School Mascot Controversiality

When you think of school mascots, what do you think of? There are quite a lot of mascots represented by various animals: Wildcats, Panthers, Swallows, Falcons, etc. A little more unconventional but fitting, considering the name, is us: the Aragon Dons. Now, what if I told you that there was a school using "the African Americans" as a mascot? Or perhaps, "the Chinese"?

This is none too far from the truth. Coachella Valley High School from California has a mascot known as "the Arab." This was depicted by a fierce looking man in a turban and facial hair, typically with swords. (See below)

For a couple of years now, the school has been under fire from the Arab-American community for misrepresentation of their culture. They go so far as to have kids from the high school dress in belly dancer outfits and dance around the Arab mascot during halftime. Many supporters of the school says it's alright for the school to display their pride in the Arab culture (even if they are non-Arabs themselves). Others argue that they've had the logo for so long, it isn't worth bothering them to change it now. Opponents of this school's mascot, however, explain the bastardization of Arab culture that occurs as a "symptom [of] systematic misrepresentation, dehumanization, and discrimination that occur against us daily." (Source) Finally, Coachella has agreed to change up their mascot: they will become the "Mighty Arabs", and they will switch out their current, stereotypical Arab for one who is more distinguished, a "stoic, strong-jawed man with a neatly trimmed beard." That way, both the Arab-American community is appeased, and the high school can continue on with their traditions.

However, I must say that I do not think this problem is solved. I think the simple fact that this high school uses "the Arab" as their mascot is a sort of objectification and bastardization of their culture, because they have to do these stereotypical "Arab activities" in order to be recognizable as Arabs. Just like how the Don has his sombrero and Spanish knight outfit, and the Tigers have their stripes, every mascot is supposed to have recognizable, distinguished features and behaviors. How can one do that with an Arab without being racist?

What do you think? Is it acceptable for a school to have this Arab (the new and approved one) as their school Mascot? Is their school tradition valid? If not, what can be done for this high school to become "politically correct"?

Missouri New Abortion Laws

In my opinion, this article should be titled "The government gets to choose what happens to your body!" Today, Missouri enacted a 72 hour waiting period for women wanting abortions, the longest waiting period (tied with Utah and South Dakota) of the states. This was passed overriding the veto of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. Additionally, there is not even an exception clause to victims of incest and/or rape: they specifically rejected that amendment! Even though Roe vs. Wade ensured that abortions are to be legal up to a certain point, states continue to tack more and more conditions in order to make abortions harder and harder to get.

The new waiting period is supposed to give women a "reflection period." According to Republican Rep. Kathie Conway, if "you get a couple of more days to think about this pregnancy, think about where it's going, you may change your mind." Democrat Rep. Judy Morgan from Kansas City contests this, saying that this waiting period is "designed to demean and shame a woman in an effort to change her mind." Missouri already has a lack of accessible abortion clinics to the majority of the population: for example, St. Louis only has one abortion clinic, so some people go days out of their way to visit this clinic, only to be forced to wait 3 more days until they can have an abortion.

This makes me angry, because what a woman does with her body should be her decision, not the states. Even if she gets to have an abortion in the end, what gives the government the right to make it so hard for her? Each state has its own set of abortion registration requirements, and they vary in degrees of "freedom" women get to have over their own bodies. It makes me even angrier that in the case of Missouri, incest and rape victims are subject to the same laws. Imagine having to live with that violation growing inside of you, a cause for shame and depression and anger, and having the state tell you that you have to deal with it for a few more days until you can finally "cleanse yourself." When will this madness stop?

What is your opinion on this highly controversial topic? Do you think it's okay for Missouri to raise their abortion waiting period? Where should the line be drawn when it comes to abortion rights? How can we change this? Note: I recognize that this is an area of great tension and controversy, so please be respectful in your answers!

One last "fun" political comic:

Reflecting on 9/11 Thirteen Years Later

Obama gave a speech memorializing 9/11 today. Take a look.

"We carry on because as Americans we do not give in to fear. Ever," he says, heavily implying a parallel to the current struggle against the ISIS. In fact, this oratory comes directly after yesterday's announcement to launch a new misson against Islamist regimes in Irag and Syria.

In the past, the president's 9/11 memorials seem to be more focused on the victims of the attack rather than its impact as a country as a whole:

Obama's older speeches are a much clearer homage to the determination and perserverence that carried the country out of momentary bleakness, whereas his latest speech reflects on the event in a much more distant, analytical manner.

Is this evolution indicative of a changing perspective of 9/11? Or does Obama simply utilize speeches as rationalization for his current agenda?

Apple's Bigger and... Better?

The latest in tech news is the September 8th unveiling of both the new iPhones, 6 and 6+, and the new Apple smartwatch.

However, many have been criticizing Apple's newest products, claiming that they now put form over function when it comes to marketing their products. According to this chart from Forbes, the 6 is nearly identical to the 5s, although you can see quite a large difference in the 6+:

As you can see, in order to get a phone that is actually technologically improved on, the 6+ would be a better deal: for just $100 dollars more. In fact, the main difference in the new iPhone 6 is its thinness and screen size: 4.7 inches long and 6.9 millimeters thick, as compared to the iPhone 5s at 4 inches long and 7.6 millimeters thick. Another thing it boasts is its new camera with "focus pixels," but otherwise, it is quite similar to the 5s.

Are you an Apple fan, into that iPhone hype? What do you think about Apple's marketing strategy - release two new iPhone's at a time (like the 5s and the 5c), but making one of them the much obviously better deal, for a higher price? How is this large scale, Wall Street corporation able to control such a huge percentage of the population, with people camping out for the new iPhone 6 since September 4th, and is it dangerous for them to have such a large sphere of influence?

Income and the College Dilemma

Today, Eduardo Porter of the New York Times published an article explaining the changes being wrought on the American school system of today, particularly in higher education.

The article cites worrying statistics. Although the U.S. has historically provided accessible secondary education to students of a wide variety of incomes, in recent years the rate of educational attainment in our country has fallen behind other developed nations. Nearly 60% of Russian 25 to 60 year olds, for example, have surpassed the education of their parents. In the U.S., the rate is about 30%.

Even though it is possible to interpret these numbers as other countries "catching up" to the educational standards of the U.S., it remains disconcerting that low-income american families are disproportionately choosing not to attend college, since income has increasingly become a factor in college attendance.

What are the solutions to this? Is it true that the public school system disadvantages poor students by locking them out of wealthier high school districts? Why aren't the people who would most benefit from college attending college?

Cheney and the Abandonment of Isolationism in America?

On the night of President Obama's speech last Tuesday, Former Vice-President Dick Cheney swooped in to Capitol Hill and urged many House Republicans to "embrace a strong military and reject a rising isolationism in his party", according to NY Times. Because of the recent attacks by ISIS, he has tried to find ways in which the U.S. would be able to intervene militarily in ISIS Occupied Lands.

Dick Cheney was also partially responsible for President Bush's decision to start the Iraq military campaign that ultimately led to the start of the Iraqi War. Due to his nature that the U.S. must involve themselves in international affairs, he has leaned towards more military intervention than diplomacy. When ISIS took over most of the lands in Iraq and in Syria, he became a big advocate for more military spending.

According to some sources like, New York Daily News, "former vice president called on his party to fight Obama’s cutbacks to military funding". Over the past few days, he has tried convincing many Republicans in Congress to support his cause for military intervention.

In my opinion though, I see that Dick Cheney's way of trying to solve for the crisis in Iraq is a bit extreme for it would stir a wide criticism in his part. Not only it would create a division between pacifists and warmongers who either desire diplomatic resolution or military intervention but also it would create a split in the National Government.

What do you think about this topic? Please comment below.

Cops Steal Money

Equitable Sharing sounds nice, doesn't it? It's the name of a program that encourages cops to steal cash without filing charges and keep the money to fund their own departments.

The program is billed as fighting drug trafficking by confiscating cash from suspicious individuals, however horror stories have resulted. Yesterday the Washington Post released an investigation of these stops that presents many shocking anecdotes.

One example:

• Vincent Costello is driving from Florida to New York
• He is searched after officers claim they smell drugs (none are found)
• Police seize $32,000 in cash, as drugs often come from Florida and are sold in New York, plus the man was acting "unusually nervous." No charges are filed. 
• After $9,000 in legal fees, the police agreed to return half of the cash they took. He is left with $7,000 out of his original $32,000.

Check out the entire article-- it's full of stories like this. Is every example of these tactics being used as bad as the ones referenced in the article? Probably not. But the fact that a nationwide program exists that allows for these events is outrageous.

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Are these programs constitutional under the 4th and 5th amendments?

Can this program be defended on moral grounds? Should police departments be able to pocket the money (and property) they confiscate?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/08/they-fought-the-law-who-won/?hpid=z1

Waiting for the Buyout

This afternoon, the Wall Street Journal posted an article claiming to have the inside scoop on a ongoing buyout deal between Microsoft and Mojang AB, the game developers behind the absurdly popular video game Minecraft. Keep in mind that this is an ongoing story and that the source quoted was anonymous.

                                                                                (Photo source: Flickr Creative Commons/Gage Skidmore)

An announcement like this is not out of the ordinary considering the corporate climate of late.

When Amazon agreed to buy video game streaming service Twitch no more than two weeks ago, many Twitch celebrities expressed apprehension over what would become of the site--and their rights as content producers.

Similarly, the merge of Comcast and Time Warner Cable, the two largest telecom companies in the country, was initiated this year and tagged with an exchange of $45 billion.

The last notable time that the government stepped in to halt an enormous corporate merger was the 2011 deal between AT&T and T-mobile. The Department of Justice argued that an enormous merge like this would stifle competition and hurt economic growth.

Do you believe that these mergers have gotten out of hand? To what extent does the video game industry mirror large corporate mergers? At what point should the government step in to protect consumers' economic interests, if at all?

Changes in Ferguson!

On Sept. 8th, Ferguson had it's "first major sign of change" since the shooting of Michael Brown. Previously there have been several significant changes to the Ferguson protests, including unveiling the police officer who shot Michael (Darren Wilson), as well as some negative consequences, like a Ferguson state of emergency that resulted in the National Guard being called in and a curfew being set for citizens.

However, there is finally some potential legislation on the rise that will hopefully improve the conditions in Ferguson and ensure this kind of police corruption does not occur again. The Ferguson city council is planning to establish a board of citizens as an asset to the police force in order to "provide guidance." Additionally, the Ferguson court system will be changed dramatically, including capping the amount of fines the city can take as revenue in order to prevent police from issuing tickets to receive more fines. When it comes to arrest warrants, Ferguson has one of the highest warrant to people ratio, according to this chart from the Missouri courts:

The council is hoping that these new changes will prevent police harassment of the local black population, as has been the trend, not only in Ferguson but in surrounding areas too. Personally, even though I'm glad to see the city of Ferguson finally taking action (and when I say action, I do not count the last month's police action), I realize that the fight is not over. What I'm scared of is that people will look at this and say "look, Michael Brown and his supporters have won. The battle is over, and we can all go home." This is not true, nor will we be able to say this for a long, long time. As far as we've progressed in the civil rights movement, we've still so far to go – there is still so much prejudice and racism evident in the USA, and the African American population is still feeling the effects of slavery, segregation, and their whole extremely terrible history in the USA, putting them behind when it comes to socioeconomics.

What do you think of these pieces of legislation? Are they a huge victory for Michael Brown, or do we still need to keep fighting? What SHOULD the city be doing?

Net Neutrality Online Protest this Wednesday

Remember the anti-SOPA internet protests? Wikipedia, Mozilla, Google and countless other sites blocked out content (ranging from Google's logo to Wikipedia's entire site).























Similar tactics will be employed this Wednesday as Netflix (as well as the regular crew consisting of Reddit, Mozilla, etc) will be displaying a loading icon on their sites to symbolize the slower service some predict will accompany less internet regulation (the sites will not actually load slower).

Think about the buzz-term "net neutrality." In the spirit of UnSpun, what would be a more objective term for the regulatory climate Netflix is lobbying for? Is it wrong of these companies to demand tight restrictions on internet service (neutrality), yet few to none when it comes to internet content (SOPA)?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/netflix-to-join-internet-slowdown-protest-over-net-neutrality-20140908

A Resurgence in American Industrial Labor

America's modern economy has often been called a "service economy," notorious for outsourcing blue-collar, industrial labor to other countries. However, after the Great Recession of 2008, many business owners, especially in the middle of the country, see extracting America's own energy resources as a potentially lucrative business endeavor. Pictured below is one of energy giant Vallourec's thriving energy plants located in Ohio as described in a recent New York Times article. The plant is one of many that employs the environmentally questionable practice of "fracking," the process of forcibly drilling and extracting resources from sheets of rock.




Local energy production is booming. According to the article, American oil field production this year is up to about 11 million barrels per day compared to less than 7 million barrels per day in 2006. In addition, Ohio appears to be ripe for this kind of production with its decreasing unemployment rates.

Nevertheless, environmental opposition exists. This year, for example, California denounced the process of fracking and its potentially harmful effects on drinking water.

In my opinion, I do not think that a thriving local energy economy is worth the harmful environmental effects. What do you think? Should companies create energy initiatives on American soil? To tie this issue into our current unit, do you believe that regulating fracking falls under the "necessary and proper" powers of Congress in accordance with the commerce clause? Or should energy legislation be left up to the states? Perhaps a mix of the two (dual federalism)?

Legal Marijuana – Businesses say No

In recent years, it has become more and more common for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes to be condoned. In fact, currently there are currently 23 states that have legalized the usage of medical marijuana. In most cases, there is a set age at which people can apply for a license to use marijuana, as well as a set limit for how much marijuana can be owned/purchased at any given time.

However, recently there arose a controversy in many legalized states, including Colorado: while the state itself allowed the usage of marijuana, businesses kept their "zero tolerance" policies that advocated for drug free employees. In a recent case, Brandon Coats of Colorado was fired for having positive drug test results; however, not only is he in a state where recreational marijuana is legal, but he also holds a pass for medicinal marijuana usage, due to his paralysis. He is attempting to sue his company, and if he wins, it could potentially mean the end of drug free policies for businesses across the state.

Personally, I think it's quite unfair for businesses to fire this man, especially due to the fact that he holds a medical marijuana pass. This isn't the only case either; earlier in August, Donna Smith of New Mexico was terminated from working at Presbyterian healthcare services for the same reason, and she also held a medical marijuana pass. What do you think is the reasoning of these businesses, and are they justified in firing this people for having positive drug test results? Additionally, should business policies "trump" state law, making it hard for those who legally smoke marijuana to find jobs anywhere? Who do you think will win in this court case... and why?

CVS Discontinues Tobacco Products

As of this week, CVS is tobacco free. All other factors remaining equal, the company will make $2 billion less because of the change. CVS claims the change is due to tobacco products being incompatible with their values as a health-oriented chain. It was always ironic that CVS profited off both smoking and quitting (nicotine patches, etc), so the fact that smokers will no longer be tempted while trying to quit can only be seen as positive.

The key term above was all things remaining equal-- CVS clearly believes being on the right side of history in this regard will help their bottom line. And the company's stock price doesn't seem to argue (the official announcement came earlier this year). Is the market alone capable of ousting tobacco?




This relates to the topic of "sin stocks:" is it wrong to make a profit off people doing something that is wrong? If your answer is yes, where does the line get drawn? (Tobacco, alcohol, weapons contractors, private prisons, abortion, etc...)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2014/09/05/cvs-tobacco-position-is-a-great-first-step-for-the-brand/

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sinfulstock.asp

Obama Announces Offensive Against ISIS

In the past month, the US has assisted the Kurdish and Iraqi military forces in their fight against ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which is not a recognized state and is an enemy of Iraq). America's military has launched "more than 130" airstrikes against ISIS. Today, Obama announced a plan for the US to take an offensive against ISIS, with an intent to "systematically degrade their capabilities" and to "reduce the territory they control".

Currently, Obama has no plan to put ground troops into the fight against ISIS. On the subject of ground troops, he said "this is not the equivalent of the Iraq War." Besides not using ground troops, this military offensive will differ from the Iraq War in that the US has indisputable evidence of wrongdoing by ISIS (notably executions of US journalists).

Questions:

1. US attempts to defeat opposing governments in the Middle East have historically led to much anger against the US for playing "world police." However, many Islamic states support this effort against ISIS. Does the US stand to gain diplomatically from its efforts?

2. Using airstrikes saves the lives of many US soldiers would otherwise risk being killed in combat. However, airstrikes are imprecise and inevitably end up killing civilians, as was seen in Gaza. Is it ethical for the US to use them in this situation?

Sources:

BBC
New York Times

Governor Chris Christie Getting Ready for the Big Leagues?

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie recently returned from a business trip in Mexico, having met with many members of the Mexican government as well as CEOs and founders of several Mexican businesses. According to Christie, he is very impressed with recent achievements led by Mexican President Peña Nieto, and wants to deepen the economic relationship between the USA and Mexico. Additionally, he is looking to further New Jersey's business market and hopes to attract prospect businesses to open and invest in the state of New Jersey.

However, it seems more and more that this excursion is a set up for Christie to demonstrate his diplomacy skills, especially since he is potentially planning to run for the Republican party candidate for President. He jampacked his trip with many meetings in idealistic settings, supposedly trying to wade into the field of international politics in order to face off with his potential rival, Hillary Clinton.

Although I understand that publicity is always central to a politician's life, I still think Christie's trip might have been a little too... staged. According to New York Times, Christie met with a room of "2,00 cheering children, many of them waving the New Jersey flag – a crowd that would rival anything he might draw in Iowa." Perhaps that's a little over exaggerated, Christie, especially since the lunchroom where Christie ate that afternoon had more than a dozen patrons inside, and none of them recognized him.

Would you consider this trip to be a good strategy for a potential upcoming Presidential candidate? Do you have qualms about the way Christie set himself up, or is politics really an anything is fair game kind of world? Especially considering the fact that Christie did not focus on some of the more pressing issues of the American-Mexican relationship, was his trip really a valuable asset to deepening our relations?

Judge Finds BP "Grossly Negligent" in Gulf Oil Spill Ruling

On September 4, 2014, District Court Judge Carl Barbier ruled BP (British Petroleum) to have engaged in "willful misconduct" prior to the Gulf Oil Spill. This ruling took place in a civil trial in which the culpability of various participants was assessed. Due to this misconduct, the judge ruled that BP should be responsible for 67 percent of the penalties resulting from the spill. The remainder of the penalties are being shared by Transocean, the owner of the oil rig (30%) and Haliburton, a cement company (3%).

This prosecution is taking place under the Clean Water Act, which was passed in 1972 to fight the pollution of America's water sources. This act typically fines companies $1,100 per barrel of spilled oil, but in cases of gross negligence the fine goes up to $4,300. Assuming that appeals do not reduce the penalties, BP is estimated to pay 18 billion dollars. After this ruling was published, BP's stock value dropped by six percent.

Questions:

1. Does a set-in-stone number like $1,100 per barrel remain fair when the scale and difficulty of managing a disaster go so high? On one hand the colossal environmental and health hazard that BP caused merits it. On the other hand BP's recklessness may not have been so extreme as to merit 18 billion dollars.

2. BP shareholders likely had little to no knowledge of this misconduct, and virtually no control over the situation. Should shareholders be able to sue BP over this 6% loss due to BP's negligence?

Note - In a legal sense, shareholders are not entitled to anything under current laws. (Source)

Full articles:
Washington Post
BBC

A Farewell to Ms. Joan Rivers

On September 4th, America watched sadly as fellow comedian and actress Joan Rivers passed away, and the public promised to remember her for years to come as the amazing woman she was.

Or... was she?

Joan Rivers had said many, many controversial things during her time, the most recent one being this video regarding her views towards the current Gaza conflict. Joan, when told about the number of Palestinian deaths in Gaza, reacted by completely blowing it off and then telling the camera that they "deserve to be dead." This, of course, angered many people, fans and others alike.

However, why is it that once a person passes away, we find the media always remembers them in good spirits? The foul deeds are often forgotten in light of a tragic death until many, many years later, if at all. For example, many celebrities tweeted their support of Joan Rivers while she was in a coma, all of them praying that she would make it through.

More and more people have been calling the media out on their biased coverage by tweeting with #karma and claiming that Rivers "wrote her own epitaph by wishing death upon Palestinians."

What do you think of this controversial situation? Is it right for the media to remember Rivers in good graces, for the sake of her family/friends/fans? Or is it important for the media to acknowledge that Rivers is NOT the blessing that some make her out to be?

Protests for $15/ hour Minimum Wage

Today a large (pre-planned) fast food strike and protest occurred. The protestors demanded the minimum wage be raised to $15 per hour, as well as more union influence (or the formation of unions). McDonalds claimed there were no service disruptions due to the strike which, if true, exemplifies why every movement to unionize the company has failed.

Non-strike protestors joined the movement, as a higher minimum wage would affect many workers and businesses outside of fast food. Many of the protestors sat in traffic, and were detained or arrested for their actions. Among those fined was Rep. Gwen Moore who tweeted

Proud to support #MilwaukeeWorkers risking arrest in pursuit of a better future for their families! #Fastfoodstrike pic.twitter.com/tZjTsrrNzx
— Gwen Moore (@RepGwenMoore) September 4, 2014

No, they risked arrest for blocking traffic. 



















Today's events bring up two big questions.

1. Is raising the minimum wage to $15/ hour a good idea?
2. Is blocking traffic an effective protest method?

Fun New Prank: Swatting!

Watch out TPing, a fun new prank may soon take your place: Swatting.

How does it work? A playful prankster calls 911 and reports information of questionable validity-- white lies if you will. For instance, the brazen comic may pretend to be a man threatening to kill his wife and children. The police then kick in the (actual) man's door, and hold him at gunpoint despite the fact that he (probably) doesn't actually want to kill his wife.

It should seem old-school practical jokes such as coating houses with toilet paper, keying cars, and throwing bricks through windows are simply not hip enough.

Note: Feeding police false information has existed as long as police have existed, and according to the Wikipedia article the term "swatting" is at least 6 years old. However the ability to watch live-streamers get arrested from your sofa has accelerated the trend in recent weeks.

He could not have been playing a more perfect game for the circumstances. Although this is by far the most cinematic example (and most viewed), much worse examples exist including this local news story posted just hours before the time of this post. Some have had their homes invaded by misguided SWAT teams while their families are home-- an incredibly emotionally traumatizing experience... but SWAT raids can be more than emotionally damaging.

What should the evidence threshold be for holding citizens at gunpoint in their own houses? Is unverified "evidence" presented by a single informant enough to issue a search warrant? How much responsibility should police be forced to take for these events?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Another Ukraine Post

If you are reading this post I assume you have some back story on the events that have transpired over the past year over Ukraine and her neighbor Russia. I will not go into exuberant detail about Crimea or the "Ukrainian" rebels.

Most of Eastern Ukraine has a Russian majority and of course there is discourse and some fighting, but to the scale of anti-air to down jets, or stem pro-Kiev forces from making inroads on sparsely populated areas. Finland and other neighboring countries are on edge after Russian military exercise, and most of the former Warsaw Pact countries are looking to NATO or the UN to step in.

The rebels in Ukraine have been heavily armed and even trained to the handling of the weapons that have come out of seemingly the air. A good quantity of the international community is pointing at Russians to stop supplying and cease any operations close to the border.Ukraine is worried, they see their land and their people under threat from an oppressor that kept Europe under an Iron Curtain for close to 50 years. To just answer the question on how desperate Ukraine is getting they recently Applied for NATO membership, and leaving their neutrality in the dust, as more confusion grows at the borders of Ukraine. And more confusion grows from the U.S. to Kiev to straight to the minds of Russian citizens themselves. With no formal declaration of war or even a press conference to state where soldiers are being sent many families are wondering what happened to their sons, and are they at war with Ukraine? A question everyone has been asking for the last few months.

Obama recently said we would keep military intervention on the back-burner for Ukraine but would declare formal war if Poland or any other NATO country is threatened, should we protect Kiev and deeply scar Russian ties?

What are your views on Putin? What is your reaction toward this new "Premier" or new "Savior" depending on your views.

Beijing Continues to Threaten Hong Kong

In 1997 the People's Republic of China and Great Britain signed a deal allowing the city of Hong Kong to fall under China's rule on a set of conditions. These conditions set up that the merger would create one country but two systems, giving Hong Kong a pseudo-City State within Chinese borders. As a result Hong Kong as remained as a much freer part of China as it did not have to comply with Beijing's orders, creating their own currency, maintaining their own trade, taxes, and even the ability to drive on the left. They are 7 million strong in a relatively small area and

In more recent times pressures has been mounting on Hong Kong from all sides of life from the PRC. People in surrounding areas frequently try to sneak into Hong Kong's borders to take advantage of the stricter regulations placed on baby formula and also to try and get medicare from the HK hospitals. The PRC's state owned media outlets have continuously published stories slamming the democratic Hong Kong labeling them as unruly children and Dogs of Britain. Currently HK's political system is 12,000 business owners who vote on how the city should be managed, a pro-business wet dream, but in more recent years these owners have set up shop or have delicate ties to mainland China leaving them skewed to give up liberties to keep operation in the newest emerging consumer base. HK has staged several protests this summer with some in attendance of 800,000, the PRC has become more blatent that they would not allow universal elections in HK and has staged counter protests, sent in pro-Beijing quell the huge supporters. There is going to be another pro-democracy rally in september and the PRC has prepared by Sending in PLA forces to remind Hong Kongers who has the power. Most of us remember how domocile and forgiving the PRC can be when it comes to peacefully putting down protests.

It seems that the days of democratic Hong Kong may be numbered, should we as a nation or as a people say anything to protest China's human rights abuse?

What might go down if things turn for the worst during their next march or occupy?

Ebola Breakout

The "Ebola Outbreak" has graced the front pages of many of our news sources, yet the degree in which it has affected the people of West Africa has seldom crossed our mind. The tragedy happening in West Africa has attracted a lot of attention and hopefully this attention is used in order to combat this deadly disease. Not only is it a tragedy that the disease has occurred in concentrated areas which lack proper and basic medical care, but many of the people who contracted Ebola aren't aware that they have it. As a result of insufficient information on Ebola and it's rapid increase, it has spread like wildfire and many are concerned that it will spread even faster due to the congested living quarters in many places of West Africa. The disease continues to spread throughout West Africa and has taken the lives of approximately 1,552 people in the region.

What can we, as an international community, do in order to combat this deadly disease?

Also, feel free to discuss any other means of helping the people in West Africa that you think will be most effective.
 
 CNN article

Black Rage

The image of a mother mourning her child is an image that evades racial and cultural differences. It speaks every language and it also speaks a language of its own. It speaks to the heart rather than being processed through the brain. I have seen that look before on my own mother's face and I have dealt with the emotions behind it. And somehow we have become distracted from the fact that a child has lost his life, and a mother has lost a child. Consumed by controversy and overwhelmed by an extensive array of opinions and personal beliefs, we forget that we have lost a child to a color. We have lost a child to the dispute over a color, and as ignorant and simple-minded as that sounds, it is true. We have lost so much and so many to the fight over color, the pigmentation of our skin. We have used the concept of color to try and differentiate between people. In order to fit the complexity of humankind into our small and sheltered brains, we have separated ourselves in every way we could.We have conditioned ourselves to see DIFFERENCES, yet we neglect our greatest common factor, our humanity.
This is only a small glimpse into the hell that is Racism, still very potent in America. It lies under the skin of our country, hidden by a cloak of oblivion and denial. It has created an African American culture that responds to the suppression with sometimes anger and resentment. Through music, fashion, art, behavior and attitude, this culture has thrived on retaliation. A veteran musician, Lauryn Hill, released a song responding to the events happening in Ferguson titled "Black Rage". The song samples the sound of music song "Favorite Things". It presents a powerful and deep insight into the deep scars and wounds left in the black community.

Listen to it.

China's Anti-Corruption Efforts Slowed by International Politics

In recent years, China's government has begun to escalate its efforts to hold corrupt government officials accountable. In what China's Central Commission for Discipline Inspection calls a "Fox Hunt", 762 people were extradited to China on corruption charges in the last year. Almost 1 billion dollars worth of stolen Yuan (Chinese unit of currency) were confiscated. The campaign has thus been successful to a degree. However, China has had major difficulties extraditing officials from certain countries including the US, the Netherlands, Canada, and Australia. In the US alone, more than 150 "economic fugitives" avoid accountability to Chinese courts.

China belongs to an intergovernmental organization (IGO) called INTERPOL, which works to facilitate cooperation among the world's police forces. This IGO is useful for purposes such as extradition of criminals. It currently has 190 member countries, including the US. However, two countries being members of INTERPOL does not guarantee extradition from one to another. Extradition treaties are necessary to ensure that, and China does not have any with the above four western countries. These countries are also unlikely to cooperate with China's extradition efforts due to their distrust in China's justice system. Concerns over torture and capital punishment are the main reasons for this reluctance.

Discussion Questions:

1. Are these western countries justified in intervening this way? Is letting criminals go unpunished worse than subjecting them to a system of justice that western countries see as inhumane?

2. Could this protection of corrupt officials encourage further government corruption in China?

Sources:
Telegraph
Reuters

U.S. and Iran, Hit and Run missions in Iraq against ISIS

ISIS has been working withen Iraq for sometime under several different names with the mission of creating a truly Islamic State, a nation that adheres strictly to the Quran, in the Middle East. They struck a huge power gain due to the instability in Syria and took mass swaths of land and have become so much of a new threat that President Bashar al-Assad has fallen off of western media's radar.

Their recent incursions into Kurd dominated Iraq have left the U.S. and it's allies a bit ticked off and Iran worried over it's borders. Separately both the U.S. and Iran have sent strikes to cripple Iraqi's ISIS and both have sent military advisors and equipment in order to support the current recognized leadership in Iraq. During this coordinated attacks, that have had close contact with each other, Iran and the U.S. have never had official open channels.

We hate them. Not as much as ISIS! Unfortunately we still have soured feelings toward Tehran and the feeling is mutual. Embargos, condemnations and overall bad mouthing have been exchanged between the two nations and the fact that we are fighting a common enemy and not taking this opportunity is despicable.

Do you think that we should extend an olive branch and be the ones to open channels toward ending this cold war we have with Iran?

How would some of our most important Middle Eastern allies deal with a joint mission against ISIS with Iran as an official ally?

U.S. Iran Daily Beast
USA Today

Hamas Agrees to Long-Term Truce with Israel

On Tuesday August 26, 2014, Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire following a two-month escalation in their conflict which led to the deaths of more than two thousand people, mostly civilians. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas announced this agreement, hopeful that this ceasefire may allow the occupation and violence to end.

In this agreement, Israel made certain concessions. Israel agreed to reduce restrictions on border crossings from Egypt into Gaza. Additionally, Israel agreed to lift certain restrictions on fishing off the coast of Gaza, allowing fishers to fish up to six miles off of the coast.

Hamas considers these concessions to constitute a victory for itself and for Palestine. Many Palestinians also agreed with this sentiment, with thousands celebrating on the streets. However, Israeli officials noted that Hamas had previously rejected this settlement, and that this ceasefire could thus be seen as a victory for Israel.

Discussion Questions:

1. Both sides have reasons to believe they have "won" with this accord. Did the terms of the ceasefire favor either side? Which side?

2. Israel's enemies have broken ceasefires many times in the past. Is this ceasefire doomed to a similar fate, or does the Palestinian celebration of this ceasefire indicate a lasting peace?

Articles:
AlJazeera - A Middle-Eastern Source
CNN - A Western Source

Russia and Ukraine Part 2

Hours before President Putin of Russia met with the President of Ukraine in Belarus, Ukraine released videos of captured Russian soldiers which challenges Putin's claim that Russia had nothing to do with the conflict in East Ukraine. This puts new pressure on Putin to halt the "accelerating flow of military personnel and hardware" into East Ukraine. This is part of Russia's offensive against Ukrainian forces and in support of the rebels.

Despite being hypocritical, Putin continues to advocate for a cease-fire between the rebels and Ukrainian forces as perhaps a way to alleviate the stringent sanctions placed by the US and Europe on Russia's ability to tap into it's oil reserves after the annexation of Crimea 

What do you guys think? Is this another move by Putin to gain leverage like he did with the Crimea? Should the United States and other Western powers take a more forceful stance this time?

Should Schools Start Later for Teens' Health?

A little tangent from my usual content because I think this is relevant to all of us:

Pediatricians support many parents in pushing for a later start in the school day for teenagers. They say that making middle and high schoolers attend school before 8:30 "threatens children's health, safety and academic performance." Dr. Breuner states that teenager only get about 6-7 hours of sleep when they should be getting 10. On Monday, the American Academy of Pediatrics began calling on school districts to move start times to 8:30 or later.

Pushing school start times has its pros and cons. One benefit is more sleep. Increased sleep can decrease risk of car accidents and chances of depression and obesity while also improving performance academically. However, shifting start times would also require shifting after school activities and jobs. Additionally, elementary schools would still start at the same time, offsetting start times which might prove troublesome for siblings.

What do you think? Should school start later?

Egypt and the United Arab Emirates Team Up Against Islamist Militants

Twice in the past seven days, Egypt and the UAE have launched airstrikes on Islamist militants fighting to control Libya. The United States government was caught by surprise as Egypt and the UAE acted without informing the United States. Egyptian diplomats have been denying any involvement while Turkey and Qatar are firmly backing the Islamist militants.

The strike highlights the power struggle between the old Arab autocrats and Islamists in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have formed a block to exert influence over surrounding countries and to oppose the competing Islamist movements. Libya is the latest region of contention between the two sides.

I just wanted to raise a few questions:
Should the US constantly be informed about the operations and decisions of other countries?
The US is shying away from military intervention, but the United Nations and Western powers are seeking to broker a peaceful resolution. How extensively should other nations intervene if at all?

"Im Awesome"

A few days ago I decided to follow Rick Perry on twitter because of a few inspirational words he shared with the citizens of Iowa, "I'm Awesome". Nothing is more reassuring than a public figure's absolute certainty and belief  in themselves. While this phrase may be out of context, Perry continues to show his strong belief in himself and his actions as he battles an indictment by the Grand Jury. Perry is charged/accused of "coercion and abuse of official capacity" because he decided he needed to veto funding for a program associated with Travis County's District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. Lehmberg was arrested for a DUI in 2013. He took to twitter in order to explain himself and his video is reminiscent of Law & Order in which it starts out with clips of a severely intoxicated Lehmberg doing the infamous "walk a straight line" test and continues to show her resisting her arrest and a very disturbing clip of her being restrained. But then Rick Perry emerges out of a dark screen, reassuring Texas that he stands behind his decision.

 All of my obnoxious sarcasm aside, Rick Perry is being indicted for something that his position as governor gives him the full right to. But I think the problem is that his issue is with the Lehmberg, not the Public Integrity Unit, and his intentions are not to affect the PIU but threaten Lehmberg to resign. There is also "evidence" (which has not been released yet) that Perry tried other ways in which to convince Lehmberg to resign. This "evidence" has not been revealed to the public yet and the case against Perry seems to weaken as he becomes more confident in his decision. While his intentions seem shady, Lehmberg did show a disturbing lack of good judgment and ethics and Perry just wants to protect his beloved state from such behavior. DON'T mess with Texas.

Do YOU believe Perry's only intentions are to punish Lehmberg for her reckless behavior?

Please discuss the validity of the indictment, and also discuss Perry's cinematic gem found on his twitter (@GovernorPerry), or anything else that needs to be explored.

When Should the Line Be Drawn Between Our Military and Our police?

This past Monday, President Obama pushed for a re-examination of programs that have equipped law enforcement departments with military-grade gear. Obama stated, "There is a big difference between our military and our local law enforcement, and we don't want those lines blurred," This was in response to the recent use of police force in dealing with the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri where police officers were seen carrying military-grade equipment.

This raises the question, "Is this necessary?" Many argue that the police should be using a proportional response and that Ferguson is an example of overwhelming force, a military doctrine. However,there is also the argument that the issue lies not only with the use of military equipment, but the lack of training and discipline that is seen in the military. The desire to give the police maximum protection is understandable and the Posse Comitatus Act limits the use of military personnel in enforcing state laws except under the most extreme circumstances. Therefore, providing military-grade equipment to state police departments provides a way to circumvent the issue, but does giving a much less disciplined and experienced group these kind of weapons really help in keeping order?

The psychological factor of having armored trucks and completely armed police officers must also be taken into account. Won't this just aggravate the population even more?

What are your opinions: Is this amount of force necessary? or will it just escalate the issue?

Clay Aiken’s Congressional Race Opponent Dies

Photo Source: The Washington Post

Keith Crisco died today after an “accidental fall” in his North Carolina home. Former “American Idol” contestant, Clay Aiken, is running for NC’s 2^nd district. Clay Aiken was barely leading in the primaries, having less than 400 more votes than Crisco earlier this week. However, whatever the outcome of the primaries, there is still a very small chance Aiken would ever make it to Washington in the 2^nd district.

Incumbent, (remember all those advantages they hold? Like “the franking privilege” and more importantly name recognition and resources etc.) Rep. Renee Ellmers (R), has a relatively guaranteed reelection.

This video is an interesting look at the approach Aiken is taking both in trying to appeal to voters (candidate driven elections, remember?) and how he is trying to change his image so he will be viewed more seriously than his “Idol” persona. Based on the video, to what kind of constituents is Aiken appealing? Do you think this video is effective?

We know that it is easier to be elected to the H.O.R. than the Senate, but what do you think? Is there any chance Aiken could win the district—does he have enough credibility? Will his star power win the election for him?

Feel free to respond to this post or review and discuss any part of elections/Congressional topics below. If you’re on the blog tonight it means you are taking a break from studying … to read more about government and politics. Kudos to you! Or, if you’re reading/commenting after the test, congratulations—you made it through the Gov. Exam!

Happy studying and best of luck on the exam tomorrow!

Article on Aiken's general campaign

Article on Crisco's passing

NBA Formulates Punishment For Sterling

Credit: Ronald Martinez/Getty Images

NBA Says Donald Sterling Banned for Life, Imposes $2.5M Fine

I'm sure many of you have heard of the recent scandal surrounding LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling. Audio recordings between Sterling and his girlfriend show him to be a racist son of a gun who would prefer that his girlfriend not associate with black people.

People reacted strongly, with the Clippers demonstrating their disapproval during pre-game warmups for Sunday's playoff game. The NBA has reacted even more strongly, with a "lifetime ban" that would keep Sterling from having any association with the NBA or Clipper activity for what little is left of his old, decrepit lifetime. Additionally Sterling will be fined $2.5 million (the maximum allowable under NBA rules) and NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has stated his intention to see the NBA Board of Governors force a sale of the Clippers. 

Things aren't looking too bright for Mr. Sterling, but has the NBA taken appropriate action? Has the league gone too far? While I definitely believe that Sterling should be punished, stripping him of the team that he has owned for 30+ years seems pretty severe to me. What other ways could the league punish Sterling?

Turns out Syria is still a problem

The Syrian Regime missed a revised deadline to destroy its chemical weapons arsenal. 

I'm sure that phrase will warrant a collective groan from all the legitimate nations of the world. As you all remember, Syria, under the regime of Bashar al-Assad, launched multiple hideous chemical weapons attacks against its own citizens in March of last year. After US threat of military retaliation, the Syrian regime agreed to terms laid out by Russia and the US that dictated a planned destruction of its chemical weapon arsenal. As of today, that plan is behind schedule. 

Regardless, many experts are impressed that Syria has made as much progress as it has with the destruction. The real issue isn't that Syria isn't destroying chemical weapons fast enough; rather, the problem is Syria continues to USE chemical weapons. 

Reports indicate that Syria is continuing to use chlorine gas-filled bombs on civilians. Chlorine gas is not technically a chemical weapon, but its use would almost inarguably go against the agreement Syria signed last year in Geneva. 

Here's my question: Do you guys feel like Syria has been inappropriately out of the news lately? It is my contention that since the events of last year, the media no longer seems interested in covering Syria. If you agree that this is the case, would it be fair to say that the American media is failing it problem recognition (or agenda setting) function? Is Syria a bigger issue than Americans are currently regarding it? Let me know your thoughts. 

FDA Moves to Regulate E-Cigarettes

Credit: AP/Frank Franklin II

F.D.A Will Propose New Regulation for E-Cigarettes

The Food and Drug Administration announced plans to extend its regulatory oversight to cover the increasingly popular e-cigarette. The outline includes plans to prevent sales of e-cigs and cigars to minors, a prohibition that many states already enforce. Additionally, producers would have to register with the FDA to account for ingredient sourcing and manufacturing processes; currently there is virtually no regulation over what goes into e-cig vials. An important omission in the FDA's outline is a plan to immediately regulate the marketing and flavoring aspects of e-cigs, which have been labeled as an attempt to appeal to children.

Are these regulations warranted? Do they go far enough? Too far?

Net Neutrality Battle Heats Up

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler

Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

FCC fails to clarify new net neutrality plans

For those of you who don't know what net neutrality is, it's a pretty simple concept: all data should be treated equally. Comcast, AT&T, or whoever your internet service provider (ISP) may be, should treat a 10 GB file as a 10 GB file. It doesn't matter what that file contains or where it came from (so long as it's legal) – data is data.

Recently, Netflix and Comcast reached a very controversial deal in which Netflix will pay Comcast for more reliable content delivery. This pissed off a lot of consumer advocates who fear that costs will eventually be passed onto consumers, and may pave the way for future deals that will benefit ISPs at the expense of content providers and therefore consumers.

Earlier today, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler published a very vague blog post in response to allegations that net neutrality is coming to an end. Wheeler outlined the FCC's plans for net neutrality – he stayed away from specifics, but stated that "behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the internet will not be permitted." Many are skeptical of Wheeler's intentions, especially because he used to be a cable industry lobbyist, but so far he has been a vocal proponent for an open internet.

Is it fair for ISPs to treat content differently? Should the government step in to prevent ISPs from discriminating content? How will consumers be affected by deals like the Netflix-Comcast arrangement?

Chinese Labor Strikes Continue

Credit: Reuters

Worsening China Factory Strike Threatens Adidas, Nike Sneakers

A pair of shoes seems like a pretty simple thing, but there's really a lot going on behind the production process. Labor inputs are obviously a major component of that process, and for Nike and Adidas things are becoming somewhat complicated as laborers continue to strike.

Yue Yuen, the firm that owns the involved factory, is at odds with factory workers over a few things: 1.) wages – workers make as little as $1.67 an hour and they want a 30% raise. 2.) Social insurance – Yue Yuen has allegedly been skimping on social insurance payments that would benefit workers. A worker making $480 per month was really receiving benefits that were appropriate for a $290 salary.

As far as Nike and Adidas are concerned, they can facilitate production to other factories if necessary, so you can rest assured that your $150 Jordans will be in store without much delay.

Where do you think these protests are heading? Overarching labor reform for factory workers? A simple resolution between Yue Yuen and its workers? Ae these protests/strikes the most effective way to get a point across?

Keystone Pipeline Faces Delays... Again

CREDIT: REUTERS/LANE HICKENBOTTOM

Pipeline delay gives boost to Obama's political base

In a move that many see as an effort by the White House to rouse support for the midterm elections, the Keystone Pipeline has been “indefinitely” delayed so that the effects of the pipeline can be further studied. This is not the first time the project has been delayed. The State Department says that its decision wasn’t influenced by politics, but come on.

The delay is a victory for the many people who oppose the pipeline, and should help Democrats this fall when ⅓ of Senate seats and all House seats are up for grabs. Republicans are knocking Obama’s opposition to the pipeline with their usual job creation argument. But do we really need the jobs at the cost of potential environmental damage? What do you think about the pipeline in general?

Up, Up, and Away (The Rising Cost of Healthcare)

Hey guys, good news! The cost of health care is still growing faster than the overall economy, but it has started to rise at a slower rate: according to this New York Times article by Milt Freundheim, "Changes in the way doctors and hospitals are paid -- how much and by whom -- have begun to curb the steady rise of health care costs in the New York region. Costs are still going up faster than overall inflation, but the annual rate of increase is the lowest in 21 years."

Credit: Chris Howel. AP.

So, in conclusion, we have nothing to worry--WAIT CRAP. My bad! That article is from 1993. We still have a lot to worry about.

(Full disclosure: I fell for the same trick you just fell for. Check out this article by Eduardo Porter in the New York Times).

According to Porter's article, the cost of health care is currently 18 percent of the nation's GDP. According to The World Bank, the current US GDP is $2,475,781,990,521. That means we spend about $446 billion (with a "B") on health care annually.

According to this study done by the Brookings Institute*, health spending will continue to grow 1.2 percentage points faster than the economy in the next 20 years. Many experts are growing increasingly nervous, as the trend in spending had been downward before the last two years.


As the cost of health care goes up, spending on programs like Medicare and Medicaid will inevitably increase; that will require taxes to go up, or benefits to decrease. Medicare has apparently already tried to cut costs by using "cheaper generics to replace brand-name drugs" (Porter).


I've got a couple questions. 1) Why do you think the cost of health care has started increasing in the US? 2) Is 18% of GDP too much to be spending on health care? 3) Do you think that the rising cost of health care will (as I asserted) inevitably lead to cost increases in Medicare and Medicaid?


It'd be super cool to see other people bring in their own research/background knowledge: I'd love to see a comparison country by country.

*Here's a video of on of the Brookings Institute researches describing the study. The speaker, Justin Wolfers, asserts that "high-cost, pretty useless innovations" are what is driving costs up.

Cold War Part II

We're back people! Looks like the things are cooling off again. It has a lot to do with this guy:

Credit: Alexei Druzhinin/RIA Novosti Kremlin, via Associated Press 

No, that's not Dr. Evil. That's Russian President Vladimir Putin. You've probably been hearing his name a lot in discussions of Crimea—a region of of Ukraine he recently invaded.

Putin would probably argue with that lingo–"invaded" is a strong word. But I won't get into semantics in this post. I'm more interested in something else: the US response to Russian expansionism.

I'm going to define Russian expansionism as Russia (in this case Putin) attempting to gain both land and influence around the world. There's a really interesting article about it from a German Media organization here. I'm gonna borrow some of their language: "Russia is responsible for the protection of all Russians no matter where they live, comes the message from Moscow. That strikes fear into its former Soviet Republics - and reminds them of recent history."

Translation: Putin is using protection of Russians to justify interfering in other countries' business. Kinda reminds me of a man called Adolf and the Sudetenland... But I won't draw comparisons out of respect for the Godwin Principal.

Okay. Where was I. Ah yes. US response. Here we go: Obama is using a tried an tested US policy to counter Russia: containment.

Obama seems to think that there is no hope of salvaging the US-Russia relationship, and instead is vying for an uneasy tolerance. Is that the right call? Or do you think we should try to meet Russia half-way? (This might be a teaser for Chapter 19 in the Gov textbook-- I don't know if that's where we're headed, but if we're getting to it, Mr. Silton you're welcome for the segway).