling their products. Limiting user access would hurt their revenue.

Such a devastating blow to free internet isn't left unanswered however. Grassroots efforts have sprung up across the web in effort to help net neutrality survive. For instance, sites like these have popped up, encouraging users to call congress members to help stop the vote. Mass outrage on reddit as well, people want their free internet.

So what do I think about all this? Net neutrality will greatly let the public suffer. Companies will definitely benefit. In my opinion, if America wanted to hold up it's free market capitalistic value, they should definitely destroy net neutrality. We all know that America doesn't truly have a free market anyways though... So perhaps keeping it up is better. Well who knows. An article from the Hill suggests that these rules will hurt small businesses as mentioned above. I really don't see how it hurts them to a debilitating degree though. At worst, they are going to have to pay more bucks to have internet companies to promote fast use. Though is having a slow connection to a new business really going to murder your income? Maybe. Maybe if it took a year to connect. I could definitely see how it could hurt, but at the same time, I have doubts that it actually will hurt most starting businesses. Personally, if I thought your business had something really attractive to me, I wouldn't mind a couple extra seconds. Another possible benefit from the article is more data plans. The way that this works, from my understanding, is that big companies that have money give money to service providers in hopes of getting free data use for users. This would, in turn, encourage users to use their sites I assume. Now while this may seem like a good deal for the populace, I doubt it will be good in the long run. I'd really rather not have a couple of powerful companies constantly in power in which people use their sites. I think it would be hard for new things to come up, everyone is accessing the same sites. In a way, a restriction on the free market with the monopoly. I suppose overall, net neutrality may bring some benefits, but having an internet where everything is controlled is the exact opposite of what most people want.

Discussion:
Should Net neutrality exist? Is it too harsh of a restriction on companies like Comcast?

What should be the future of The Electoral College?

Article Link

The election of 2000 raised questions of whether The Electoral College needed to be modified or replaced as the winner of the popular vote was the loser of the general election. Last year's election brought further attention to the issue with Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote by a wider margin than in 2000 and falling way short in The Electoral College. These letters to the editor propose various solutions that many of you proposed as well when we studied the topic in class. The proposal to scrap the winner take all component in favor of electoral votes going to candidates based on their percentage of the popular vote is one solution. Another idea is what Maine and Nebraska already do, which is award electoral votes to the winner of each representative's district. One letter suggests we need to consider mandatory voting given that only 55% of the eligible electorate came out to vote in a major election. It makes one wonder what voter turnout will look like in next year's midterm election. Anyhow, how do you think the electoral system can be improved? You can also argue the status quo (no change necessary) or for scrapping The Electoral College entirely.

Trump Adds Five Conservatives to List of Possible Supreme Court Picks

Links:
US News
New York Times
USA Today
Politico

Image: Politico

On Friday, President Trump added five candidates to his list for a possible Supreme Court vacancy, including two state judges, two federal appeals court judges, and a veteran federal judge. Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel who compiled the list, claimed that the new picks “were committed conservative judges in the mold of Justice Scalia,” according to the New York Times. Similarly, the White House announced that “these additions...were selected with input from respected conservative leaders” -- specifically, from the conservative groups the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.

While campaigning for the 2016 election, Trump had originally drafted a list of 20 judges that he promised to consider for the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia, should he be elected. Earlier this year, Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy, swinging the Supreme Court to the right with five conservatives and four liberals.

Although a vacancy currently does not exist on the Court, three Supreme Court justices are nearing or in their 80s, adding credence to the possibility that Trump will fill a Supreme Court vacancy in the next three years. Should Trump have the opportunity, he would likely be shaping the political composition of the Supreme Court for the next few decades. As for the timing of these additions, the White House claims that this was simply routine to keep the list up-to-date. However, given his cooperation with conservative groups in drafting the list, it’s likely that Trump is motivated by his desire to demonstrate to conservative leaders that he is still able to “deliver on his promise to nominate conservative justices...amid ongoing confirmation battles over his lower court nominees,” according to USA Today.

Discussion Questions:

What are your thoughts on Trump’s updates to his list of possible Supreme Court nominations? Additionally, to what degree do you believe that Trump will have influence over the political leanings of the Supreme Court in the long-term?