The US and China were able to come
to an agreement on Wednesday on a joint plan to drastically cut carbon
emissions in the future, and inspire other nations to do the same.China
and the US are by far the highest greenhouse gas emitters, so by them being
able to come to an agreement on cutting emissions shows the rest of the world
that they are serious about the problem. Specific details weren't quite clear but the US says it “would emit 26 percent to 28 percent less
carbon in 2025 than it did in 2005.” That is double the pace of carbon emission reduction it
targeted for the period from 2005 to 2020. Meanwhile China pledged to reach its
peak carbon emissions by 2030 at the latest. President Xi also promised that
clean energy like solar and wind would account for twenty percent of China’s
energy production by 2030. Given the rough week for Obama, this Accord was a much needed success for him and the Democratic Party.
-Will this agreement make a difference? If yes,
how so?
- Do you believe this agreement could lead to improved relations with China?
A recent study has shown that fast food chains such as McDonalds, are 60% more likely to advertise to children in black neighborhoods than primarily white neighborhoods.
While it is no secret that fast food isn't particularly good for anyone, fast-food chains have much more success billing their product to low income families and, through the use of toys, children.
This study, while admittedly just a single study, has found found links between the use of these toys and kid's meals to target kids, and the racial makeup of the places in which this marketing is used.
A while back, McDonalds of India announced that they would supply books instead of toys for two months out of the year for the next three years. While this seems to be a step in the right direction as far as educational value, I don't see this as fixing any of the corrupt marketing practices that target our youth and in the long run harm their health.
How do you react to this correlation between race and child marketing? Do you think it is an intentionally race-based marketing technique? Or is it just a function of trial and error for marketing at the local level?
Either way, should fast food chains be able to use such marketing tactics to focus on children?
Does the use of books as toys solve this problem? Make it worse? Somewhere in-between?
Due to some recent court rulings (such as SpeechNow v. FEC), specific types of nonprofit organizations are no longer legally required to list the names of their donors, who can now indirectly donate much larger sums of money to the candidates/parties they want to support. These nonprofit organizations had a significant amount of influence on campaign money. In fact, CBS News reported that $145 million dollars were donated to midterm election campaigns by anonymous donors. One notable nonprofit organization was the Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, which used $12.6 million dollars on advertisements for Mitch McConnell. Political advertisements are still required to state who made the add, but in this case either the candidate or the nonprofit organization who directly made the add have to be made public, not the anonymous donors. People against these new practices protest the large amount of influence it gives to wealthier citizens and the lack of knowledge Americans have regarding "who finances who". Those who support these new methods argue that the organizations are nonprofit and regulated, so the money is used to support politicians' campaigns, not to give money with the intent to influence politicians to do certain things. Proponents also argue that this gives citizens more freedom to spend their money as they please, without corrupting politicians.
1.Do you think that nonprofit organizations should be able to help donors anonymously give large sums of money to certain candidates and parties? Why or why not?
2.Will less restricted donations give the Republican or Democrat Party an advantage? Do you think the Republican party received more donations in this fashion during the recent midterm elections?
3.In SpeechNow V. FEC, the Supreme Court ruled that curbing the amount of money someone can donate to an organization such as SpeechNow violated the First Amendment. Do you think the Supreme Court will eventually reverse or alter that ruling?
This past Monday a video was posted on the White House website calling for strict net neutrality in regards to the internet.
What is net neutrality? Well, to quote Neil Irwin of the New York Times Upfront, the difference between our current state of affairs and rules with Net Neutrality enforced is comparable to the difference between "cable and electricity" respectively. Whereas cable providers have the authority to charge you for different packages where different channels etc. are provided, when you pay for electricity you are simply paying to use it and the electric company has no power over what you use it on. The latter is what Obama would suggest the internet be classified as -- Net Neutrality.
Earlier this year video-streaming site Netflix made headlines by showing that internet service provider Comcast was slowing down service on their website. In response, Netflix has been making deals to provide faster speeds on their website. Not only would Obama's plan for net-neutrality outlaw agreements such as this one, but it would also outlaw providers ability to slow down certain websites.
Because this is just a statement and not by any means enacted law, it lies to the FCC to make any moves towards or against the President's wishes.
It should come as no surprise that big business and many Republicans are strongly opposed to such action. Their primary argument being one against regulation, which they believe will slow "innovation and job creation" (Rappeport).
Despite this a majority of Americans who actually understand Net Neutrality, an admittedly low 41.1%, find Net Neutrality favorable. Additionally, while Republicans in Congress have slammed Net Neutrality, a poll by the Internet Freedom Business Alliance -- a Net Neutrality favorable organization -- found that Conservatives actually agree with much of Net Neutrality. What they found was that:
"83% of voters who self-identified as 'very conservative' were concerned about the possibility of ISPs having the power to “influence content” online."
"83% of self-identified conservatives thought that Congress should take action to ensure that cable companies do not “monopolize the Internet” or “reduce the inherent equality of the Internet” by charging some content companies for speedier access."
What do you think?
Should the internet be subject to Net Neutrality regulations?
How do you react to Obama making this a national issue?
Is there really such a disconnect between Republicans in Congress and the conservatives across the country? Or is this just polling non-sense?
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®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
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?
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?
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?
(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?
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?
(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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
