More evidence of water on Mars, favorable conditions for microbes

(CNN) "Sheepbed" such as this on the surface of Mars has veins of deposited sediments that suggest the former presence of water.

For the past 7 months, the Curiosity rover has continued to explore the surface of Mars as scientists hope to discern whether the red planet once contained liquid water and perhaps even sustained life.

Last week, NASA definitively stated that Mars could have once been the home of microbial life. This assessment was made after Curiosity drilled into a rock and identified sulfur, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and carbon. All of these elements are considered the fundamental ingredients for life as we know it. Additionally, this sample was composed of more than 20% smectite, a clay formed in the presence of water.

Today, the Curiosity rover has discovered even more substantial evidence of liquid water formerly existing on Mars. Melissa Rice of CalTech stated, "With Mastcam, we see elevated hydration signals in the narrow veins that cut many of the rocks in this area.These bright veins contain hydrated minerals that are different from the clay minerals in the surrounding rock matrix."

The Curiosity rover is currently located in Yellowknife bay, 7 months into its 2-year journey that cost $2.5 billion.The rover has been experiencing technical setbacks lately. A software error involving file formatting was enough to put the rover out of commission for this past weekend. The error re-occurred today, and may impede most of the rover's operations this week.

What's your reaction to possibility (and increasing likelihood) of both water and microbial life on Mars? Would you expect a public major reaction if NASA was indeed able to definitely prove the existence of either o these on Mars? Also, feel free to comment on the $2.5 billion price tag that this exploration has entailed.

In short: NASA finds evidence of water and states that Mars may have once been an ideal location for microbial life forms. Thoughts?

Justice in the Digital Age

(AP) Trent Mays (left) and Ma’lik Richmond

Two Ohio high school football players, Trent Mays (17) and Ma'lik Richmond (16) have been charged with rape and sentenced to one year in juvenile hall respectively. Mays was also sentenced with an additional year for photographing the victim and distributing nude photographs of a minor. Both will also register as sex offenders.

The details of the crime are very graphic and thus will not be discussed in this post. However, the circumstances of their conviction are far more noteworthy in the context of this blog.

Because the victim was inebriated and had no recollection of the crime, much of the evidence against Mays and Richmond was gathered via social media. The teens photographed much of their crime. Other witnesses, identified only as fellow football players after being granted immunity for testifying, used their cellphones to record Mays and Richmond. Additionally, Mays' texts to the victim pleading to not press charges following the crime were presented as evidence.

Judge Lipps, who presided over the case, described the evidence as "profane and ugly." He also urged teens to take caution with "how you record things on social media that are so prevalent today."
  

(AP) Supporters of Anonymous await the conviction of Mays and Richmond.

This case is remarkable because it is unlikely that Mays or Richmond would have been convicted if this crime had taken place 10 years ago. The prevalence of cellphones in modern society has lead to a new era of legal accountability and justice. However, it is the involvement of hacktivist group Anonymous that makes this case stand out.

The crime received limited coverage in the mainstream media directly following its occurrence due to relatively sparse information available. At this point, Anonymous took the case into their own hands by hacking the football team's website, naming athletes as targets for revenge, and releasing videos related to the crime that the suspects thought they had deleted.  Anonymous continued to dig up more information that was later reported by reputable news agencies such as the New York Times. Anonymous' methods are often questionable. In this case, they hacked and threatened in the pursuit of many saw as justice. Do you view this as justified? 

In short: A rape case is successfully prosecuted due to social media. If Anonymous' hacking actually made this conviction possible (which is also debatable), then do the ends justify the means?

The Future of Republicans: Post CPAC

It is going to be an uphill battle for the Republican party over the next couple years. They are going to need to change their image if they want to stay competitive in national elections, as they lost the 2012 election by a 23% margin in the 18-29 year old category. We have just gotten a taste of what the next couple years may be like, as this past weekend was the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

The theme of the conference this year was very fitting: "America's Future: The Next Generation of Conservatives." This year featured a wide variety of speakers, including Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and Donald Trump.

Every year at the CPAC, there is a presidential straw poll of the upcoming star of the Republican party. While very unscientific and criticized by many, it does provide a starting place to see who is most popular in the Republican party, among those Republicans serious enough to show up to the conference. Last year Mitt Romney won the straw poll, one of the three times that the Republican nominee has also won the straw poll. This years winner was Rand Paul, the up and coming star of the Republican party and Ron Paul's son. 

Rand Paul's message was heavily based on the need for change in the Republican Party. He said in his speech, "The GOP of old has grown stale and moss-covered." He also tried to show of his moderate and libertarian values in many issues, saying of teen drug use that, "Ask the Facebook generation whether we should put a kid in jail for the nonviolent crime of drug abuse and you will hear a resounding 'no.'"

Marco Rubio, the second place participant of the straw poll and another rising star in the Republican party, is most known for his position on immigration reform, which is to tighten immigration laws and then create a pathway for illegal aliens living in the US to become citizens. However, he did not mention this in his speech, instead choosing to highlight his conservative views on social issues, saying, "Science has proven that life begins at conception." and "Just because I believe that states should be able to define marriage in the traditional way does not make me a bigot."


A notable member of the Republican party, Chris Christie, got snubbed by the event planners as he did not receive an invitation.
Overall, the CPAC showed how splintered and divided the Republican party really is, as many different and conflicting views on the future of the party were shared. What do you think the future of the Republican party brings?

Evaluating costs after 10 years since start of Iraq War

U.S. soldiers guard a burning oil well in the Rumalia oil field a few weeks after the invasion.

This Wednesday will mark the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. U.S. troops invaded Iraq on March 20th, 2003 as a part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The conflict officially ended on December 15th 2011, after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's declaration (although the last U.S. soldiers didn't leave Iraq until the 18th). In total, the conflict lasted 8 years, 8 months, and 3 weeks.

(costofwar.org) Brown University's report estimates the war's death toll.

Brown University released a report entitled The Costs of War this past Thursday. The report estimated that 330,000 were killed directly by violence that occurred during the war. Brown University's analysis of the war's human, social, and political costs offers both overviews and detailed examinations. However, since we are currently studying economics, I am choosing to focus this post around the economic cost of the war for the U.S.

 The Pentagon was allocated $1.4 trillion dollars for the War on Terror from 2003-2011. However, much of the economic price tag is made up of opportunity costs. Brown University estimates that 8.3 jobs are created for every $1 million in military spending. However, the military sector is not the most efficient for job-creation. The study states: "A million dollars of spending would create 15.5 jobs in public education, 14.3 jobs in healthcare, 12 jobs in home weatherization, or about the same number of jobs in various renewable energy technologies. A million dollars spent on construction (residential and non-residential structures) creates 11.1 direct and indirect jobs." Thus, military spending on the war could have created hundreds of thousands of more jobs each year if it had been invested in a different sector.

Other major costs incurred do to the war include the $455 billion expansion of homeland security costs, $259 billion in interest on borrowed money to fund the war (with an additional $1 trillion estimated by 2023), and $754 billion to be spent on veterans over the next 30-40 years. Economists have estimated the total cost of the war for the U.S. economy to be somewhere in between $3 trillion and $6 trillion.

So could we have avoided these gargantuan costs or where they absolute necessities? Brown University's report cites "intelligence and policing methods" and "peaceful political accommodation" as the most effective responses to terrorist organizations as evinced through the study of 268 terrorist groups from 1968 to 2006.

For additional readings and reflections on the war, I'd recommend checking out CNN's coverage, a Washington Post article that attempts to debunk several myths about the war, and different opinions presented by the New York Times. I found that each of these presentations were highly informative and worth reading first-hand.

What are your thoughts on the war and its costs? The Iraq War has been a tremendously influential part of our childhoods, and I'm sure many here have personal opinions on the war. Feel free to respond directly to something brought up in this post or to take a step back and examine the war from your own perspective.

In short: The Iraq War cost the world at least 330,000 lives directly from violence and trillions of dollars to the U.S. economy. Looking back 10 years later, what can we make of this war?

Pentagon announces $1 billion expansion of missile interceptors to defend against North Korean nuclear threat

(CNN) A North Korean soldier guards an Uhna-3 rocket. North Korea successfully test-launched a similar missile on Dec 12, 2012.

A test launch of U.S. Ground-Based Interceptor

As the recently-approved Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel announced today that the defense department would be spending an additional $1 billion to deploy 14 additional ground-based missile interceptors on the West Coast. Currently, there are 30 missile interceptors in place in Alaska and California.The interceptors are being deployed under the pretense that they will protect the U.S. from a North Korean ICBM.

Under the leadership of Kim Jong Un, the DPRK has become increasingly belligerent as discussed in Brandon's previous post. North Korea (through the mouthpiece of their state-run news agency, Korean Central News Agency) has threatened both South Korea and the U.S. with the prospect of a preemptive nuclear attack.

Recently, the KN-08 was identified in a North Korean parade. This missile in mobile, making it harder to monitor than a stationary launch pad, and U.S. officials believe that it has the capability to reach the U.S. mainland. This, in addition to recent developments with North Korea, has led the Defense Department to re-evaluate their defense systems.

(BBC) Note that the different ranges are in reference to different missile models identified within the North Korean arsenal.

Anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) are missiles fired to intercept ballistic missiles (in this case, ICBM's with nuclear warheads) and safely detonate them in midair. A notable example of an ABM system is Israel's Iron Dome. During missile strikes from Gaza in November of 2012, the Iron Dome system successfully intercepted 421 missiles, which is about 85% of the missiles launched from Gaza. However, the Iron Dome primarily protects against short-range rockets and artillery shells. Anti-ICBM interceptors have significantly lower success rates. The U.S.'s Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System has failed 8 out of the 16 times it has been tested. For those of you who had Mr. McGlashan last year, you might recall a lecture in which he described the incredible difficulty of tracking a launched missile traveling at hundreds of miles per hour without knowing its launch location or its target.

So is this new investment really worthwhile? One billion dollars is a significant amount of money (for those having trouble visualizing what that entails, click here). However, it is a small fraction of the Defense Department's total budget, which has hovered around $680 billion in recent years. Do we feel safer with these defense systems in place?

It is worth noting that these 14 these interceptors will be deployed between now and the end of 2017. Do you think that these additional interceptors will be too late? Its difficult to imagine that relationships with North Korea won't change in the next four years, for better or worse. Or is it possible that nuclear warfare can be avoided entirely through diplomacy?

Clips from Hagel's statement are embedded within this CBS report (see below) or also available in more detail from BBC.

In short: U.S. deploys $1 billion worth of anti-ICBM interceptors in response to North Korean aggression. Is this a valuable allocation of resources or just paranoia? 

Over 8,000 Floating Pigs Found in Shanghai River

Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Over 8,000 rotting dead pig carcasses have been found in the Huangpo river, the tap water source for Shanghai, China. Although many people in the area are concerned for the safety of the drinking water, authorities have claimed that the water is unharmed. The exact source of these carcasses remain a mystery, but authorities are investigating the issue. 

While it seems a little strange, some people are encouraged by the fact that these rotting pigs were dumped in the river. Many of these pigs were found to contain diseases such as porcine circovirus. Previously, many of these pigs would have been continued to be sold and processed for consumers to eat, but recent crackdowns on selling diseased meat has made it so that whoever raised these pigs decided against selling the diseased meat. 

Although it is unfortunate the diseased pigs floating in a river is a positive step in Chinese health standards, at least this is a step in the right direction. Investigations and at least one arrest are already underway and will continue to find the culprit, however the massive number of farmers in the area make it difficult for the authorities to track down the exact people responsible.

China just now seems to be catching up to the health standards we have been lucky to have since the early 1900's. Hopefully this small (and very strange) sign of progress will lead to more regulation and tighter control over the food market in China.

Does this seem like a positive step to you? Does this make you appreciate more of the heath standards we have in America?

Change of heart for conservative senator

Will Portman (left) and Senator Rob Portman (right).

Senator Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio, has served in Congress for nearly 20 years as a well-known conservative. Historically, he has opposed gay marriage. Some University of Michigan students even found his position on gay rights to be repugnant enough to warrant protesting his commencement speech for the graduation of the Class of '11. At the time, his communications director made the statement that, "Rob believes marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman."

Portman has laid all of this aside now, and he announced that he has reversed his position on gay marriage. He told CNN, "I'm announcing today a change of heart on an issue that a lot of people feel strongly about that has to do with gay couples' opportunity to marry."

Portman's  reversal has largely been attributed to acceptance and support of his openly gay son, Will Portman. Portman explains, "My son came to Jane, my wife, and I, told us that he was gay, and that it was not a choice, and that it's just part of who he is, and that's who he'd been that way for as long as he could remember."

Prior to the announcement, former Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is gay, advised Portman to "follow [his] heart."

This announcement makes Portman the first Republican senator who supports gay marriage.The timing of the announcement is especially interesting. Will Portman came out to his parents nearly two years ago. Little mention of his son was made during the 2012 election season as Portman was considered as a potential Republican vice presidential candidate. Now, the announcement comes shortly before oral arguments begin for U.S. v. Windsor, a case now reaching that Supreme Court that revolves around the Defense of Marriage Act that Portman helped pass in 1996.

It took a very personal appeal from his son for Portman to reverse his position on gay marriage. Do you think Portman will be remembered as an anomaly? Or does this reversal hold some promise of progress for LGBT rights? Additionally, consider this: is this reversal fair for the people of Ohio who elected Portman under the pretense that he opposed gay marriage? That question really comes down to the different theories of representation (discussed on pages 251-252 of our Gov textbook). Is Portman free to make this decision because he is a trustee or should his role as a delegate supersede his personal revelations?

In short: A conservative reverses his position and now supports gay marriage. Is he an exception or a future trend-setter?

Senate Panel Vote for Ban on Assault Weapons

Senator Dianne Feinstein

For the first time since 2004, a ban on assault weapons has cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and will move on to the full senate. As recent as last year, the thought of a bill like this even clearing the committee would be unthinkable, but the recent shootings in Newton, Connecticut and Aurora, Colorado have shifted enough opinions on the matter to have the bill gain some momentum. While this bill is predicted to fail in front of the full Senate, the fact that it made out of the committee is a good start that people in support of tighter restrictions will rally behind.

Senator Feinstein from California, the author of the bill admits that, "The road is uphill. I fully understand that,"however, Democrats are optimistic that they will get a some sort of the bill through that will impose tighter regulations on guns.

The vote in the committee followed party lines and passed on a ten to eight vote. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader from Nevada has to allow the bill to come to the floor. He has promised that by mid-april, the floor will vote on some sort of bill that addresses the committees wishes, although specifics of this bill and how much of a say on it the committee will really get are unknown.

Do you think any progress will be made on this issue? Do you think this is a good first step or a futile attempt to accomplish something that is unable to be accomplished with this Senate?

Ninth day of consecutive gains for Dow for the first time since 1996

CNN's depiction of the Dow over the past twenty years

Today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 14,455.28 points today, with a gain of 5.22 (.04%) since yesterday. The Dow monitors the daily performance ofthirty American companies as they trade at the New York Stock Exchange.

The Dow was hovering around 13,000 points in 2008 before it crashed to a low of 6,547.05 points. It finally reached 13,000 points again, surpassing pre-crash levels, in February of 2012. On February 1st of this year, the Dow reached 14,000 points again for the first time since October 2007.

While this is certainly a good sign for the American economy, the death throes of the 2008 recession seem to still to be having an impact upon our economic growth. The U.S.'s GDP ended the fourth quarter of 2012 with only .1% of growth for, and unemployment is currently estimated at 7.7%. 

So where do you guys think the U.S. stands now economically? The Dow certainly isn't the end-all be-all economic indicator, but it can surely give us some idea what is currently happening with our economy. Should we be rejoicing and praising Wall Street's good fortune? Or do the cynics amongst us see this as a good sign, but one that certainly shouldn't make anyone sit back, nod smugly and proclaim, "Yup, that'll do it. The economy is all fixed now folks."

Somehow, I doubt Washington is going to sit back and relax any time soon. President Obama was able to have a productive discussion with House Republicans today on the budget. The Republican response was generally positive, and they collectively agreed that they didn't agree with President  Obama on much of anything, but nonetheless appreciated the meeting. 

In short: Dow Jones has a 9-day record of gains. Good news or REALLY good news?

New Leader in the Vatican

Andrew Medichini/Associated Press

After the second day of voting, there is a new pope in the Vatican. Yesterday, all cardinals of the Catholic church met in the Vatican city to replace Benedict XVI, the previous pope who stepped down. Benedict XVI is the first pope to step down from the position in almost 600 years. Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a 76 year old cardinal from Argentina, steps into the role as the 266th pontiff of the Catholic church.

In order to select a new pope, all cardinals around the world come to the Vatican City where they meet in the Sistine Chapel. In secrecy, they discus amongst themselves until they decide to vote amongst themselves for one cardinal to become the new pope. If a cardinal does not get two thirds of the vote, then the crowd outside is signaled with black smoke. There may be up to four votes in a day.

At the end of yesterday, the first day of voting, black smoke signaled that there would be no new pope for that day. Today however, the thousands of rained soaked individuals outside were greeted with white smoke as a new pope was decided on. Around an hour later, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, renamed Francis now, greeted the crowd as the 266th pope. The first non-European pope in over 1200 years, Francis represents a shift in the dispersal of Catholic's around the world.

Francis steps into the position in a troubling time for the Catholic Church. It is dealing with sex scandals, corruption, and a failing national bank (The Vatican Bank). After a rocky last decade, Francis will have to show he can steer through the bureaucracy of the Vatican in order to be an effective leader of the 1.2 billion Catholics around the world.

What do you think will be the next step of the Vatican? Will Francis be an effective leader of the Catholic people? How will this effect the world beyond the Vatican?

For more information, visit NY Times

North Korea: A Week of Threats

Thought this was absolutely hilarious, though admittedly a bit inappropriate.... oh well...

Tension has long existed between the US and North Korea, but this week was especially filled with a flurry of hostile remarks by the North Koreans. The UN unanimously voted this Thursday on tougher sanctions against North Korea, a vote that was prompted by North Korea's supposedly successful satellite launch in December of last year. Hours before the vote, North Korea threatened a "possible preemptive attack." Leading up to the vote, North Korea stated on Tuesday that it planned to abandon the 1953 armistice between North Korea and South Korea. Obviously, this raised some alarms all around the world. But the UN vote was not the only thing that propelled North Korea to threats. This week, the US and South Korea began a series of military exercises that will last two months. The exercises have been named "Foal Eagle." While North Korea claims these exercises are "an open declaration of war," South Korea insists that they are "defensive in nature."

North Korea's infamous Kim Jong-un

Though the whole week is a significant increase in verbal provocation by the North Koreans, Thursday's threat is arguably the most worrisome. A North Korean foreign minister stated that North Korea "will exercise the right to a preemptive nuclear attack to destroy the strongholds of the aggressors and to defend the supreme interests of the country." Despite this, several analysts assert that North Korea is many years away from being able to accurately launch an intercontinental nuclear attack. South Korea's President Park Guen-hye, who political analysts believe cannot afford to appear weak during this escalation of hostilities, has stated that "Seoul would respond strongly to any provocation from Pyongyang."

But where was North Korea's key ally when Pyongyang needed them most? A single vote could have stopped the passage of the sanctions against North Korea, a vote that China withheld. Chinese UN Ambassador Li Baodong said, "China is a country of principle... We are committed to safeguarding peace and stability on the Korean peninsula." Additionally, China's Foreign Ministry urged "all relative parties to stay calm and refrain from taking actions that may escalate tension." Apparently, Korean peace does not involve supporting North Korea advance its nuclear program.

What do you think North Korea will do in the coming days/weeks? Will they abandon their hostile remarks? Will South Korea respond to further hostilities with force or more diplomacy? Theoretically, what would China do if North Korea succeeded in attacking South Korea or the United States? Following that train of thought, would a North Korean nuclear attack trigger a global war, or would it simply translate into the imminent demise of the North Korean government?

Harmless Asteroid to Make Fly By

An artistic rendition of a fly by asteroid

This weekend, more specifically on Saturday by astronomers' calculations, an average sized asteroid will just miss Earth. By just miss, I am making a statement relative to the infinite expanse of space. In reality, the asteroid will only reach a distance 604,500 miles away from Earth. To put that in perspective, the distance from Earth to the moon is a mere 238,900 miles. Astronomers estimate that the asteroid, appropriately named "2013ET," is that size of a city block. For all of you aspiring astronomers out there, 2013ET is already observable in the night sky, even with "sophisticated amateur telescopes."

Thought this one was graphic

What's more alarming, however, is when the asteroid was first sighted. Don Yeomans, planetary scientist at NASA's jet propulsion laboratory here in California, stated that the asteroid was first sighted on Sunday. Sunday! NASA has previously stated that it doesn't have the technology to deflect an asteroid with a trajectory towards Earth. What if 2013ET, worst case scenario, was headed towards the Bay Area? Is a one week warning good enough?

Obama Dines With Republican Senators: Evidence of Future Bipartisanship?

"I like a good party"
(not especially relevant, but thought it was funny)

Just a few hours ago, Obama and Senate Republicans met for dinner to discuss various topics. The exact topics discussed have not yet been released, but a White House official said that, chiefly, Obama will talk about fiscal matters. Other possible topics, according to what the president has recently discussed with Republican lawmakers, include "guns, immigration and energy."

Yes, this is definite progress for bipartisan cooperation. However, the same White House official said that "These are just conversations... Getting from there to a deal is hard." We've already seen evidence of bipartisanship when it comes to immigration reform, but gun control has seen less than an equal share of the same bipartisanship. Perhaps cooperation concerning immigration was little more than a rational choice by Republicans, made in order to survive. Clearly Republicans have been making great efforts to appeal to Latino voters. Immigration reform is evidence of the fact by itself, but Marco Rubio's meteoric rise to fame is further proof of an attempt to gain favor with Latinos.

Senator Lindsey Graham is a proven supporter of gun rights

Now, back to Obama's Senate "party".... Who attended this crucial dinner?  The guest list consisted entirely of Republican Senators, most of which were rank-and-file Republicans that Obama has not spent much time communicating with. These legislators were Saxby Chambliss (GA), Kelly Ayotte (NH), Dan Coats (IN), Tom Coburn (OK), Richard Burr (NC), Mike Johanns (NE), Pat Toomey (PA), John Hoeven (ND), Bob Corker (TN), Ron Johnson (WI), John McCain (AZ), and Lindsey Graham (SC). The most high profile of these Senators are former presidential nominee, John McCain, and outspoken Obama critic Lindsey Graham. Lindsey Graham is more recently known, however, for his proposed gun legislation that focuses on the mentally ill. The NRA has given him an "A" rating, clearly showing his pro-gun views. His presence at the dinner indicates that gun control is extremely likely to be a topic of discussion.

FOX News' article, however, presents a somewhat negative outlook on this dinner, claiming in the headline that "Obama goes around GOP leaders." True to FOX's notorious reputation of criticizing Obama, the article continues on to include a few irrelevant points. Among others, Obama is supporting "janitors... seeing a pay cut." How this is even related to this dinner, I have no clue. In this case, the NBC article on the subject, didn't present very much, if any, anti-Republican sentiment.

Just before I was about to publish this post, it was revealed that:

 "At the top of the dinner's agenda was the possibility of a grand bargain combining entitlement reforms with lowering tax rates and closing loopholes that would head off the sequester and tackle some of the country's worst budget woes."

What effects do you think this dinner has on bipartisan cooperation, short term and long term? Will we see a spike in bipartisanship in the coming weeks? Is this, and the previous immigration reform cooperation, evidence of an upcoming period of bipartisanship? Does Obama like a good party?

A New Chapter in Venezuelan History: Hugo Chavez Dead at 58

Hugo Chavez lost his 2 year fight against cancer

Earlier today, Venezuelan President, and leader of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), Hugo Chavez passed away after losing his long battle with cancer. Instead of reflecting upon the life of Chavez and his history with the Venezuelan socialist movement, I'd like to emphasize what will be happening in Venezuela in the near future, particularly in the next 30 days.

Following the Venezuelan Constitution, a presidential election to replace Chavez must be held within the next 30 days. Until then, the Venezuelan government has stated that Vice President Nicolas Maduro will serve as an interim President. Also a member of PSUV, Maduro is an obvious favorite to win the upcoming election. Running against Maduro is Venezuelan Governor Henrique Capriles. Capriles is the governor of the second most populous state in Venezuela, Miranda. Although a  charismatic politician who is a favorite among the people of Miranda, "Foes say he is really an 'ultra-right' politician in the pocket of Venezuela's pro-U.S. traditional elite, but masquerading as a real progressive." To read more about the eccentricities, criticisms, and histories of both candidates, click here.

VP Nicolas Maduro

Governor Henrique Capriles

But which candidate would the United States like to see take office? In 2008, Chavez broke off diplomatic relations with the US. Surely, the US government would like to see a "US-friendly" person take power. How about a "politician in the pocket of Venezuela's pro-U.S. traditional elite?" Yes, yes I think that fits the US's desires fairly well... Senator Marco Rubio released a statement earlier today:

“I urge the Administration and the community of democracies in the western hemisphere to keep a watchful eye on the security situation in Venezuela in the coming weeks and months. We must help encourage a leadership transition in accordance with Venezuela’s constitution and avoid a vacuum that is filled by power-hungry and violent forces seeking to maintain the status quo. We should instead support Venezuela’s democrats committed to writing new, more hopeful chapters in their country’s long and proud history.”

On one hand, Rubio encourages a "transition in accordance with Venezuela's constitution," but he also speaks against tyrannical leaders who seek "to maintain the status quo." He continues on to state that the US should support "democrats committed to writing new, more hopeful chapters." Mr. Rubio, are you proposing that Venezuela should write a new Constitution, one that is more favorable to US diplomatic interests? The US has already been accused of attempting to overthrow Castro and the Venezuelan socialist government... In 2002, Chavez blamed a failed coup attempt on then-president George W. Bush. More recently, in fact today, VP Maduro attacked the US for being somehow responsible for Chavez's sickness and death. The US promptly denied the accusations, calling them "absurd." Anti-US sentiment only continues... "Do not think that the situation of pain over the health of President Chavez will translate into weakness" says Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elias Jaua. Clearly, Venezuelan leadership is maintaining its opposition to the US. President Obama released a similar statement today:

Just one example of anti-US imagery in Venezuela

"At this challenging time of President Hugo Chavez's passing, the United States reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government... As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights."

Yes, I believe it is clear that the US, with the support of both of its major political parties, supports increased diplomatic relations with Venezuela at this pivotal moment in Venezuelan history. Both Rubio and Obama stress the importance of "democratic principles" in the coming months. But until the election does happen, somewhere within the next 30 days, Venezuela will both mourn and celebrate the death of its both beloved and loathed leader.

Now to you... Which candidate do you think will win the upcoming election? Will Maduro's control of Venezuelan media in the next 30 days make him a virtual lock for the presidency? What actions do you think the US should take to ensure that its best interests are fulfilled in Venezuela? Does Rubio really support the "writing" of a new Constitution, or is it a mere coincidence of diction?

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: How Far Can It Reach?

Okay, be honest... Have you ever lied about something on Facebook? Have you ever stretched the truth? Think hard, but it's probably not very difficult to remember a specific example. Now imagine that you could be charged with a felony for posting false personal information on Facebook. Absurd, right? Technically, this is not far from the truth. Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) of 1984, a simple lie could translate into a felony and possibly prison time.

Originally, CFAA was intended to stop hacking related crimes at the relative beginning of the internet boom. Under CFAA it is "illegal to access a computer without authorization or in a way that exceeds authorization." This broad language, though it was helpful in including various forms of hacking when it was enacted, has some serious implications today. The problem is that the excerpt was never explicitly defined, which has led some prosecutors to claim that terms of service violations are punishable under CFAA. Such an interpretation would mean that anytime you violate that long agreement that you never read but always choose "yes" could, technically, lead you to a felony. Here's a couple notable examples:

1. Under Facebook's agreement, users cannot "provide any false information on Facebook."
2. Craigslist states that no user can post "false or fraudulent content."
3. Pandora makes users agree to "not allow others to use any aspect of your Account Information."
4. For you savvy, up-to-date people who read the New York Times online... you must "be courteous" and "use respectful language" when commenting on articles. (No trolling, troll.)
5. Just in case some of you have an eHarmony account, you are prohibited from sending messages that are "sexually oriented." Sorry sexters...
6. For a couple more, click here.

Swartz speaking out against government regulations of the internet

Now why is this debate coming to the surface now if the law was enacted some 28 years ago? Some of you may know that the Reddit co-founder/social activist, Aaron Swartz took his own life on January 11 of this year. Mr. Swartz was charged under CFAA for providing government-related documents to the public for free, while the same documents were available previously for a small charge. According to his family and friends, the circumstances surrounding his death are suspicious, but many believe the stress of his trial caused him to commit suicide. For more information about his untimely demise, read this New York Times article.

Now to you... do you think that the government has the authority to charge civilians with felonies for simple terms of service violations? What about misdemeanors? How much control, if any, should the government have over the internet?

Florida Sinkhole Home Doomed to Demolition

Watch your step. We'd hate to lose you.

There's been a bit of commotion over this news recently. On Saturday, a house in Florida collapsed due to a sinkhole. A man reportedly feel in while sleeping and is still missing. It is doubtful whether or not he survived. Family members were allowed to quickly collect some belongings before leaving the grounds. Jeremy Bush kept trying to look for his missing brother Jeff, but found no trace of him. The area is still unstable and unsafe for people to enter. Listening devices had to be used, but the authorities report no sign of Jeff.

Sinkholes are not uncommon in Florida due to the geography. Rainfall dissolves bedrock in the ground that creates sinkholes. As of today, the home is beginning to be demolished but the dislodged family still in grief over  the lost family member, who is now "presumed dead." NBC News quoted Administrator Mike Merrill as saying that "With all the equipment that we brought in and specialized help, we have just no been able to locate Mr. bush, and so for that reason the rescue effort is being discontinued."

After the house is brought down, the officials will attempt to stabilize the 30 feet wide and 60 feet deep sinkhole. However, it is doubtful that Bush's body will be found. There were also two nearby houses that required evacuation, though the residents were allowed a few minutes to gather possessions.

How do you think the state of Florida can do to prevent such tragedies? Should the government get more involved in its peoples lives in incidences such as these? Do such deaths deserve more coverage than others? Share your thoughts.

No Killing the Wolves, They're Too Endangered to Die!

"I am a farmer, You killed my livestock, prepare to die" ... or not

 

Here's news animal lovers probably like. The "no-kill" wolf ban in Oregon, implemented only a while ago, seems to be effective. This ban came to be when the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife revealed plans to shoot two wolves. However, they were sued on the groups of the Endangered Species Act. A compromise was eventually worked out to protect the lives of the wolves and the livestock they were known to prey on. Researchers note that while wolf populations are increasing, cattle deaths have not been significantly on the rise, seeming to show that the ban is working. Hopefully this is proof that nature and humanity can coexist peacefully with one another.

Nonlethal methods to keep wolves away include utilizing bright lights and loud noises, known as fladry, to disuade them from attacking nearby livestock. However, local ranchers fear that these nonlethal methods may lose effectively as the wolf populations become accustomed to them; some recommend returning to a shoot-to-kill policy like was used in the past.

Hopefully these methods will spread to other states. In Washington state, 74.5 percent of those polled thought that it would alright for wolves to recolonize their state. Idaho is another location where this ban can be tested. Notably, while wolf populations went down, livestock killings actually went up, creating uncertainty among researchers. Though, some disagree. Interviewee Patton felt that "It's frustrating, more than anything, because we have our hands tied... You can kill a man [who] comes into your house to rob you. Wolves are more protected than people." Of course, humans aren't exactly endangered like many wolf populations are (or used to be).

Do you believe this no-kill wolf ban is a good idea? Would you like this implemented in other states? Are there any trade-offs or opportunity costs related to this ban? Feel free to answer.

James Holmes Could Plea for Insanity

James Holmes is insane? Tell us something we don't know.

Alright. Now let's discuss an update from the trial of the Colorado shooter James Holmes. In a sudden move, lawyers defending the gunman suspect are thinking of pleading not guilty for Holmes due to his alleged insanity. However, he lawyers noted that they have to wait for the judge to rule on this motion first because it involves the state's insanity defense law. As ABC News notes, this law could be unfair for defendants "who invoke it because it requires the disclosure of potentially incriminating information." In other words, mental health records would have to be shown.

The prosecutors of the case have no made a move to go for a death penalty yet. However, the decision to involve Holmes's insanity complicates the issue. His lawyers are going to work to convince the court that the state's insanity defense law is unconstitutional, or at least some of it is. Some analysts believe that this is a strategic attempt to prevent prosecutors from obtaining a notebook Holmes gave to his psychiatrist that has ideas about his attack. Under the law, it was protected because it involved the relationship between psychiatrist and patient. Should such issues get in the way of determining justice? I feel such evidence would be pivotal in this case.

If Holmes is not found guilty of insanity, he could be freed from his facility if psychiatrists determine that he has recovered. Though, this is not a likely outcome. His conviction would probably lead to life imprisonment or the death penalty. As CNN noted, Holmes is "charged with 166 counts, including murder, attempted murder, and other offenses" from his attack on the movie theater viewers.

So do you think Holmes committed his crime out of insanity? Should the notebook be denied as evidence? Is there a possibility of this reaching the Supreme Court? I doubt it, but what do you think?

For more depth of discussion, check out this video.

The Cuts Are Here! Let the Blame Game Begin (or Continue)!

It can't get worst than this ... right?

Well, the dreaded spending cuts have finally arrived. President Barack Obama and the Senate could have potentially made a compromise to deal with these reductions, but perhaps unsurprisingly, they didn't. Now these cuts will hold back economic recovery and perhaps even worse. Not only is our country's economy damaged, but our national security could also be in dire jeopardy. The influence of these cuts are not immediate, but they are coming. Reuters quotes President Obama as saying that "not everyone will feel the pain of these cuts right away. The pain through will be real. Beginning this week, many middle-class families will have their lives disrupted in significant ways."

Half of the $85 billion cuts will be on the back of the Pentagon. The other cuts will also lead to meat shortages, delays in air-traffic, and losses to federal contractors. All this and perhaps more is necessary to deal with the $16 trillion debt that burdens the United States of America. Meanwhile, in Congress, the blame game continues. The New York Times reports that John Boehner responded to reporters with "The revenue issue is now closed ... how much ore money do we want to steal from the American people to fund more government." Democratic Representative Steve Israel was not impressed. He said that "John Boehner consistently paints himself into a corner and traps himself on cliffs, and that's been teh story of the speakership." Certainly Boehner might have been able to do a better job, but the truth is that neither side seems willingly to budge. Interestingly, Sen. Orrin Hatch feels he has a more reasonable spending cut plan, which he talks about here.

The President has given an official statement on the Sequester, which can be read here. If you squint, you might be able to make out some well-hidden criticism of Congress. An example of which is when the president noted that "So I recognize that Speaker Boehner has got challengers in his caucus. I recognize that it's very hard for Republican leaders to be perceived as making concessions to me."

Do you feel these cuts will benefit America in the long-run? Is there truly a better plan than the one being implemented? Will Congress ever gets its act together? Feel free to express your opinions.

Man is Manning in Trouble

Private Bradley Manning (on the left)
"To leak, or not to leak, that is the question"

As you probably well know, army private Bradley Manning was arrested for his role in the WikiLeaks affair (cable leaks) a while ago. Now, he has pleaded guilty to the 10 charges against him. Those charges could land him in prison for about 20 years. He said he was not guilty of "aiding the enemy," which could land him life imprisonment. He claims that he did it in order to "spark a debate over foreign policy" over the US military's "bloodlust." There is no evidence yet that he had any other motives for providing the files to WikiLeaks. The New York Times lists the material leaked as "videos of airstrikes in Iraq and Afghanistan in which civilians were killed, logs of military incident reports, assessment files of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and a quarter-million cables from American diplomats stationed around the world."

For the Obama Administration, Private Manning's actions are questionable.  It is arguable if he accomplished what he set out to do and didn't just publicly embarrass the United States of America. As quoted from the Detroit Free Press, "The Obama administration has said that the release of the documents threatened valuable military and diplomatic sources and strained America's relations with other governments. The administration has aggressively pursued individuals accused of leaking classified material, and Manning's is the highest-profile case." Has Private Manning actually changed anything? Of course, President Obama hopes for the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible. However, I seriously doubt the WikiLeaks affair was a major factor in his decision-making process.

Interestingly, Private Manning claimed that tried contacting The New York Times and The Washington Post before he gave the files to WikiLeaks. CBS News states that the private was not taken seriously and his tips not returned. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has commented that "the only way to get these cowards to publish anything is to get WikiLeaks to publish it first."

So what's your opinion? Did the leaks unnecessarily damage public relations between America and other countries? Do you feel Manning made the best choice under the circumstances? Did he, whether intentionally or not intentionally, aid "the enemy?" I await your thoughts.

A video of the news is provided for your viewing pleasure.

Gay Rights Issue Thickens as Obama Takes a Stand

The next step in human evolution

In a historic gesture, President Barack Obama has just recommended that the Supreme Court act to repeal California's ban on same-sex marriage via the Proposition 8 ballot measure. The Obama Administration filed a friend-of-the-court brief (read here) that marks the first instance of an American president has called on the justices to increase the rights of gays and lesbians. However, President Obama did not explicitly push for marriage equality under the law as strongly as he did during the January inauguration. This shows that there might still be some hesitation in the government to call for full-out equality for gays and lesbians. Perhaps he is worried about offending some of his constituents?

The Associated Press quotes the administration for writing that "They establish homes and lives together, support each other financially, share the joys and burdens of raising children, and provide care through illness and comfort at the moment of death." It is likely that if the Supreme Court chooses to heed Obama's urgings, then gay marriage would likely become legal in Delaware, Illinois, Hawaii, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island. While the friend-of-the-court briefs cannot force the justices to conform to the president's viewpoints, the justices will more probably keep his words in mind as they hear oral arguments regarding the case.

The New York Times also quotes Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. for saying that the brief "seeks to vindicate the defining constitutional ideal for equal treatment under the law." Of course, this is a massive turning point in American politics if the Supreme Court decides to interpret "equal protection under the law" from the Fourteenth Amendment as applying to gays and lesbians who would receive further protection under the Constitution. I am interested in just how the Court interprets the decision with this clause or whether they will choose to ignore it.

Of course, the opposition is not exactly thrilled about this ruling. The Washington Times quotes Tony  Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, for criticizing the president on flip-flopping. He notes that Obama said in the past that gay marriage was "an issue that is going to be worked out at the local level. The National Organization for Marriage has also expressed confidence that Proposition 8 is going to be upheld. Of course, the court ruling has not been made yet. There is time for the justices to change or make up their minds.

So how do you feel about this? Most probably support Obama's decision since Gallup had a poll that said most Americans supported gay rights. Are there any political reasons why Obama should not have supported gay marriage during this time? How much influence do you feel this will have on the justices? And how close do you feel the vote will be?