Russia to Build 2 Nuclear Plants in Iran, and Possibly 6 More

Russia and Iran came to an agreement on Tuesday, expanding their nuclear cooperation by allowing Russia to build two new nuclear reactors in Iran. This is all part of Russia’s plan to insure that Iran does not build nuclear weapons. The nuclear power plants will operate under international monitoring. Iran will also have to buy Russian rector fuel, thus depriving Iran of developing the ability to enrich uranium in Iran. This approach has gained the support of many, including the International Atomic Energy Agency.

            Countries like the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia disapprove of the program because material given by Russia can be used to create nuclear weapons. Though the strong distrust of Russia is what may be causing these nations to disapprove of the program. 


Do you think this is a good plan?
Should the US trust Russia and try to build back some good relations?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/12/world/europe/russia-to-build-2-nuclear-plants-in-iran-and-possibly-6-more.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=third-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Republicans Are Going After Some Oil

Article Here

In last week’s election the Republicans gained a majority in the Senate furthering their influence. They wasted no time to try and push their agendas through though. Senators McConnell and Inhofe are trying to get the EPA to reduce its regulations on oil and coal. Even though the republicans have the majority, they do not have enough power to repeal some of the EPA’s effects themselves. The main agenda they are pushing towards is the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Gulf Coast. The pipeline will be pumping oil sands (which is oil that has been absorbed by the sands and is difficult to extract from) from there and introduce another source of oil for the country to use.

But for McConnell also wants to reduce the EPA regulations to help his home state of Kentucky. Kentucky is one biggest coal producing states and coal makes up a majority of their electric power. While Inhofe is one of the biggest supporters claiming that global warming is hoax. Despite the fear of Obama vetoing the pipeline will become a reality if the Nebraska court does not make a decision before they send the bill to him. Yet people are saying that Obama is not extremely opposed to it.

Should Obama veto the bill?

Are states like Kentucky entitled to some slack in EPA regulations?

How would the pipeline be beneficial to people?

North Korea's Sudden Change of Heart

 Article Here

North Korea’s Sudden Change of Heart

This week, two American prisoners in North Korea has been released by the country in thanks to Mr. Obama. The prisoners were Kenneth Bae and Matthew Miller. Miller was detained on the grounds of espionage. They reported he came to N. Korea ripped up his tourist visa so that he could experience a prison camp and report about it. Bea was imprisoned on the grounds he committed “hostile acts.”

To help release them, Obama sent a U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to speak with Kim Jong Un. He arrived with a letter from Obama to prove his purpose and identity. But this was actually the final step in the process. They had started the process two weeks ago and called Obama to discuss the terms of release and in that time they asked for a senior official

The U.S. has not given any reason(at the date of the article) as to why they had this sudden change of heart.

.

What do you think some reasons might be?

Would this be a first step in having peace with North Korea?

Will there be more correspondence now?

Could this change people's opinion of them?

Postal Service Hacked, could China be the culprit?

(Swollib)

While such incidents are becoming increasingly frequent, their impact on the lives of American's has not weakened.  750,000 employees, 2.9 million customers.  This is the amount of people whose data, including Social Security Numbers of employees, as well as addresses, phone numbers and more from customers, was compromised in a recent breach.  While research by FBI is currently ongoing, it is already speculated that, like in other recent attacks, hackers from the Chinese government are prime suspects.  While none of the data has been used for identity theft of credit card fraud, little is known as to why the USPS would be a target of foreign government agencies, however this information could potentially useful to aid in counterintelligence or on the ground operations.  This attack comes, ironically, at the time of Obama's visit to Beijing in response to China's growing economic and military prowess.  It would seem a highly relevant topic for Mr. Obama in his talks with China's President Xi Jinping would be cyber-security.  However Chinese officials still claim no involvement in any such acts.  While intelligence operations are carried out all over by many country's -- including the US -- it often seems that China is one of the only perpetrators to be caught.  As such, the US has sometimes been labeled hypocrites when it comes to these issues.

Is the US being hypocritical in condemning such attacks?
What should Obama's next move be in regards to relationships with China?
This one requires some heavy speculation, regardless; do you think there is any link between Obama's visit to Beijing and the attacks? 

Congress and the Federal Minimum Wage

                                                                             (CNN data)
A recent poll by CNN found that 90% of the Democrats polled, and 54% of the republicans polled, supported increasing the federal minimum wage (CNN data). As it stands right now the federal minimum wage, the lowest acting (technically Wyoming and Georgia have non-active state minimum wages of $5.15) minimum wage a state can have, is $7.25 an hour. Democrats in Congress have proposed raising the federal minimum wage by $10.10, but this has not been popular among Republican congressmen. As a result, voters been individually raising their states' respective minimum wages. By January 1, 2015 29 states, as well as the District of Columbia, will have minimum wages that are higher than the federal minimum wage (Huffington Post). Interestingly, CNN found that 36% of the people polled want the federal minimum wage to be increased to $10.10, while 19% want a smaller increase and 16% want a larger increase. While many Americans support a larger federal minimum wage, there does not seem to be a consensus on how much larger it should be.

1.Do you think the federal minimum wage is too low? If so, around how much higher do you think it should be?

2.What consequences could arise from a federal minimum wage that is too low or too high?

3.Given the results of the recent midterm elections, do you think it will be plausible for the federal minimum wage to be raised by a mostly Republican congress?

Why did the Democrats lose control of Congress?

(Mitch McConnell by Gage Skidmore)

In the aftermath of the 2014 midterm elections, it is relevant to ask the question; why did things happen the way they did?  History dictates that the incumbent president's party losing seats in their sixth year is normal, but not unavoidable as proven by former President Bill Clinton.  So what factors attributed to this years particular loss by Democrats and gain by Republicans?  There are a few obvious answers such as gerrymandering, however a many more factors were at play in this election.  As fellow Aragon blogger Cameron Jacobs posted 46.7% of voters claimed that Obama played no role in their decisions made while voting.  Despite this, President Obama said himself that this loss was simply a "failure" of politics, with no mention of why Republican policy may have actually been more appealing to voters.  Demographic shifts seem to favor Democrats, so could it really mainly be a factor of mobilization and campaigning?  As asserted in this article by Aljazeera, the Democrats simply did not show any passion or connection with voters other than they are "not Republicans."  This relationship is described as a function of being "tied to moneyed interests" rather than to the interests of some of their constituents who favor more progressive politics.  We also cannot forget the monetary aid provided by interest groups and PAC's.  Of such money, the majority went to Republicans like Mitch McConnell, (pictured) who was endorsed by the NRA among others.  With this reliance on unregulated donations through interest groups and PAC's to campaign, the possibility of reform has been limited in the coming years.

What do you think?

Do you agree with Obama that Democrats simply couldn't "sell" their policy? OR

Do you agree with Aljazeera's claim that Democrats are too tied to moneyed interests to be able to truly represent a more left leaning wing of their party?

What was the single most important factor to Republican victory in this election?

Loretta Lynch, Attorney General Nominee

                                                                      (photo source)
This saturday President Obama nominated Loretta Lynch for the position of Attorney General. Lynch is perhaps best known for dealing with civil rights cases that involved police brutality, a hot-button issue that has been under very close scrutiny by the US Justice Department as of late. At Lynch's introductory press conference Obama spoke very highly of her; "She has spent years in the trenches as a prosecutor, aggressively fighting terrorism, financial fraud, cybercrime, all while vigorously defending civil rights". If congress approves the nomination Lynch will be the first African-American woman to obtain the post of Attorney General. Hot Air, a conservative blog, claims that the White House is trying to quickly slip Lynch through the cracks as a nonpartisan attorney by stressing her equal treatment of corrupt Democrats and Republicans, as well as having a republican staff member. The blog writer also believes that the Obama administration wants to usher Lynch in before the Democrats who just lost their seats in the midterm elections hand the senate majority to the GOP. The writer and Republican Senator Mitch McConnell share the same view on this tactic: “Ms. Lynch will receive fair consideration by the Senate,” [Senator Mitch McConnell] said. “And her nomination should be considered in the new Congress through regular order”. Lynch seems like a highly qualified candidate, but should the future, voter-approved Republican Senate be the judge of the matter, or should the current Democratic Senate be the decision-maker?

Questions:
1.Do you think the nomination of Loretta Lynch suggests that the US Justice Department is eager to show they are prioritizing police brutality?

2.Do you agree with Hot Air? Should the "new Congress" be the judge of Lynch's nomination?

Obama Doubles US Troops in Iraq

                                                                (photo and news source)

Despite the White House initially claiming to avoid putting "boots on the ground," President Obama recently announced the addition of 1,500 more American troops, doubling the total amount of US troops in Iraq to 3,000. According to the Obama administration, these new troops will help train the Iraqi and Kurdish forces that are combatting Isis, but will not be directly participating in the fighting. In order to cover the expenses, the White House has requested that congress approve of an extra 5.6 billion dollars to continue operations like air strikes and help train and arm the Iraqi and Kurdish forces (1.6 billion out of the 5.6 billion dollars will be for the Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers' training). Another additional 3.4 billion dollars is also being requested for more covert-esque operations such as intelligence gathering and military advisers, as well as more basic needs such as ammunition and aid for nearby countries.  None of the newly appointed troops will be able to arrive unless congress approves these funding measures.

Questions:

1. Do you approve of Obama's decision to continue to put more US troops in dangerous areas of Iraq, even if they are there strictly for training purposes?

2. If carried out, how effective will the White House's funding strategy be? Should funding the Kurdish and Iraqi soldiers' training be a bigger or smaller priority than other actions, like airstrikes?

3.Will Congress agree to grant the Obama administration's financial requests?

Barack Obama and the Midterm Results

After the Democratic party performed dismally in the midterm elections journalists were quick to link Barack Obama's poor approval rating with the party's bad showing. CBS News noticed that the midterm campaigns that Obama became directly involved in (meaning he attended the candidate's rallies and/or publicly praised them) ended up losing races more often then winning them. But how much did Obama's public perception really affect the elections? Turnout for young voters is poorer during the midterm elections, and young voters generally lean to the left. Meanwhile older voters (who usually lean Republican), have had much better turnout results than the younger voters (43% of total voters for ages 45-64 compared to 13% of total voters for ages 18-29)source. And while the majority of the midterm campaigns that Obama directly supported did not win their respective races, the campaigns supported by Hillary Clinton, widely thought to be the favorite to become the Democratic party's presidential nominee in 2016, did not have that much better of a success rate. It is possible that voters did not feel good about voting for democrats in general because of their disapproval towards Obama, or that Republican candidates simply seemed more appealing this year.

-CBS exit poll: 33.3% of midterm voters claim to vote against the president, 20% claim to vote for the president, 46.7% say the president was not a factor in their decision

Questions:
1.How large do you think Obama's role was in regards to the GOP's success in the Senate and the House of Representatives?

2.Did Obama hurt Democratic midterm candidates by publicly supporting them?

3.How big of deal is voter turnout? Do you think the results would have been drastically different if 100% of eligible voters had participated?

TV Campaign Ads: Worth it?

Election day is here! Before the results come in, let's take a moment to go back to the campaign, more specifically TV ads. Today, Jimmy Kimmel put out this segment from his talk show, poking fun at the unnecessary amount of money used to produce and air campaign ads. This Washington Post article analyzes the rise in political campaign ads, especially in this past month. Candidates can spend over $60,000 just on television ads, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s independent expenditure program "has invested more than $60 million on behalf of Democratic candidates."  

I understand that in a society in which targeted demographics use television as a main source of media, candidates will want to utilize popular networks and times to air their ads. However, are things going too far? Take into consideration this quote from the Washington Post article: " $80 million out of $111 million spent on broadcast television on congressional campaign ads has been wasted on viewers outside the intended district, according to an analysis by the GOP technology and media-buying firm Targeted Victory." Likewise, networks are making huge sums of money due to these ads, and some even replace popular shows with "political newscasts" in order to rake in as much net profit as possible. 

What do you think?

Is it fair in a political race to allow this kind of spending on TV ads?

Should networks be re-arranging their set in order to accommodate political ads and programs?

As Midterm Elections approach, a "Flurry of Campaigning" ensues

This Washington Post article outlines the importance of voter turnout, especially for the Democratic Party in the upcoming elections of Tuesday. According to the article, 17 million people have already cast their votes early, However, there are a number of "middling senate candidates." What it comes down to now are the get-out-the-vote efforts of the Democratic Party, especially regarding the black community in the south. For a refreshment on voter turnout and midterm election voting trends, here is an article by the Pew Research Center.

Democratic Party representatives visited majority-black churches and communities, and ministers and church leaders encouraged congregations to vote and spread the movement. On the Republican side of things, representatives have likewise been visiting communities for last pushes to solidify predicted wins. For one Independent candidate, Greg Orman, efforts have been made to increase turnout for unaffiliated voters.

Do you think these last efforts will increase voter turnout this year?
What are other ways candidates could encourage more people to vote in Midterm Elections?
Thoughts on the results of the election?

Obama Ramping Up on Women's Rights

Link

Obama went to Rhode Island to deliver a speech regarding the inequality women face in their working lives. He tried to make the speech personal by citing the experiences his mother and grandmother faced while he was growing up. He also said since he was a father of 2 daughters that “this is personal." Then he transitioned into promoting his healthcare from the topic that single women who are working hard need good health care. He claimed that the bill will stay even though the republicans are trying to strike down the bill. In addition to all of the promoting he spoke alongside the democrat’s choice for running in Rhode Island for governor Gina Raimondo.

Do you think encouraging Women’s rights is a ploy to get the candidate selected?

Does it make the democratic party look more favorable?

Was Obama’s plug subtle?    

...AND THE GIANTS WIN THE WORLD SERIES!

According to this article by the Las Vegas Review Journal, World Series cities spend just as much money accommodating the World Series as it makes. So, especially for losing cities, that's both a baseball loss and a financial loss.


The Giants emerge victorious in the 2014 World Series! To add an insight to the influence of this win, here is an article discussing the economic impact of this win. According to the article, "During two World Series games in October 2012, baseball fans added at least $17.3 million to the local economy," as estimates by the San Francisco Travel Association. Between merchandise, tickets, increases public transportation usage, and other heightened activity due to the world series, I can imagine the huge influx of money into the economy of teams' home cities. What I wonder is how much money do cities lose, especially losing cities?

In what other way do cities benefit or lose when sending a team to the World Series?
How do you think this win is going to affect SF's economy this year?

The Price of Greek Life

This NY Times article takes an in-depth look at the cost of sorority membership, even past the initial chapter and pledge fees. Personally, I've never really considered myself a "sorority" type, and don't plan to rush sororities in college. However, since college is (probably) looming in the nearby future, I thought this might be an interesting subject to touch on.

According to the article, sorority members are fined for various membership "obligations," like "non-resident house and parlor fees, " dues, and required sorority merchandise (pin and "letter jersey"). Adding on the pressures of chapter social events and the stigma (and sometimes financial cost) of not attending these events, greek life seems to take its toll both time-wise, energy-wise, and money-wise. From what I can gather, the average sorority sister can spend a couple thousand dollars per year just on additional fees. This article from the Daily Pennsylvanian gives good charts and images breaking down this cost. Honestly, this "attend-or-pay" kind of obligation freaks me out a little, almost as if sorority members are being forced into this image of socially active, charitable, happy members of society. I guess most members want to participate in these activities anyway, but I would feel restricted if I was required to attend and fined for being late or not showing up. Maybe I'm being too cynical because I tend to reject anything that I feel impedes on my freedom of choice in any way... but then again, maybe not?

For 18-24 year old students (introduced to the greek scene as "'starry-eyed' freshmen"), especially those who are financially needy, this sorority system seems a little discriminatory. Plus, from the language of the NY Times article, it seems like many student put this financial burden on their parents. However, the benefits of joining sororities should also be accounted for as part of this "cost." "Big" sisters spend a good chunk of money on "little" sisters, and having an almost automatic community and support system at a big university sounds pretty appealing to young students. From what I've heard from friends and family, greek life can be a pretty great way of transitioning into college, and many life-long friends come out of living with your "sisters" for years and years.

Do you think joining a sorority is worth it, considering the costs and benefits?
Should fees for not attending events be allowed?
Some chapter have instituted caps on the money allowed to be spent on "little" sisters... what are your thoughts?

New Programs for Underprivileged Students In The Works

Article

Statistics were showing that more and more underprivileged students having been falling through the cracks of the educational system, and now some states have decided to take action. Some states are making programs for kids in high school during their junior year to get help for taking the SAT. This new effort is being led by Bloomberg Philanthropies who want to change the statistic that 1 in 3 top performing kids from underprivileged backgrounds attends college to 1 in 2 top- performing kids from underprivileged attend college within 5 years. To do this they are going to employ more college counselors and part time employ college students from similar backgrounds to help with application and to serve as an example. In addition they are also going to receive 4 application waivers for college. They are going to try and help them receive as much financial aid and guide them in a direction in where they will not be drowned in debt for college. Yet the efforts they are making right now will only reach about 5% of all students from the bottom half.

Do you think this is the correct approach to assist kids?

Will there be more competition between students?

Would bringing affirmative action be a better choice?

Should they start at a younger age and grade?

*additional information:

Dallas Airport Fight Caught On Video As Crowd Takes Down Angry, Ranting Homophobe

(Language Warning)

Article

                  Last week at the Dallas International Airport, a video was captured of a ranting man taken down by a crowd, after he physically and verbally assaulted a man he believed to be gay. The man shouted many expletives at the victim before he kicked him and punched him in the head. A few members of crowd took this chance to intervene, and brought the man to the ground. Airport police proceeded to put him in cuffs and take him away. When being cuffed, he attempted to explain himself, "Let me tell you the reason why I did it: Because this is America, that's why". 

                   While any form of assault is obviously not acceptable, I feel that the fact that members of the crowd intervened in the fight was very promising, especially in a state like Texas that has been known to have pretty anti-same sex marriage sentiments and anti gay rights sentiments in general. This shows the progression of gay rights, as 20, maybe even 10 years ago, the chances of bystanders intervening in a fight like this was way less likely. This also shows, that even though a state may oppose same sex marriage on a statewide level, there maybe a lot of supporters of same sex marriage on the inside.


Questions: Since it is clear that there maybe more supporters of gay rights in Texas than expected, will Texas be one of the next states to recognize same sex marriage?

The article mentions that there was no official police report provided. How likely is it that this assault was charged as a hate crime?


                

Government recognizes same sex marriages in six new states

Article

                    On Saturday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the federal government would be recognizing same sex marriage in six new states. Couples in Alaska, Idaho, North Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming now qualify for the social security and social insurance. This comes just a week after same sex married couples in seven other states received federal recognition. That makes the current number of states with federal recognition of same sex marriage 32. To put the rapid increase of federal recognition into perspective, around two weeks ago, the number of states that had federal recognition was just 19.

                     Experts believe that it is likely that this rapid increase will come to a stand-still. The remaining states that have not received federal recognition have defended their bans. However, some of the states that have recently received recognition were states that also defended bans. This recent trend of recognition is very promising and I think there is a bright future for same sex marriage, even in states that are currently defending their bans. 

                      While these recognitions are obviously a step in the right direction, I believe there is still a bigger problem. While gay marriage is recognized on the state level, I believe a problem still lies in the local level, where gays are still discriminated against in their everyday lives. Just two days ago, the daughter of the mayor of Houston had trouble receiving her driving license because she listed that she had two mothers on her application.


Questions: Will current trends of federal recognition continue and oppose the predictions of experts? Or will the increase reach a stand-still?

What could be some possible ways to convince states that are defending their bans?

Despite impressive carbon emission legislation, the law isn't as effective as previously thought

Article, By Evan Halper, Ralph Vartabedian, LA Times



Four Corners Power Plant in New Mexico, from original article at LA Times by Evan Halper, Ralph Vartabedian.

The new carbon emissions law requires the state of California to cut carbon dioxide emissions back to 1990's levels by the year 2020. Carbon dioxide, the gas scientists have labeled as the reason for global warming, is released during the burning of fossil fuels. To meet the new requirements many California Energy Companies have sold their stakes in energy companies hundreds of miles out of the state such as the Four corners Plant in New Mexico. (Although California sold it's stake, the power now goes to an Arizona costumer instead)

However, even though California is relinquishing control of its share of the factories power, that doesn't mean that the plants can't now sell that power to other states. After all, California has no power over the interstate commerce of other states. So technically, just because California isn't buying the power, it doesn't mean the coal isn't being burned for the purposes of other western states which leads to no reduction of emissions.

For years California has been relying on cheap coal generated power in other states such as Nevada and Utah for one third of it's total power and now many utility companies are severing connections right and left in attempts to meet the mandate. Environmentalists argue Californians should be doing more to make sure energy companies not only stop buying the electricity from the plants, but also cut down on the pollutants coming from the plants themselves.

Governor Jerry Brown argues that by making such a bold move California utilities could upset the fragile interstate trade system as we know it.

Although the success of the law can be truly only be tracked on paper do you think that it will eventually have a positive impact on carbon dioxide emissions?

California has stricter carbon dioxide emission legislation than many western states, why do you think this is?

California is the most populous state in the nation, if we are cutting back on energy imports, how do you think that affects the energy market as a whole?

Washington state high school shooting, when will the violence end?

Last Friday, a school shooting occurred at Marysville-Pilchuck High School in which an alleged armed student, shot 5 of his "friends"and himself. Ultimately killing one of the students and also killing himself. The gunman, Jaylen Fryberg, the Homecoming Prince and a freshman on the football team was described by his fellow peers as popular and as having a lot of friends.

The 5 students he shot had serious head injuries, and were either in serious or critical condition. One of the victims Gia Soriano, seems to be in very poor condition. According to more than 100 eye witnesses, the shooting occurred near the cafeteria and as soon as the first shot was fired many of the students began pushing through the doors in a desperate attempt to escape the assailant. Those who he shot were confrimed as friends of Fryberg.

According to friends of Fryberg, he had been bullied in his science class for being "Native" (reference to Frybergs race), and one of Fryberg's class mates had said on the Thursday before the shooting, that Fryberg "seemed mad, had his head down the whole time, [and] didn't really talk". In fact, in the months leading up to the shooting Fryberg had posted dark, ominous messages on his Twitter account foreshadowing the incident.

Police confirmed that the ".40 caliber handgun" had been legally acquired and refused to give further information. The way in which Fryberg obtained the handgun and concealed the weapon is still up for speculation.

For America, gun control has been a hotly debated subject over the past couple years and has gained a spot on the Democratic party's agenda. Even though the weapon was legally acquired I would say that it obviously wasn't well looked after and that this situation could have been avoided Fryberg's parents had kept better track of the weapon and their son's well-being. However, the real question is: How many more school shootings is it going to take for people to relinquish their right to bear arms?

Do you think that this will just be looked at as another school shooting or could this be a catalyst for gun reform?

Why do you think that the Republican platform is adverse to reforming gun laws and amending the constitution to accommodate for said gun laws? Is it the right to protect one's property, or is it something deeper?

New quarantine rules considered for aid workers returning to U.S. from Ebola-stricken region

Article

                 Hours after a health care worker in New York tested positive for Ebola, the federal government has finally considered a mandatory quarantine for health care workers returning from West Africa. These new quarantine rules are in response to the diagnosis of Craig Spencer, a health care worker who returned from Guinea on Tuesday. Even though he felt some symptoms, he still took a 3 mile jog and even rode 3 different subway lines, and was only taken to the hospital on Thursday. Spencer is currently in isolation at Bellevue Hospital. Anyone returning from West Africa would be subject to screening at John F. Kennedy and Newark Liberty International airports, and public health officials at the airports would decided whether the person would need to be quarantined or not. 

               

                This is not the first time someone returning from West Africa was simply sent home. Thomas Eric Duncan, the first person in the U.S. diagnosed with Ebola, was sent home from a hospital with only antibiotics. He even had contact with dozens of elementary school children before he was finally diagnosed. Another two nurses in Texas were diagnosed with Ebola, but both were recently declared Ebola free. Craig Spencer's diagnosis was only the fourth in the United States and the first outside of Texas

Questions: Would simply closing our borders be a viable way to fight Ebola? What about closing our borders to only African countries?

The article states that health care workers would decide who would be quarantined. Is it reasonable to quarantine everybody returning from West Africa?

Survivor Benefits Denied to Widow because Same-Sex Marriages Aren't Recognized in Texas, Federal Suit to Follow

NY Times Article, by Erick Eckholm, 10/22/14

Kathleen A. Murphy (62) and her spouse were married in Massachusetts, however, she became a widow when her wife passed away in 2012 from cancer. Last year, Ms. Murphy applied for the typical benefits any married couple receives after the death of a spouse, but because it was a same-sex marriage, Ms. Murphy was denied the rights to these benefits by the state of Texas.

The state of Texas argues that because Texas doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, even those from other states, they have the right to refuse Ms. Murphy's the money because the state of Texas doesn't have them listed as a married couple. The SSA states that it is bound to providing insurance to couples based on the residence at the time of death not based on where the marriage actually took place (Massachusetts). Ms. Murphy has made an appeal to the Supreme Court who will review her case. In their defense, the SSA has made a statement that they are bound by law to "follow state law in Social Security cases".

After doing some research on the Social Security Administration's website, I found that Ms. Murphy was eligible for a $225 dollar lump-sum for her wife's death, and because she was over 60 but under full retirement age she was eligible to receive 71-99% of "the workers basic benefit amount" (Social Security Administration Handbook).  Also, check out the original article (link at the top), for an accurate graphic of nationwide recognition of same-sex marriages.

Joining Ms. Murphy in the lawsuit as a plaintiff is the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. The committee came out with a statement defending Ms. Murphy, saying that the laws in the state of Texas give the idea that "valid [same-sex] marriages are unworthy of federal recognition and equal treatment".

Questions:

Do you think Texas is being unfair in it's decision to deny benefits, or do you think the law is justified?

Do you think Ms. Murphy will win her case or will the law be ruled constitutional? Why?

Shots Fired inside Canadian Parliament Building

Article

          Just hours after Canada raised its terror threat level responding to another attack on a Canadian soldier, two soldiers on guard at a war memorial in Ottawa came under fire from a man carrying a rifle. One of the soldiers, Cpl Nathan Cirilo died of his injuries. The shooter then continued into the Parliament building, where he engaged in a shootout with police during which he was shot dead. The city was placed on lock down immediately after the shooting. While it is not confirmed, it is likely that these attacks are related to Canada's decision to join a U.S. led coalition against ISIS.

           Prime Minister Steven Harper said the attacks would only strengthen the Canadian resolve and their fight against terrorism. He was quoted saying that there was "[The terrorists] will have no safe haven". In a telephone call, Barack Obama reaffirmed the alliance between the two nations and condemned the attacks.

Questions: ISIS has threatened multiple attacks on North America and other nations who are in the US led coalition. Is this the first of many attacks on North America? How can the U.S. and other allies help prevent attacks similar to this one?

Latinos angry with the lack of immigration reform may sit out during midterm elections, hurting Democrats.

Latinos upset with the lack of immigration reform passed and created during Obama's second term threaten to avoid the polls this midterm election in November, because they feel that no matter who is elected, the politicians will ultimately ignore the Latino demographic's interests. In the article by Mark A. Barabak from the LA Times(ARTICLE HERE), he cites that Obama failed to do the overhaul he promised back in 2012 to push immigration reform even "acting without congress if necessary".

By losing the vote of Latinos, a very Democratic leaning group, the Democratic party will have a harder time holding onto the Senate, limiting losses in the House, and winning gubernatorial seats in various states. Latinos are upset because they feel Obama has broken promises made to their community. (But that's not unlike many other politicians who promise reform! Amirite?) There seems to be a tinge of irony to the Latino sentiment however; I would argue that by deciding to not vote in midterm elections, the likelihood of having immigration reform passed anytime soon is meek because the Latino vote is vital to the success of many Democratic candidates running for congress. Obama responded to criticism by saying that Latino activists and lawmakers must 'talk to [their] constituents and communities and [they] got to get [Latinos] to go out and vote'.

Food for thought:

In your opinion, what else on the Democratic agenda takes precedence over immigration reform?

Do you think this may cause some Latino voters to defect to a Republican candidate who is able to garner their attention?

Do you think Latino voters are being irrational by not voting in the midterm elections or are their grievances a rational reason to abstain?

American Jeffrey Fowle Released From North Korea and Flies Home on US Jet

Article

       Just weeks after rumors of a possible coup in North Korea following Kim Jong Un's mysterious disappearance from the public eye, the country abruptly released one of three Americans currently held in North Korea. Jeffrey Fowle, shown above, was awaiting trial on charges of proselytizing (attempting to convert someone from one belief to another) after he left a Bible in a nightclub in Chongjin. A Defense Department airplane landed in Pyongyang's International Airport to carry Fowle out of the country. While the release of Fowle was welcomed by the State Department, it also urged North Korea to release the two other Americans currently being held: Kenneth Bae and Matthew Miller. Kenneth Bae is a former Korean-American missionary who was detained after suspicions that he was fueling anti government activity. Miller was convicted of espionage. The North Korean supreme court ruled that he entered North Korea in an attempt to experience prison life and get an inside look at North Korea's human rights violations, and sentenced Miller to 6 years of hard labor. 

             Since the U.S. does not currently have any sort of diplomatic relations with North Korea, Sweden was largely responsible for negotiating Fowle's release. 

Questions: What are some possible reason for the release of Fowle? Is North Korea possibly trying to improve relations with the U.S. after Kim Jong Un's apparent health issues?

Does this release signal a possible change in North Korea's foreign policy, or will they continue their annual antics and threaten more nuclear launches?

Halloween Costumes Are Sexualizing Our Youngest Trick-Or-Treaters

(Courtesy of Raina Delisle, Huffington Post, Halloween Costumes Are Sexualizing Our Youngest Trick or Treaters, October 18th,

As Halloween season heats up and children and all over the country begin picking what they would like to dress up as for this spooky holiday, Raina Delisle a writer at the Huffington Post, wrote an article about why she is fed up with the way Halloween costumes seem to objectify even the youngest age group of trick-or-treaters.

According to Delisle, when she went to pick out a firefighter costume with her 4 year old daughter she was appalled with the female costume because it over sexualized preschoolers. The boys' costume constituted a traditional bright red jacket, complete with a plastic hat and fake axe, while the female costume was a short, black, shimmery, most likely flammable, dress and a lacey, miniature hat (pictures of both costumes are included above). Delisle is upset with the image this conveys to young women and stated that: ''while boys have costumes that look like the real thing, girls are expected to dress up in spoof ensembles, thus suggesting that they can't, or shouldn't do the real job'' (Huff Post, Raina Delisle). Personally, I believe this isn't an over exaggeration or just another part of the "feminist agenda", but that these costumes do hurt the self-esteem and confidence of young girls. I think young girls shouldn't be mocked for aspiring to professional and serious careers such as nursing and police work just because those careers have been over sexualized by the media.

When was the last time you saw a firewoman rescuing a burn victim in a sequined skirt? Never. So why do we allow this image to pervade the minds of our youth?

Do you think that the upset over these costumes is rational? Or is it all just an over reaction to something very harmless?

What do you think of these particular costumes?

Any personal experiences which helps support or refute the idea that Halloween costumes influences self-confidence?