Japan: Return to Recession

On November 15 (our time), Japan's Cabinet Office announced that the national GDP contracted by an annualized 0.8% in the third quarter. Stocks in Tokyo also fell by approximately 1% during trading early Monday.

This puts Japan's experiment with so-called "Abenomics" on the rocks. The "Abenomics" plan, named after current Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, is a large bond-buying campaign, in addition to structural reforms and stimulus from the central government. Overall, the plan has largely failed to boost economic growth. Experts believe that the government needs to step up its stimulus efforts, but this has been met with some resistance by central bank officials. The national government is expected to announce new policy measures sometime around January.

I don't expect many students reading this blog to be up-to-date on Japan's economy and policies in relation to it, but for those of you who are: Do you think Japan should continue the "Abenomics" experiment? What measures do you think the country needs to take to make an economic recovery?

Sources:
CNN Money
Picture: www.ft.com

France Bombs ISIS Positions

Last Friday on November 13, France was attacked by ISIS terrorists resulting in approximately 130 deaths.  As a response to the terrorist attacks, this Sunday French fighter jets were sent to bomb ISIS strongholds in Raqqa, Syria.  Officials have described this as a "major bombardment" due to 20 bombs being dropped on the initial targets.

Previous to the attack, France has been bombing Islamic State positions as a part of the "U.S. lead operation."  Now, France has vowed to eliminate the group as an addition to France's President stating the attack as 'an act of war.'  Yet, there has been no word regarding the damage inflicted by the French bombardment nor the amount of collateral damage.  It has only been confirmed that every target has been hit.

The US has been involved with foreign affairs dating back to the American Revolution.  With France's response to the recent terrorist attacks, it can only be a matter of time before the US takes action.  Not to say they already have.  How do you think America will respond to the ISIS attack?  What kind of influence will this attack have on US foreign policies?  Why or why not should the US be involved with Syrian bombings.  

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/france-bombs-isis-syria_5648ef7be4b06037734982c4
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/middleeast/france-announces-raqqa-airstrikes-on-isis/index.html

http://gawker.com/france-expands-bombing-campaign-against-isis-into-syria-1733246001

Syrian Immigrant was among Paris Bombers

In the midst of the investigation into the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris, France that shocked the world yesterday evening, French officials were able to match the remains of one of the suicide bombers who attacked the Stade de France to a Syrian passport that had been used to apply for asylum in Europe's free-travel area. The holder of the passport that was found at the stadium near Paris had reportedly been registered as a refugee on the island of Leros on October 3rd. Security Officials in Europe have been worried for the duration of the refugee crisis that operatives within the Islamic State would mix in with the massive assembly of immigrants fleeing Iraq and Syria. After last night's events, it would appear that their worst fears have come to fruition.

Immigration policies have been a hot topic in world politics in recent years. Many would argue (and have been arguing for a long time) that weak immigration policies in Europe regarding the refugee crisis could potentially lead to the rise of terrorist groups in certain areas, and that countries need to be very strict in their enforcement of border policies. After what happened Friday night, I don't think many people doubt that the decision to shut down French borders is a good idea.

This event has sparked even more debate over immigration policies in the United States. Many conservative pundits and news analysts have now stated that they believe we should do as France does and shut down our borders completely. I do recall that a few students in our class voiced their opinions that the United States should take part in welcoming refugees from Syria and Iraq into our country. Do you still hold the same opinions? As for your views on immigration policies, do you think that the French government is doing the right thing by attempting to close off the borders to the country? Do you think it would be wise for the United States to do the same?

Sources:
Wall Street Journal
Photo: The Hindu

Racial Tension in Universities

Across the nation, students from the University of Missouri, Yale, UCLA, University of Michigan, University of Oklahoma, Arizona State and many more, have been protesting due to concerns of racism.

Protests in the University of Missouri have especially become very intense due to the large number of racist remarks that have occurred at the school. For example, a white student asked Ms. Gray, a black student, if black people had greasy skin because slaves were forced to sweat a lot. On a separate occasion, Ms. Gray found a picture posted by her roommate of a black girl being lynched, which caused Ms. Gray to attack her roommate. Additionally, students started to smear swastikas on walls across campus, and there has been complaints and concerns in regards to racist attitudes towards the student body president, who is black. Many students were outraged, and thus, the problem then escalated to a point where black football players were threatening to Boycott football games. As a result, the president of the school, Timothy M. Wolfe, resigned from his position and urged everyone to "use [his] recognition to heal and start talking" (Source).

Likewise, at Yale, students have been protesting because they are claiming that the administration wasn't sensitive enough towards racial and cultural concerns during Halloween. Many of the students met with Peter Salovey, Yale's President, and addressed to him that the school did not attend to the needs and concerns of the minority students on campus. However, there have been dissenting point of views. Erika Christakis, a faculty member and administrator at Yale,  expresses her belief that students should be able to express what they want when she states, "Is there no room for a child or young person to be a little obnoxious... a little bit inappropriate or pro-active or, yes, offensive?" (Source).

At the University of Michigan, an Asian and white fraternity planned a party with themes of "rappers, twerkers, and gangsters" as well as the "back to da hood again" theme. This resulted in racial backlash because black students were not allowed to join the party or the fraternity. University of Michigan, however, is arguing that it's very hard for them to control and suppress these types of parties before they happen. Along with this, if the fraternity isn't letting people join because they're black, it's very hard for them to find evidence of this due to the fact that the fraternity will never admit that they didn't let someone in their organization on the bases of race.

The incidences of racial discrimination and insensitivity go on forever. The reason why these series of protests have erupted in universities across the nation, is because when students start to protest in one area, the compassion, concern, and drive for what they believe to be right, will spread to students in other places who will ultimately start to protest for the same reasons. Also, naturally, when people see a big crowd fighting for something, they will want to join in and fight for that same cause. One might even say that these protests are a cause of some sort of domino effect that has occurred in universities across the nation, resulting in a chain of outraged and passionate students.

Questions:
Everyone is racist in some sort of way, and not all the racism can be suppressed in the world. Do you think that the students protesting are fighting for a cause that can't be fixed?
What actions should be done in order to help ease the racism that occurs at universities?
What type of racism occurs at the universities? Systemic, interpersonal, institutional, structural?

Sources:
Photo
New York Times, CBS News, NBC News, Inside Highered, WBT

Guns In School, Safe or Insane?

Recent state legislation ruled that it is legal to bring a concealed gun to school.  Two weeks ago, father Kenneth Herman was caught with a handgun holstered to his person at Clio Elementary School, Michigan.  In response, school officials denied Herman access to school grounds.  Herman later sued and won his case.  It was said state law prevents people from "carrying concealed firearms on school property," however, "the law allows individuals with concealed pistol licenses" to carry weapons into schools.

The precedent used in Herman's lawsuit was a Michigan Court of Appeals decision which stopped a library group from banning the "open-carrying of firearms" on the library's properties. The school's District argued Herman misinterpreted the appeals court decision stating that the "ruling does not apply to school districts."  Yet the court judge leaned towards Herman's argument concluding that the creation of policies regarding weapons is  "beyond the legal authority of the school district." 

Now, Mr. Herman can go to Clio with his pistol holstered to his waist.  Herman states how he "hopes Clio school officials do not violate" the court's decision.

With gun ownership being a huge political and social topic in todays society, it is hard to recognize its constitutionality.  What do you think about the court's decision.  Should we, as American citizens, have the right to own a firearm?  Should school districts have more legal influence on this topic? 

Sources:

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2015/08/judges_ruling_allows_open_carr.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/us/gun-owners-concealed-carry-schools.html?ref=topics

University protestors create segregated "Safe Spaces"

In a move that fits the very definition of "ironic," student activists belonging to the University of Missouri protest group Concerned Students 1950 separated into seven different groups at a meeting at the school's student center, including six groups in which white activists were excluded.

On Wednesday night, supporters of the activist group gathered in the University of Missouri student center after poor weather conditions led to the cancellation of a planned protest march. At some point during the meeting, white activists were asked to leave the room. Activist Johnetta Elzie posted a tweet stating that the group was split to create a  "black only healing space." The segregated groups were also confirmed by activist Steven Schmidt and local reporter Jared Koller.

The backlash that ensued across various forms of social media reveals the strict divide in public opinion on the recent wave of college protests across the country. Upon reading this article, I was taken aback by how casually the activists seemed to dismiss the nature of what they were doing. Personally, I have absolutely no idea why a "safe space" is needed to discuss topics in the open, especially one in which students of a specific race are barred from taking part in. It would seem that these students are so absurdly afraid of the presence of opinions contrary to their own that they demand a "bulletproof" zone in which any criticism of their point of view is completely taboo. Evidently, the black activists felt that the presence of white students posed a threat to their way of thinking.

We briefly touched on civil rights cases today in class, and though this story is a couple of days old, I felt like it could definitely be brought up in class as a worthy topic of discussion. What do you guys think? Is the creation of "safe spaces" to shield oneself from opposing opinions a legitimate course of action? And more importantly, was this modern example of segregation justified? Do you feel that to truly protect a certain groups' line of thought, other groups must be discriminated against if the situation allows for it?

Sources:
Daily Caller
Opposing Views
Photo: www.opposingviews.com

Google Car gets pulled over for driving too slowly

In Mountain View, CA, a Google self-driving car was pulled over for driving too slowly on El Camino Real. An officer in the area noticed traffic backing up behind the vehicle, which was traveling 24 mph at a 35 mph zone. The officer stopped the car and "made contact with the operators to learn more about how the car was choosing speeds along certain roadways and to educate the operators about impeding traffic."

The Google Self-Driving Project posted about the incident on its Google+ page, stating that they had "capped the speed of our prototype vehicles at 25 mph for safety reasons. We want them to feel friendly and approachable, rather than zooming scarily through neighborhood streets." The page also stated that after 1.2 miles of driving with these cars, none of them have been ticketed.

According to the Guardian, Google's prototype cars are allowed drive on public roads, but only in 35 mph zones. The Mountain View Police Department responded, stating that "In this case, it was lawful for the car to be traveling on the street as El Camino Real is rated at 35 mph.” The department added, “The Mountain View police department meets regularly with Google to ensure that their vehicles operate safely in our community."

Furthermore, in a blog post from the Mountain View Police Department, Google cars operate under the Neighborhood Vehicle Definition per 385.5 of the California Vehicle Code, and that it was lawful for the car to be traveling on the street, as El Camino Real is rated at 35 mph.

A while back, there was an article about Google's self-driving cars and their problem of being too lenient and cautious. Is capping the vehicles at 25 mph a bad thing? What do you think about Google's reasoning for this incident? How do you feel about potential driverless cars in the streets in the future? What does this say about the time we live in, which is often considered the digital age? Do you think these cars a necessity? According to the official page, Google cars promote safety and allow people who cannot drive to get around. Will these cars encourage other drivers to be more cautious?

Sources:
Mountain View Police Blog, NBC, The Guardian, GeekWire, Official Google Page (and photo credit)

Supreme Court to hear a case about abortion

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a major abortion case, the first since 2007. The Court agreed to review a Texas law that has forced the closure of about forty abortion clinics and could potentially result in the closure of a dozen more. This decision is expected to be extremely impactful, as abortion has become a significant topic in politics and debates. The case concerns two provisions of the Texas law that imposes restrictions and requirements on abortion clinics, which was signed in July 2013 by Governor Rick Perry. One provision states that doctors who perform abortions are required to have admitting privileges at at a nearby hospital. Another part of the law states that all of the clinics that provide abortions should meet the standards for "ambulatory surgical centers," putting these clinics to hospital-like standards. Supporters of the bill claimed these measures were necessary to protect the health of the patients, while abortion providers responded that the regulations were expensive and unnecessary.

Texas's attorney general, Ken Paxton, stated that the law was designed to protect the health of Texas women. He claimed, "“The common-sense measures Texas has put in place elevate the standard of care and protect the health of Texas women. The state has wide discretion to pass laws ensuring Texas women are not subject to substandard conditions at abortion facilities. The advancement of the abortion industry’s bottom line shouldn’t take precedence over women’s health, and we look forward to demonstrating the validity of these important health and safety requirements in Court.”

Nancy Northup, the CEO of the Center of Reproductive Rights, praised the Supreme Court's decision, stating that "Today the Supreme Court took an important step toward restoring the constitutional rights of millions of women, which Texas politicians have spent years dismantling through deceptive laws and regulatory red tape."

What do you think about the Supreme Court's decision to hear this case? How is this going to affect the debates about abortion and for women? Based on earlier cases such as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, do you think that the Supreme Court will uphold this law? Why or why not?

Sources:
New York Times, CNN, NBC, NPR, Photo

Future Presidents Face More Problems Than It Seems

With the new presidential campaign approaching, our potential candidates have a lot to consider for their strategies.  In addition to pleasing the variety of political parties and interest groups, these candidates have the obligation to pursue their "political needs," says Jonathan Bernstein.  These political needs being that they pertain to what is needed to advance one's campaign's endeavors.

An example of potential candidates impacting their campaign including others is Bernie Sanders's  introducing a "bill of amendment to the US Constitution"(which is an amendment to the bill of rights) in an attempt to "'protect the integrity and fairness to the electoral process.'"  This is only one of the many examples how political figures are affecting the campaigning process and electoral decisions for both presidential candidates and voters.  Yet this specific example shows the amount of impact a single decision of a candidate can have on their presidential campaign.

Considering the President of the United States has a lot of responsibility, they would require a large quantity of the right skills to fit the position.  What do you consider are the most important aspects to a campaign?  What kind of political aspects must a candidate consider when running for president?

Sources:

• CNN.com
• Bloomberg View

Do we do enough for our Veterans?

On a day to remember our veterans, let’s all take a moment to remember what they have truly given up. When the “everyday” person thinks of what our veterans have given up, I would bet that they have sacrificed time, their life, or some sort of physical ability, which many Veterans do indeed do; however I would like to address the emotional damages many of our Veterans face though statistics, a personal experience, and discuss if the government is offering our Veterans everything they need to get back to everyday life.

After coming back home, many veterans struggle with getting used to everyday life as well as the emotional damaged they suffered on tour.  Did you know that one in every two United States veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan know a service member who has either attempted or committed suicide? According to RAND, at least 20% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have PTSD and/or Depression.  50% of those with PTSD do not seek treatment. Out of the half that do seek treatment, only half of them get "minimally adequate" treatment (RAND study).

Jamuel Breeze is a veteran who served two tours in Iraq and was just 18 years old when he deployed the first time. During his service, he had an emotional break down due to being away from home and being in a place where people wanted to kill him. He was put on suicide watch for three days, was put on medication and had to see a psychiatrist for the rest of his deployment. However, his emotional distress didn’t go away after he came home. Breeze soon faced financial and emotional crises. Luckily for Breeze he reached out to the IAVA (Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America). This non- profit organization helps veterans with emotional, financial, career, and educational needs/problems. Breeze stated that “after that phone call [to IAVA] I got five resources, three of which were fruitful to help me get a lot of things handled, helped me with financial hardship — it felt really good.”

After hearing about this story, I asked myself, why did Breeze go to a non-profit organization? Doesn’t the government have programs that are essentially just like the ones the IAVA offer for Veterans?

Upon some further research I discovered that the government does offer some benefits for Veterans such as the U.S Department of Veterans Affairs (which is a cabinet level department) which contains one of the better known benefits to Veterans, the GI bill (Benefits included low-cost mortgages, low-interest loans to start a business, cash payments of tuition and living expenses to attend university, high school or vocational education, as well as one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to every veteran who had been on active duty during the war years for at least one-hundred twenty days and had not been dishonorably discharged; combat was not required), job training, emergency hotlines, and service dogs (however the VA only approves service dogs for those who are blind and deaf; however this could change to include those who suffer from emotional trauma).

Questions:

Do you think that the American Government gives Veterans enough benefits? Why or Why not?

Do you think that the American government should offer more programs to help Veterans get a hold of their emotional problems? Why or why not?

Sources:

http://www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/19471/volunteers-needed-va-to-study-benefits-of-service-dogs-emotional-support-dogs-for-veterans/

https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/as-the-nation-pauses-to-remember-its-veterans-153527922.html

http://iava.org/programs/

http://www.veteransandptsd.com/PTSD-statistics.html

Utah judge rules to take baby away from lesbian foster parents

A Utah court judge, Scott Johansen, ruled to take away a baby from from lesbian foster parents and instead be placed with a heterosexual couple, claiming it was for the child's wellbeing.

The ruling involved April Hoagland and Beckie Peirce, who were looking after a baby girl for three months. The couple reported that they were hurt and distraught from the result of the ruling. The couple also mentioned that Johansen cited research stating that children "do better" when raised by heterosexual couples. However, Johansen did not provide any specific studies of that research in court.  Hoagland believes that the judge imposed his religious beliefs and that was a factor in his ruling. "We are shattered," she said. "It hurts me really badly because I haven't done anything wrong." Hoagland also states that the mother allowed them to adopt and had asked them so do, so the ruling was unfair. Peirce also added that "We have a lot of support." "DCFS wants us to have the child, the Guardian Ad Litem wants us to have the child, the mother wants us to have the child, so the only thing standing in the way is the judge."

A full transcript of Judge Johansen's ruling is unavailable because court cases involving foster children are kept private to protect the children.

The attorneys hired to represent the child are from the Utah Divisions of Child and Family Services (DCFS) and the Guardian Ad Litem Office. They plan to review the decision and possibly challenge it, stating that Utah law does not prohibit same-sex couples from becoming foster parents.

This ruling triggered controversy in response. Human Rights Watch stated:
"Removing a child from a loving home simply because the parents are LGBT is outrageous, shocking, and unjust. It also flies in the face of overwhelming evidence that children being raised by same-sex parents are just as healthy and well-adjusted as those with different-sex parents. At a time when so many children in foster care need loving homes, it is sickening to think that a child would be taken from caring parents who planned to adopt."

What do you think about the judge's decision? Does he have the power as a judge to make this order? If he was motivated by his religious beliefs, then is that an acceptable factor when making decisions? Why or why not? Should the couple file a lawsuit?

Sources:
Salt Lake Tribune, Human Rights Campaign, LA Times, Photo

Revamping of New Jersey Smart Gun Law

As technology becomes more advanced, so do our guns! A very popular innovation right now is the smart gun, which is essentially a type of personalized gun that has safety feature(s) that makes it so that only its authorized owner is able to fire it. The only downside of the smart guns, however, is that they're still being developed and none have actually been sold in any New Jersey gun stores yet.

13 years ago, New Jersey saw the potential benefits in smart guns from preventing accidental shootings, so consequently a law was passed that stated that all gun stores must only sell smart guns -- which the law says will start 3 years after the first smart gun is released. Furthermore, New Jersey believed that by passing this law it would encourage the development and research of the weapon. Ironically, however, the law is hindering the promotion of the smart guns because second amendment advocates are intimidating gun show owners from putting smart guns on their shelves because they don't want the three year countdown to be triggered.

Senator Weinberg realized this flaw, and is proposing a sort of compromise. On Thursday, she proposed a bill that made it so that all gun stores only have to sell one smart gun in their store. She believes that by doing so, the gun buyers can have a choice to choose between choosing the smart gun or a standard gun, thus avoiding any conflict.

Senator Weinberg is struggling, however, to get the bill passed because governor Chris Christie simply doesn't believe in the cause as a whole; the governor believes that they should just stick with the laws that are already on the books. Not only that, but president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, Alexander Roubian, called Weinberg's repeal, "Another desperate attempt to replace failed policy with more failed policy" (Source). He went on to assert that not only are smart guns expensive and unreliable, but the bill itself is unconstitutional in the light of the second amendment and the free market.

The Center for Disease and Control sited that a total of 505 people were killed by accidental discharge of a firearm in 2013, 30 of whom were under 3 years old. Furthermore, they believed that it is foolish to say that smart guns can't help our society avoid these accidents. They also said that there is an obvious use for them, as well as a need for them. Weinberg and her advocates also believe that New Jersey should invest its time and money in passing this new bill because this new law will save the lives of many Americans to come.

Questions:
What do you think about smart guns and their potential capabilities?
Do you think more time, money, and research should go into the development of the smart guns in order to get them on the shelves faster?
What do you think about New Jersey's initial smart gun law that made every store sell only smart guns; was it unpractical?
What do do you think of the new smart gun law? Do you think it should be passed? Do you think its constitutional under the second amendment and the free market?
Do you believe in the use of smart guns, or do you think the benefits of smart guns are over exaggerated?

Sources:
Photo
Guns, NJ, CBS News

Seaworld to End Killer Whale Shows

Picture of a killer whale in a Seaworld show.

Seaworld has announced that it will end the killer whale theatrical entertainment show that is held in its San Diego location. After the documentary Blackfish was released in 2013 portraying the cruel treatment of whales by Seaworld park, which results in emotional and physical harm to the whales and danger to whale trainers. As a result of this eye-opening documentary, public opinion of Seaworld has plummeted. Since its release, many celebrities have vocalized their disapproval of this treatment of animals.

During this announcement, Joe Manby, the president and chief executive of Seaworld, emphasized that this decision was reached strictly based on the feedback from the park's guests, not from the public outrage following the release of Blackfish. It's also important to note that other whale shows at Seaworld's locations will continue, and killer whales will still be kept in captivity. Seaworld plans on creating a new exhibit that "will be "an all new orca experience focused on natural environments [of whales]" (Guardian). This announcement was made a few days after California House Representative Adam Schiff said he would "introduce a bill in Congress that would prohibit the breeding, wild capture, and import or export of the whales" (NY Times). Prior to this, Seaworld was actually planning to expand its whale habitat until the California Coastal Commission banned the breeding of killer whales in captivity, which Seaworld believed was an "overreach of the agency's authority" (NY Times).

While this isn't a super political issue, what do you think about this new decision? Also to tie this back to jurisdiction and the executive bureaucracy from last chapter, did the California Coastal Commission have the authority to do limit the freedom of Seaworld to expand its whale exhibit?

Source:
Photo
NY Times, USA Today, The Guardian

T-Shirt Company Refuses to Print Pro-Homesexual Shirts

In this week's conflict, a t-shirt company called Hands On Originals, is refusing to print pro-homosexual t-shirts for a gay pride parade. The t-shirt company is claiming that they aren't refusing to make the t-shirts because the customers themselves are homosexual, but because they don't want to support the cause as a whole. The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization in Lexington feels like the company is discriminating against homosexuals and is violating their basic rights by not providing them service; consequently, they filed a complaint.

Two polar sides unearthed from this issue. A state agency asserted that the company must provide service to everyone and that it isn't allowed to refuse service to customers based on their sexual orientation. However, the Fayette Circuit Court stated that the first amendment gives the company the right to speak or not to speak -- which grants them the right to decide what type of messages are printed on their t-shirts. As a result of the complexity and significance of the case, it was sent to the Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals.

The Gay and Lesbian Services Organization feels like they have a good chance of winning this case in court due to similar incidents that have happened this past year. A few months back, an Oregon bakery refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple. After a long process of arguing the various perspectives to such a case, the court ruled that businesses cannot refuse any type of services based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot deny service on the basis of race, sex, disability, age or religion. As a result, the bakery was then fined 135,00 dollars for all the emotional pain that was brought upon the couple. Thus, the organization believes that they can use this previous case as precedent for their case. 

However, others believe, that even with widespread support, it's going to be hard for the Gay and Lesbian Organization to convince the court to force the company to print a specific message they don't believe in. The first amendment is one of the fundamental rights that our nation was founded and built upon, and in cases such as NYT v. Sullivan, we have seen how hard it is to infringe upon a party’s first amendment right. Even constitutional expert, Eugene Volokh, who graduated from UCLA School of Law, stated that, "Printers have a First Amendment right to choose which speech they will help disseminate and which they will not" (Source). 

Due to the many different perspectives in such a case, it is simply tricky in nature. In the past, some cases such as the Oregon bakery case have shown us that corporations can't always maintain their beliefs under the law, but in other cases such as Hobby Lobby, the court ruled that businesses have the right to maintain their opinions and should not be forced to do something that goes against their own beliefs. Due to these facts, there is no real certainty that the case will go one way or the other.  Ultimately, it's going to be hard to say with a hundred percent confidence who is going to win the case. In your opinion, who do you think has a better chance of winning the case and why? Also, do you think that the company should be forced to print the pro-homosexuality shirts for the customers, or do you think that they should be entitled to deny them sales under the first amendment?

Sources:

Photo

WND, LA Times, Rain Drop

More Information about Russian Plane Crash: Law Makers call for more Action from the Obama Administration

Evidence such as the black box recording which indicates that there was an explosion in the aircraft, the satellite technology that did pick up a flash of heat on the airplane, and the fact that ISIS declared war on Russia points to the fact that the plane crash was the result of a terrorist attack. Putin has made the bold statement that Russia is suspending all flights to Egypt.

Top congressional leaders (Capitol Hill Democrats and Republicans, including leaders in intelligence, foreign policy and homeland security) are expressing little doubt that ISIS is responsible for the crashed Russian airliner.  They are calling for heightened security as well as revamped U.S foreign policy.

Texas GOP representative, Mike McCaul who is the chairman of the House of Homeland Security Committee told Fox News that he has a “high degree of confidence” that ISIS did plant a bomb on the Russian airliner and that the plane did explode in midair on October 31 in the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt. He continues by saying that the Transportation Security Administration has been proactive in ordering additional security but that the Obama Administrations unenthusiastic efforts to destroy the Islamic State group in Syria and other places in the Middle East is to blame for the tragedy.

Schiff, a California Democrat, told ABC, “I agree that the president's approach basically has a battlefield that is pretty static and that more is going to have to be done”. Schiff also suggested that eradicating ISIS could take 15 to 20 years without ground support from such countries as Turkey and Jordan. He continues by stating “I … think that ISIS may have concluded that the best way to defeat airport defenses is not to go through them, but to go around them with the help of somebody on the inside. And if that's the case, I think there are probably at least a dozen airports in the region and beyond that are vulnerable to the same kind of approach, which is exactly why we have to harden those defenses”. The other law makers agree with his statement.

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein “really believes [that], we will fight (ISIS) now or we will fight them later”. On the subject of bombs she said “the kinds of bombs vary. The one I'm most worried about is the one that there have been four attempts to bring into this country.” She also states that she hopes that this tragedy is a major “wake up call” for the U.S and Russia.

Even though the U.S has about 50 Special Forces members in Syria, she simply says that won’t cut it.

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/06/middleeast/russian-plane-crash-egypt-sinai/ (videos attached)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/08/congress-make-bipartisan-calls-for-obama-to-step-up-isis-attacks-in-wake-downed/ (videos attached)

Questions:

How do you think the Obama Administration will react to the request for more action? Do you think Obama will send more special forces members over? Why or why not?

The evidence from the black box and the satellites point to a bomb exploding on board the plane, do you think this is enough evidence to conclude that this was indeed a terrorist attack? Why or why not?

Presidential Hopeful Ben Carson Standing Firm Amidst Media Attacks

Cover of one of Ben Carson's biographies.

Recently, Ben Carson has been under fire from the media and public for supposedly exaggerating or fabricating stories from his biographies. The retired Head of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital is depicted in his biographies as being raised as a poor boy with violent tendencies, who decided to turn his life around to become a talented and accomplished surgeon.

Recent investigations and questioning of Carson's childhood friends has failed to provide any evidence that Carson was a violent child, although in his biography "Gifted Hands," he recounts stories of stabbing and punching a classmate. He also claims to have had sheltered some of his white classmates in a science classroom during a race riot at his high school, but none of his interviewed classmates seemed to have been able to recall this heroic act. Furthermore, another inspirational story from his biography claims that Carson was the most honest student in his "Perceptions 301" class for being the only student not to walk out of the classroom when the professor conducted some sort of experiment where he told his students that they all had to retake their final exams. Records of this "Perceptions 301" class have not been found on the Yale records. Politico magazine also published an article disputing Carson's claim that he was offered a "full scholarship" to West Point, while records show that Carson never even applied to the school.

As the media coverage and stronger scrutiny of Carson's past continues, he is standing his ground. As a response to these claims by the media, Carson said, "Show me somebody, even from your business, the media, who is 100 percent accurate in everything that they say that happened 40 or 50 years ago" (Huffington Post article). Despite this, Carson admits that he may have gotten the name of the number of his "Perceptions 301" class wrong, but he still stands behind and reinforces many of these highly disputed stories.

While every presidential candidate is scrutinized by media, Carson seems to be taking more heat about his past than most others. Do you think that Carson may have fabricated many of these stories that can be seen as such inspirational points in his campaign? Also, how much does it matter than he may have embellished or exaggerated stories with regards to his ability to be a good President?

Sources:
Photo
Huffington Post, CNN, NY Times, Politico

Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Saturday accused Russia of endangering world order

Defense Secretary Ash Carter accused Russia of endangering world order due to their invasion of the Ukraine and their loose talk of nuclear weapons. Currently, the U.S Defense Establishment is looking for new ways to stop Russian aggression and protect U.S allies.

Cater stated that "most disturbing, Moscow's nuclear saber-rattling raises questions about Russian leaders' commitment to strategic stability, their respect for norms against the use of nuclear weapons, and whether they respect the profound caution nuclear-age leaders showed with regard to the brandishing of nuclear weapons".  This is possibly the strongest statement he has released about Russia thus far. However he then continues with the following statement: “[The United States does not] seek a cold, let alone a hot, war with Russia. [The United States does not] seek to make Russia an enemy. But make no mistake; the United States will defend [its’] interests, [it’s] allies, the principled international order, and the positive future it affords us all."

People speculate that Carter has made these statements is because over the past few decades, the U.S has dominated great-power relations. However with Russia (as well as China) reasserting itself through talk of nuclear weapons and the incursion of the Ukraine, the U.S may be feeling a bit threatened.

Carter then blatantly blamed Russia for stirring up trouble in the Middle East and Europe. He states that Russia has been violating sovereignty in the Ukraine and Georgia, as well as trying to intimidate the Baltic States. He also states that Russia has been “throwing gasoline on an already dangerous fire”. By that he means that Russia is only helping to prolong a civil war that “fuels the very extremism Russia claims to oppose”.  Carter stated that Putin really hasn’t completely thought through his actions in Syria and that his approach is “way off track”.

He then says that Russia is at the top of the United States’ list of security threats. Russia has reopened 10 Arctic military bases that were closed in 1991 and has been flying more low range air patrols off U.S shores. Due to these actions, Carter says that the United States is modernizing its entire nuclear arsenal.

Carter finally states that China is also on the U.S radar due to its growing influence and growing military and that they have sent our best naval, military weapons, ships, and equipment to that region. 

Sources:http://news.yahoo.com/carter-says-russia-china-potentially-threaten-global-order-214925712--politics.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ash_Carter

Questions:

Due to the amount of talk about nuclear weapons, do you think that another nuclear war will happen? If so when? At what point will it be taken to this level? Who do you think will ally with each other?

Carter states that the U.S has started modernizing it's nuclear arsenal, do you think that this is a lie, by which I mean do you think the U.S has just started or has it continually been modernizing nuclear weapons under wrap? Why or why not?

If you had to access the threat level to the United States at this point what would you say its at (0 no threat-10 huge threat)? Why or why not?

Chicago School District 211 Deprives Transgender Student

On Monday, Chicago School District 211 was blamed by the U.S Department of Education for violating the rights of a transgender student. The girl, who chooses to remain anonymous, wishes to have unlimited access to the girls locker room, but the school isn't allowing this to happen. The school believes that by allowing her unlimited access in the girls locker room, other students may start to feel uncomfortable. They made a proposal and told her that she could shower and change in the locker room, but it would have to be in a private area. The girl’s family didn't feel like that was good enough, and consequently through the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a federal complaint against Illinois Palatine Township School District 211.

To the girls success, Catherine Lhamon, who's the Education Department's Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, declared that, "All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities — this is a basic civil right" (Source). She continues by saying that the Township High School District 211 is not following the law because in July the U.S Justice Department ruled that “transgender students must be allowed to use the restroom that corresponds with their gender and that failure of doing this violates the Title IX of the U.S. Education Amendments of 1972” (Source). As a result, the District is being forced to allow the girl to have unlimited access as she pleased.

District 211 doesn't want to change its ways and they believe that “what they offer is reasonable and honors every student's dignity" (Source). However, the Education Department doesn’t care what the District believes in and is forcing them to grant the girl her rights within the next 30 days, or it will risk losing millions in federal funding. If they actually take away the school’s funding, it’s going to hurt the rest of the students. Do you think that is justified? Also, do you think that giving the girl full access in the locker rooms is a basic civil right, or a civil liberty that should only be granted only under certain circumstances? 

(Photo)

Hobby Lobby 2.0?

Protest as a result of last year's Court decision.

Earlier today, the Supreme Court decided to hear another case related to religious organizations and birth control. Clearly, this is relevant to the case we discussed in class Burwell v. Hobby Lobby from 2014. The Court agreed to hear seven different appeals cases from lower courts, in which there were conflicting decisions. They will be consolidated, and probably referred to as Zubik v. Burwell.

As you probably recall, as a result of the Hobby Lobby decision, religious organizations must provide proof of their religious beliefs in a letter or by filling out a form. However, some religious groups are arguing that even the requirement to fill out that form is a violation of their religious rights, because they are still implicitly allowing employees to receive birth control through a third party.

The Court has requested a combined brief from the lawyers of all seven cases. This case is likely to be heard around March of next year and decided by June. Do you think that these new cases present a valid argument? Do you think that the Court will decide this case similarly to Hobby Lobby from just last year?

Sources:
Photo
Washington Post, NY Times, Huffington Post

Obama’s New Trade Deal on The Fast Track

With Obama’s second term coming to an end, Obama tries to pass the 12-nation Pacific Rim Free Trade pact that has been in negotiations behind closed doors for over five years. The nations included are U.S (obviously), Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam and together they make up over 40% of the world’s global GDP. This pact (if it gets passed) is the highest-standard trade agreement in history. This trade deal has now been fully released to the public in hopes that the official agreement will persuade those who oppose it. People who oppose it range from Ford Motors to environmental groups and labor unions, and still do even after the release. Automobile manufactures oppose the TPP because it does not address currency manipulation, this can hurt American car companies because it enables countries like Japan to keep their cars at artificially low prices. Pharmaceutical companies complain because the deal only protects biomedical property for 8 years while in the U.S it is usually 12 years. Tobacco companies under this pact will have a harder time challenging anti-smoking campaigns abroad which can then hurt their sales. Environmental groups are opposing because it (under ISDS) allows multinational corporations and investors to bring cases against foreign governments over environmental, public health and other regulations (if they find that those rules cut into their profits) before international arbitration panels instead of U.S. courts. Leo Gerard (who is president of the United Steelworkers) stated that “the devil is in the details [of the TPP]” and that “[the TPP is] a knife in the heart of manufacturing”. However Obama states that “if you take a look at what’s actually in the TPP, you will see that this is, in fact, a new type of trade deal that puts American workers first”. The centerpiece is 18,000 tariff reductions on the U.S. These tariff reductions are on beef, pork, dairy, automobiles, and apparel which would open new markets for American exporters. However some of these tariffs would not be reduced immediately, they would be phased over several years. This pact also strives to extend copyright protections for high tech companies (such as Hollywood and Silicon Valley Internet firms). This part of the pact has the Motion Picture Association of America raving.

Obama has already formally notified Congress that he intends on signing the agreement, however he has to wait 90 days under the terms of the “fast track” trade powers. The “fast track” trade power gives Obama the authority to have the deal considered without the threat of amendments or filibusters.

Sources:

 https://ustr.gov/tpp/overview-of-the-TPP

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-far-reaching-trade-deal-would-lower-tariffs-on-meat-cars-and-drugs/2015/11/05/8e720580-83dc-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html (video attached)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/10/06/industry-labor-and-environmental-groups-gear-up-to-oppose-tpp-trade-deal/

Questions:

Do you think the benefits of this pact are worth its potential downfalls? Why or why not?

Do you think this pact will get passed in time? Or do you think it will fall into the hands of whoever becomes the new president?

Do you think Obama is trying to pass this pact to leave behind a legacy for his presidency or do you think he is doing this because he believes this is truly best for the American people?

Fox Lake Police Officer Fakes Homicide

Joe Gliniewicz, a police officer who initially appeared to be a martyr under the Fox Lake police department, is now viewed as a betrayer. On September 1st, Joe Gliniewicz was reported dead when his body was found severely wounded at a corn field. During the alleged crime, Joe Gliniewicz was shot twice, once on his bulletproof vest (which protected him) and another time around his torso. The dilemma, however, was that it wasn't very clear who pulled the trigger, due to the fact that the only piece of evidence found at the crime scene was his gun. Not only that, but a source in the investigation said that it wasn't clear who actually fired the gun. Additionally, after 150 investigators spent 25 hours looking into the case, they couldn't find any trace of a plausible killer. As a result, there was a possibility that what appeared to be a homicide, might actually have been a self-inflicted death.

After further investigation, investigators recently found out that Joe had been participating in money laundering and had been stealing money from a police department program that helped kids become law enforcement officers. Joe had stolen up to 50,000 dollars and was using the money on "personal expenses, including mortgage payments, gym memberships, vacations and adult websites" (Source). Joe, however, finally decided to kill himself when he hit problems with new management that scrutinized his Explorers fund. He expresses in a text to an anonymous individual, "If she gets ahold of the old checking account, I'm pretty well f***ed" (Source). As a result, George Filenko, Lake County Major Crimes Task Force commander, could confidently say on Wednesday that, “George did alter the placement of his equipment at the scene in attempt to mislead first responders and investigators to believe this was a homicide" (Source).

Lake County Coroner Dr. Thomas Rudd said that, "I think he knew there was the possibility of incarceration and his view in the community would be greatly diminished" (Source). Joe was not only trying to protect his reputation, but his family's reputation as well. Do you think that Joe's decision to fake his death was justified in order to protect his reputation and along with his family’s reputation? People who invested money in the program that Joe stole from want their money back. Do you believe they are entitled to the stolen money they had invested? Should there be some form of compensation? What do you think?!

Picture - (Photo)

Man Bombs Walmart for not Selling Mississippi State Flags

Early this Sunday, Marshall E. Leonard of Tupelo in Mississippi was arrested. Leonard was accused of bombing a Walmart, because it stopped selling the Mississippi State flag, in which the Confederate flag is clearly seen in the upper left corner. This man was noted to fly a four-foot version of the flag from his car and is know to be a strong supporter of it. Thankfully, the bomb only succeeded in creating a loud noise and did not cause any injuries or significant damage to the store.

Mississippi State flag.

This event raises the ever so prevalent questions surrounding the Confederate flag, and whether or not it should (or is it legal to) be banned in the United States, since to many people, it carries an underlying meaning of racism.

Since we are discussing Supreme Court cases in class, I thought it would be helpful to discuss relevant cases.

In the Supreme Court case Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans from June of this year, the Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that the State of Texas is allowed to refuse to offer a Confederate flag license plate theme.
This case considered two questions:
1. Do specialty license plates constitute government speech that is immune from any requirement of viewpoint neutrality?
2. Does preventing the confederate flag from appearing on license plates constitute viewpoint discrimination?

The majority opinion argued that license plates represent government speech, not personal speech because of its strong association with government. Therefore, if Texas chooses to not offer these license plates, it is not violating First Amendment rights to free speech since it is not suppressing the free speech of the individual but rather portraying the viewpoint of the government. This conclusion was reached using the Pleasant Grove City v. Summum case as a precedent. This case, decided in 2009, was relevant because it answered the question, "Does a city's refusal to place a religious organization's monument in a public park violate that organization's First Amendment free speech rights when the park already contains a monument from a different religious group?" The Court unanimously decided that placing a monument in a public park is a reflection of government and its speech.

Going back to the Confederate flag issue, Justice Alito disagreed with the majority. He argued that "Suppose you sat by the side of a Texas highway and studied the license plates on the vehicles passing by... If a car with a plate that says "Rather Be Golfing" passed by at 8:30 am on a Monday morning, would you think: "This is the official policy of the State-- Better to golf than to work?"

Obviously, there is no clear cut answer to this question of free speech and what exactly "free speech" even constitutes. Does the First Amendment apply to the Confederate flag? Does the government have the right to limit or prohibit the exhibition of this flag? What do you think?

Sources:
Bombing: Washington Post, CBS News
Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans: Oyez, Economist
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum: Oyez
Photo

Russian Plane Crashed in Egypt

Over the weekend, a Russian aircraft crashed in the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt. This crash killed all 224 passengers who were Russian tourists. Due to the tensions between Russia and Islamic State (There is tension because Russia is one of the major supporters (the other being Iran) of President Assad and the Islamic State wants him to step down), it is unsure of how exactly the plane crashed. While a U.S Defense Official with access to the latest intelligence on the investigation into the crash says that an explosion definitely did take place and that it is unlikely that it was a terrorist attack, but they cannot rule anything out yet. (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/03/pentagon-official-says-there-is-no-way-russian-airliner-was-shot-down/). However there is speculation as to the cause of that explosion, whether it was a plane malfunction, pilot error, or a missile/bomb attack.  Another source leans towards the fact that the crash was due to terrorism. Spokesman Mohamed Rahmi confirmed that no distress call was ever received from the plane before the crash. This source then leads the reader to believe that since there was no distress call, and that the plane went because of a terrorist attack. Also in this source they talk about how a Sinai-based Egyptian militant group allied to the Islamic State claimed on Saturday to have shot down the plane in response to Russia's military intervention in Syria in support of President Bashar al-Assad against rebels including Islamic State. However, the militants are not believed to have missiles capable of hitting a plane at 30,000 feet, and that there is no evidence to suggests that the plane had been struck from the outside. (http://news.yahoo.com/no-proof-plane-broke-mid-air-egyptian-authorities-135259166--finance.html).  Since this is still an open investigation, we do not yet know exactly what has happened.

Questions to consider:

·         What do you think is the reason why the plane crashed?

·         How do you think Russia will react? Do you think they will?

·         Do you think it is any of Russia’s business to support President Assad? Why or why not?

·         Do you think that President Assad would have stepped down by now if he did not have the support from Russia and Iran? Why or why not?

First Openly Transgender Cheerleader

This past week, news stories have erupted of Anry Feuntes, a 19 year old student at Denair High School in California and the first transgender cheerleader. Anry, formerly known as Henry, was kicked out of her house when she came out to her parents but has been receiving enormous amounts of support from her school and community. She stated: "I've gone to school here since the second grade, and most of the girls on the squad have been here their whole lives, too....So it's kind of hard, like 'Oh Henry'' (Source). Feuntes also stated that "It's so much harder to hide than to come out and be yourself" (source).
However, other schools have not been as progressive as Denair. For example, Gavin Grimm; a transgender student in Virginia, sued his school because of policies requiring him to either use a uni-sex bathroom or the girl's bathroom. (source). We live in a considerably liberal and accepting area in California, conveyed in Denair's district superintendent's response; "all kids are entitled to equal access to public education" (source). Do you think that Feuntes will be able to inspire change in the attitudes towards transponders? Many minorities have gotten their legal rights (women, gay/lesbians, african americans) through determination and gained support, are people like Feuntes (Cailtyn Jenner?) a large part of progression for transgender rights?

Photos-nydailynews

Obama Continues His Crusade In Criminal Justice Reform

Obama, as well has supporting Black Lives Matter and confronting drug issues, has been resuming his reforms on criminal justice. He stated in multiple weekly addresses ( 1video and 2video) that much of citizen's taxes go to unfairly jailing non-violent criminals (8 billion). He wants to create more programs to help shorten the sentences of non-violent criminals and give them a chance to re-pay their communities. In the past 25 years it has been reported that the population in jails has increased significantly ("all time high") (source). Many of these offenders also go back to their old habits after serving their time in jail. Obama wants a "smarter, fairer criminal justice system" in which offenders are given better opportunities (source). He has been reported stating that "too often the punishment doesn't fit the crime" of the offender and it wastes valuable tax payer money (video).
Obama has been specifically focusing on drug dealers and users in this crusade. He spoke at NAACP of his major concern in his "race agenda;" jailing/sentencing (relating to his public support of Black Lives Matter and his concern on drug use) (video). Obama stated that offenders of low-level crimes owe debt to the communities but should not have to give up 20 years of their lives (video).
Will this be effective in both punishing and helping lower level offenders?
Is integrating offenders (non-violent) into society (sooner than before) safe? Or does it depend on the case?

Photo- source

Student Scores Drop in National Test

For the first time since the federal government began administering national tests in 1990, mathematics scores declined for both fourth and eighth graders. This test, called the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), measures student achievement from some students around the nation- it is the only test of its kind that is given nationwide. The cause of this drop cannot be pinpointed, but these results raise questions about both the changes in our educational system and the validity of the NAEP itself.

There are many current changes in America's public education system. Demographic shifts are occurring, in which there are more students from low-income families and students learning how to speak English. The NAEP test results also continue to reveal the varying performance of children of different ethnicities, communities, and family income.

Some have also attributed this drop in scores to the implementation of Common Core, an initiative that attempts to establish consistent educational standards across the US and prepare students for college or the workforce (plus you probably encountered some of this standardized testing in the past year). 42 states adopted Common Core Standards with the incentive of qualifying for a Race to the Top grant in 2009, announced by President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Opponents to Common Core and NAEP argue that the Common Core curriculum and the exam do not line up, and that the inconvenient shift in curriculum is causing the drop in scores as well.

Others simply criticize the NAEP itself, claiming that its standard of "proficiency" is too high, and the test cannot adequately measure the ability of a student to be successful.

Do you think that the drop in the scores is cause for concern? Does more need to be done to fix our education system? Does testing like this provide much benefit, or is it just an ineffective use of time for students?
What role does Common Core play in this? What role should the federal government play in this, or is it up to the states?

Sources:
The Washington Post, Aljazeera, US News (photo from here)

Obama Announces Plan to Address Drug Abuse

This past weekend, President Obama traveled to Charleston, West Virginia to hear the stories of individuals and families affected by the drug abuse epidemic. Obama also heard from health care professionals, community leaders, and law enforcement officers on stage at a community center about how to prevent addiction and respond to it afterwards. According to a report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the rate of overdose deaths in West Virginia is the highest in the nation- over twice the national average (Source).

The President issued a Memorandum to Federal Departments and Agencies, which outlined the two important steps of training health care professionals who prescribe controlled substances and making treatment more accessible. Obama hopes to see Congress appropriate $133 million toward this treatment program, and he has emphasized how he does not want this to be a partisan issue, but that hope is not guaranteed. He also "told the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to invest $8.5 billion in opiate addition prevention" (Source). Medical provider groups and companies like Google, CBS, Major League Baseball have agreed to all donate millions of dollars toward PSAs about prescription drug abuse.

Obama's plan represents a broader shift in how Americans see addicts; that addicts should be helped rather than punished. However, not everyone shares this mindset and may not want $133 million appropriated to fight this issue. Clearly, the President has a crucial role in setting national priorities of issues to address, and has the informal power to get major companies to back this issue of drug abuse, but it is all up to Congress to decide what money should be directed toward this issue.

What do you think about Obama's plan? Is it a step in the right direction, or are there other methods or issues that should be touched on? What do you think should be done to combat the issue of drug abuse? Do you think that Congress will be able to successfully appropriate funds to this issue?

Sources:
Aljazeera, The White House, The Washington Post