US airstrike on a Doctors without Borders hospital in Afghanistan attributed to "human error"

According to a 3000-page investigative report on the Oct. 3rd attack on the medical charity Doctors Without Borders, the verdict was that the U.S air strike was a result of "human errors, failures in procedure and technical malfunctions" (NYT).  Two other military officials said that the Air Force AC130 gunship that attacked the hospital was intended to target a different compound several hundred meters away that was believed to be a Taliban base of operations. Times reports, "the crew had been unable to rely on the aircraft's instruments to find the target. Instead, they relied on verbal descriptions of the location that were being relayed by troops on the ground, a mix of American and Afghan Special forces." 30 individuals were killed in the bombing, many being injured patients, and at least 37 more were injured.

Doctors Without Borders, known also by its French name, Medecins San Frontieres (MSF), is an international humanitarian NGO (non-governmental organization) and Nobel Peace Prize laureate. The organization is known for its projects in war-torn regions and developing countries. In a written statement issued by the organization's general director, he demands a call for an international investigation as to the root cause behind the attacks and the reason behind the US military's gross incompetence and failure: "The U.S version of events presented today leaves MSF with more questions than answers... it is shocking that an attack can be carried out when U.S forces have neither eyes on a target nor access to a non-strike list, and have malfunctioning communications system.. thousands of people were denied life-saving care simply because the MSF hospital was the closest large building to an open field and 'roughly matched' a description of an intended target."

The Pentagon has already concluded that the Doctors Without Borders group that ran the facility had properly followed all the necessary procedures in notifying the U.S of the location of the hospital. MSF "did everything right," according to a US official last month. The authorities are still determining potential disciplinary action, though it is still unclear at this point whether or not any action is even needed or the severity of the punishment.

How should the US be held accountable for their actions? Can they even be truly held accountable in any meaningful way for this gross miscarriage of justice and failure on the part of the US military? Being the world's largest and best-equipped military by far, how can something like this even be allowed to happen? 

Sources: 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/26/afghanistan-attack-msf-investigation-idUSKBN0TE21620151126
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/afghanistan-msf-demands-explanations-after-deadly-airstrikes-hit-hospital-kunduz
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/25/politics/afghanistan-kunduz-doctors-without-borders-hospital/
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-report-says-combination-of-errors-led-to-us-bombing-of-msf-hospital-nyt-2015-11?r=UK&IR=T
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9decins_Sans_Fronti%C3%A8res

Jerry Brown and his Climate Change Diplomacy: California Trying to Save the World...Literally

      I suggest that you read Jeffrey's article in addition to this one because these two articles go hand in hand. His is about a problem, and mine is about a proposed solution.
     
       Many eagerly anticipate the upcoming climate talks in France, where global leaders are to meet to (hopefully) agree on and implement a plan to help reduce the impacts of global warming, primarily through cutting global emissions. This year, carbon concentration in the atmosphere is at a record high (400 ppm), and the last 10 years have been the hottest on record. Obviously, something needs to be done. President Obama will represent the U.S. at these meetings, as will most other heads of state, but Paris may have an unexpected visitor, someone with whom Californians are very familiar.

       Jerry Brown is set to present a plan of his own at the Paris meetings. This year, he has engaged in meetings with many national and local leaders in an effort to create a better plan to combat climate change. 57 regional governments in over 19 countries and 5 continents have either signed or endorsed the "Under 2 MOU". Signatories of this agreement support the initiative of cutting back on carbon emissions by at least 80% OR by reducing 2 metric tons of CO2 per capita by mid-century. These goals may seem ambitious, and that's because they are. Ambitious as they may be, in the context of worsening global warming, they will be necessary in order to prevent global climatic chaos farther down the road. This project is not designed to release global warming. At this point, we have to be practical. What this agreement will do is limit global warming to less than two degrees Celsius (Under 2...). Warming the earth up until that point is still not the best outcome, but doing so will enable us to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change.



       The contract itself is not legally binding in any way. If you think about it, how can it be? Jerry Brown does not represent the national government, and only the national government can make treaties with other countries. This is only an agreement, but it is an agreement that represents an important, shared goal. The upcoming conference in Paris will be the perfect avenue for Brown to make his pitch and hopefully persuade more countries to adopt his proposition. If you are wondering why Brown is not letting the Obama administration lead the way on this ( Obama has been actively concerned about climate change himself) it is because California is an environmental trendsetter for the rest of the U.S.. California is an environmental pioneer compared to the rest of the United States. For example, California is obligated under a law it passed (AB 32) to reduce 1990 levels of CO2 by 80% by 2050. By 2020, 1/3 of California's energy will be from renewable resources. Solar panels were made cheaper and more available to families. In addition, the total number of "green" cars sold on the CA market (the 9th largest market in the world, by the way) must be increased by 15% by 2025 from the 2006 levels. This is for each auto manufacturer. Moreover, California has a brilliant cap and trade system (follow link or ask a friend who is taking APES) where companies are allocated only 90% of the previous years emissions. Over time, this is a very efficient way to cut down emissions. Based on what California has done (and these are only a few examples of what the the state does), it is evident that it is indeed possible and practical to achieve this ambitious goal. Even if the talks in Paris do not yield anything of substance, there are still things that YOU can do to help fight climate change. If a lot of people making a few, small changes can have a big impact. Here are just a few examples:
-keep tires properly inflated,
-reduce, reuse and recycle--Recycling is good, but reduction and reuse are much more impactful ways to help the cause. For example, if you use zip lock bags, reuse them. And don't buy soft plastic water bottles. Even when they get recycled, they get recycled in to a lower grade plastic...then there is the OIL that it takes to make the bottles in the first place.
-change light bulbs in your house to LED or energystar models.
-monitor water usage. In addition to saving water, using less water at home also saves energy that is used to pump and clean the water.

       Both on a small scale and on a large scale, helping combat global climate change is something that we all should be concerned about. We can all do our part, but we should also support other governments (like Jerry Brown, Germany, Germany, Germany, and Germany) achieve their environmental policy goals.

 Happy Thanksgiving!

Sources:

-http://www.npr.org/2015/11/24/456650555/california-an-environmental-leader-eyes-a-key-role-in-climate-talks

-http://under2mou.org/?page_id=10

-http://www.gallup.com/poll/168620/one-four-solidly-skeptical-global-warming.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_CLIMATE_CHANGE&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles

-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/record-levels-of-co2-herald-the-future-of-climate-change/

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/05/2012528134259936541.html

Protests erupt in Chicago following the release of Video

According to CNN, Chicago was coined "the murder capital" back in 2012 when over 500 homicides occurred.

On Wednesday, a group of protestors stormed the streets of Chicago protesting the murder of 17 year old black teenager Laquan McDonald by a white police officer. On Tuesday, a video of the fatal shooting was released and following the release Jason Van Dyke (the police officer) was quickly given first degree murder charges. Van Dyke claims that the shooting was justified because he felt unsafe after McDonald had been seen with a knife, breaking into cars. Van Dyke has a fairly good record as a police officer, but recently people have been complaining about his "use of excessive force and racial slurs."

The video's release came over a year after the shooting. The County's state attorney made a statement saying she thought it was important to release the video following the charges so that people knew the officer was being held and everyone could feel safe. Alzarez, the attorney, is facing some criticism that the investigation took too long.

The protest was described as relatively peaceful in comparison to those in Ferguson and Baltimore, but 5 people were still arrested. Van Dyke is the first Chicago police officer charged with murder in many many years. McDonald's family issued a statement to the protestors saying “Don’t resort to violence in Laquan’s name. Let his legacy be better than that.” However, some groups are arguing that further and more extreme protests need to be done. 

Do you think to make a point the protestors have to be "less calm"? Do you think protests are the most effective way to show disapproval? Do you think protests can actually have the reverse affect if taken too far?

Do you think there is a solution to this trend of black teenagers being murdered by white police officers? What does this reveal about the racism of our country?

PS: sorry I just realized someone had already posted about this, but feel free to add any additional insight! For a more in depth description of the video, refer to this link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chicago-cop-shooting-video-release-laquan-mcdonald-20151124-story.html

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/us/chicago-officer-charged-in-death-of-black-teenager-official-says.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/25/us/laquan-mcdonald-chicago-shooting-main/

Chicago Police Shooting of Laquan McDonald

Laqaun McDonald was shot and killed on October 20, 2014.  The police officer charged with his murder, Jason Van Dyke, shot him 16 times, 14 of which were after McDonald fell to the ground.  According to Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez, he had been on the scene for 30 seconds before he started shooting.  Sadly, it is important to note that Van Dyke is a white police officer and McDonald a black victim.  This Tuesday, ordered by a judge to happen no later than Wednesday, a video of the violent act was released to the public.  Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said that they were prepared for the worst.

With the release of the video, a group of protestors began marching in Chicago.  Due to the race of Van Dyke and McDonald, many news stories on the incident include arguments of white police brutality on black people.  Although Van Dyke's actions may be motivated by conscious or subconscious bias, the media should not be so quick to paint a horrible image of the police.  Instead, the focus should be on the trial and proving Van Dyke's guilt or innocence.  Alvarez says that "the Officer's actions were not justified and were not a proper use of deadly force."

So when exactly are police officers allowed to shoot?  They are constitutionally allowed to shoot  under the "defense-of-life" standard "to protect their life or the life of another innocent party."  They are also allowed to shoot to prevent a suspect from escaping but only if the officer has probable cause to assume that the suspect is a danger to others.  This framework was set up in the 1980s under Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor.  Under both of these cases, it is important to note that it does not matter whether there is an actual threat.

How do you feel about this case?  Were Van Dyke's actions appropriate or is shooting a man with a knife 16 times going too far?  Are police officers given too much power or do they need this power to protect themselves and the public?  Is the public's response appropriate?  Do you think they would respond the same way if the victim was white?

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/us/laquan-mcdonald-chicago-shooting-video/

http://www.vox.com/explainers/2015/11/24/9796704/laquan-mcdonald-police-shooting-chicago

http://abc7chicago.com/news/at-least-18-complaints-filed-against-cpd-officer-now-charged-with-murder-/1098265/

Turkish F-16 Shoots Down Russian Fighter Jet Allegedly Invading Turkish Airspace

"Terrorists' Accomplices" were the words Putin used to describe the Turkish government after a Turkish F-16 shot down a Russian fighter jet, claiming that the Russian plane was invading Turkish airspace. Although from an outsiders perspective it may seem that this random attack on a Russian fighter jet was in fact an act of terrorism on Turkey's part, the NATO ally's actions in regards to ISIL and the Syrian refugee crisis suggest otherwise.

The Russian fighter jet plummeting to the ground after being shot down

The Turkish government is credited with accepting the flow of over 2 million Syrian refugees in to their country, and spending more than 7 billion dollars to care for them. Contrastingly, a slew of American policy makers, terrorism experts, and Turkish watchers have observed Turkey's unwillingness to intervene and combat the extremism in Syria, despite their unquestioned ability to do so; Turkey's most recent actions (title) contribute to the rising suspicions of onlooking nations.
Turkey's actions, or lack thereof, put it's NATO allies in an awkward position of obligated support and assumption about the nation's motives. To add to this, the Turkish government's rocky history with Assad, combined with its unwillingness to shut down supply lines leading in to an ISIS-controlled territory, and it's overall ambivalence in regards to the Obama administration's anti-ISIL strategy since 2014 all contribute to a growing suspicion over Turkey's true motives in the fight to dissolve the Islamic State and the destruction it causes.
Presently, Turkey continues to send mixed messages to it's allies in regards to where it's support lies. Recently, a policy was implemented that would open up Turkish airbases to anti-ISIL forces to conduct combat operations with Turkey's pledged help, but so far the Turkish have reportedly spent the majority of their time combatting internal terrorist organizations that they have been fighting since the mid-1980s.
At the moment, few advisors in Washington believe Turkey has been or will be part of the solution in Syria, but the accommodating manner in which they are treating Turkish president Erdogan stems solely from a fear of losing access to Turkish territory.

Questions:
Based on the information above, and perhaps prior knowledge, do you think Turkey hold ulterior motives in the fight against ISIS? Why or why not?
Do you think that Turkey's past history with Assad (i.e. Assad's "betrayal" of the Turkish government in Syria) is the root of these motives?
Assuming that Turkey does have motives that conflict with those of it's NATO allies, what action should be taken?

Sources:
- http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/isil-strategy-turkey-213392?o=0
- http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/assets/12411313/Russia-jet_w210.jpg
- http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/nov/24/russian-jet-downed-by-turkish-planes-near-syrian-border-live-updates

Global atmospheric CO2 now higher than 400ppm for the first time in millions of years

On November 11th, just a few weeks ago, the Mauna-Loa Observatory in Hawaii (which produces some of the most accurate and longest-running measurements of atmosphere carbon in the world) recorded that, of every million molecules in the atmosphere, 399.68 were carbon dioxide. The next day, November 12th, it measured 401.64 ppm of carbon dioxide.

As you know, carbon dioxide is the greatest contributing factor to the global climate change. Created through human fossil-fuel emissions, it traps heat in the atmosphere and slowly warms the globe. Of course, we're no strangers to this ongoing environmental debate that has been raging on for decades and affected millions of people all around the world. But what exactly is the significance of this 400ppm mark that we've now passed?

Putting it into perspective, the last time the planet has experienced such CO2 levels has been at least a million years ago, according to Bloomberg. This is the extreme low end of the scientific estimates; Scientific American says 23 million years ago, NASA climate Carmen Boening says 2.5-5.3 million years ago, her colleague Charles Miller says it has been nearly 25 million years since the Earth has crossed the 400ppm thresh-hold. However, one might argue that since the world is experiencing the strongest El Nino since 1997, the side effects of the extreme weather may naturally cause more CO2 emissions than normal through wildfires, etc. Climatologist Keeling partially supports this claim, saying that "the loss of CO2 from tropical forests in El Nino years is temporary as the forests tend to regrow in normal years, building back their biomass and sucking CO2 out of the air in the process", however, "the eventual recovery from this El Nino won't bring us below 400ppm, because its impact will be dwarfed by the global consumption of fossil fuels, pushing CO2 levels even higher."

At any rate, this is simply another major climate milestone added to the growing list of environmental issues before the planned Nov. 30 - Dec. 15th UN climate talks in Paris. It follows the reports that 2015 will be the hottest year ever recorded, with temperatures more than one degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels - exactly halfway to the "two-degree benchmark" that global governments promised not to exceed. (the 2 degree Celsius was approved by nearly government in the world as of 2009).

The undeniable truth is that humans have never seen CO2 concentrations this high. This is uncharted territory, and that's what makes it so scary. No matter how many studies we conduct or how many reports we create, it's clear that there needs to be some sort of change in human consumption of fossil fuels and unsustainable business practices if we are to, 1) avoid crossing our self-set 2 degree benchmark, and 2) avoid the continuing trend of drastic global climate change that could lead to potentially cataclysmic results in our lifetime. We can only hope that the upcoming UN climate talks will address these issues seriously and work towards environmental and fossil fuel policy reform.

What do you think needs to be done to combat the growing issue of climate change? Are these statistic in-fact all blown out of proportion and humans don't have anything serious to fear? With all of the other issues in recent history, such as the ISIS attacks/terrorism, is climate change even an issue that's worth prioritizing on the global agenda?

Sources:
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/november-11-2015-the-last-day-of/417378/?utm_source=SFTwitter
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/science/2015-likely-to-be-hottest-year-ever-recorded.html
http://www.vox.com/2014/4/22/5551004/two-degrees
http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/
http://www.onearth.org/earthwire/carbon-dioxide-400ppm
http://unfccc.int/meetings/paris_nov_2015/meeting/8926.php

Who Pays For Music?

Adele's third studio album, 25, has broken the U.S. record for most records sold in a single week, with over 2,433,000 copies. The record was previously held by NSYNC, when their album No Strings Attached sold 2.4 million copies – in 2000. Forecasters also predict that 25 will become the United Kingdom's fastest-selling album in history.

The record, reported by Nielsen, had been unbroken for over fifteen years, and with the rise of pirating and music streaming services, it seemed rare that universally acclaimed band NSYNC's achievement would ever be toppled – until 25 turned up out of the blue, uninvited.

Streaming appears to be the way of the future – and artists are fighting back. Up-and-coming pop singer Taylor Swift publicly fought against streaming services – specifically, Spotify – whose users opt for the free service with advertisements more frequently than the premium, ad-less service, which reduces the artists' royalties for having their work distributed. Small-time rapper Jay Z began the music service TIDAL (which many other artists co-own and are stakeholders of) to combat this issue. Adele herself has refused to make 25 available for streaming – but has put it on Pandora, which works differently from other services with its radio-like quality, which does not make the entirety of the album available for listening at once.

So the question is: who does pay for "records" any more? If buying an album at once is no longer in our future, then why has Adele become a record-breaker?

Questions

-Do you pay for streaming services? What is your opinion on artists refusing to have their work on these platforms unless they are paid accordingly?

-Do you believe that Adele has resurrected the concept of buying albums?

-Do you think that music is something that should be free or paid for?

-How do you think this broken record will affect the future of music?

Sources

-http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/who-is-really-paying-for-adele

-http://www.androidcentral.com/adele-reportedly-will-keep-her-25-album-streaming-music-services

-http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6770486/adele-25-uk-fastest-selling-album

-http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6776941/adele-breaks-album-sales-record-single-week-nsync

Majority of British public favors leaving the EU in upcoming 2017 Referendum, poll finds

In light of the recent mass-media attention on ISIS and the heated controversy over the mass-migration to Europe from Middle-Eastern refugees, a relevant topic in the form of the upcoming "in-out" referendum planned for 2017 by the British as to whether or not they will continue being a part of the European Union has been largely overshadowed.

To give you some background, one of the Conservatives' primary platform promises in Britain while running for election was to hold a referendum (nation-wide vote) on whether or not the UK should stay in or leave the EU. The EU is an economic and political partnership involving 28 different countries that was started after WWII to foster economic co-operation and growth on the idea that countries dependent on each other for trade are less likely to have conflict and go to war with one another. It has since expanded to become what has been termed a "single market" where the member states essentially are part of one large country and mostly use the same currency in form of the euro.

Though there has always been support for passing the referendum, especially in older age groups (62% of those over the age of 65 want to leave the EU), the recent hysteria and backlash against the immigration in many EU countries has caused public opinion to shift in favor of passing the referendum, according to an opinion poll for The Independent - the first time their monthly survey has shown a majority for the "Brexit" (short for British-exit). 52% of those surveyed want to see Britain leave the EU while 48% wants to stay and preserve the status quo. However, as we went over in class, polls are not infallible and often fail to account for circumstances relevant to the issue at hand. For one, the sample size of The Indepedent's monthly survey was only 2000 people; in a nation of 64.1 million people, that sample size is hardly representative of the whole and leaves room for an enormously large margin of error that is only amplified by the fact that the people subscribed to the Independent and taking the survey are likely more inclined to change and expressing their opinions through taking this poll than those more moderate and more likely to vote no in the upcoming referendum but less likely to express their opinion in this poll. However, even taking all of this into account, it is still undeniably true that there is at least a marked upwards shift in public support for a change of some kind in response to the economic instability and social issues plaguing the EU today. In our world today in which all countries are inextricably linked to one another in some shape or form, Britain - being one of the core members and founders of the EU - leaving will undoubtedly have significant side-effects and unforeseeable consequences to the stability of Europe as a whole.

What do you think the British public should do in regard to the referendum? Is their argument for change and the backlash against the Middle-Eastern refugee migration and extremist terrorism valid? What will the long-lasting effects, if there are any to speak of, be if the British were to leave the EU in the 2017 referendum?

Sources:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-majority-of-public-now-wants-a-brexit-poll-reveals-a6745561.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12013016/Majority-of-British-public-favour-leaving-EU-poll-finds.html

Ahmed Mohamed, the 14 Year Old Handcuffed for Making Clock, Demands $15m Compensation

Ahmed Mohamed's family is demanding 15 million dollars and written apologies from the local mayor and police chief.  The letter to city authorities emphasizes the suffering Ahmed went through: "Ahmed never threatened anyone, never caused harm to anyone, and never intended to.  The only one who was hurt that day was Ahmed, and the damages he suffered were not because of oversight or incompetence...  The school and city officials involved knew what they needed to do to protect Ahmed's rights.  They just decided not to do it."

On the day Ahmed was arrested, he brought a homemade clock to school to show to his engineering teacher.  Later, Ahmed's clock went off during English class and when he revealed the device the teacher notified the police.  He was fingerprinted and mug shots were taken at a local juvenile detention center.  Including an interrogation by multiple officers, Ahmed was suspended for three days.  After these events, Ahmed gained lots of publicity going on to meet President Obama and Mark Zuckerberg.

With the media being quick to play the race and religion card, the teacher and police were discredited.  We should take a second to consider the possibility that his clock was indeed a bomb hoax.  In middle school, Ahmed had racked up weeks of suspensions and pulled pranks on his teacher with a homemade remote control.  The police uploaded a picture of his clock online and many people believe that his invention that he made was actually a clock originally built by Micronta that he rearranged in a pencil box.   If this were truly the case, is Ahmed worthy of receiving a city proclamation in New York City calling him "a role model for young people who want to pursue careers in math, science and engineering, and improve the world for future generations?"  Although it may seem that I am discrediting Ahmed, I simply want to showcase opposing arguments.

What are your opinions on this topic?  Is Ahmed Mohamed's family justified in their demands?  With school shootings and other incidents where we hear afterwards "this could have been prevented if only we paid more attention to the sings," did the school and local police truly over react?  Finally if you care to do some research on your own, do you think Ahmed's clock was a bomb hoax or not?

Sources:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/ahmed-mohamed-demands-15m-compensation-for-homemade-clock-arrest-a6745706.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/us/texas-student-is-under-police-investigation-for-building-a-clock.html
http://blogs.artvoice.com/techvoice/2015/09/17/reverse-engineering-ahmed-mohameds-clock-and-ourselves/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ahmed-mohamed-head-gang-teacher-article-1.2378712

Islamophobia is on the Rise

Ever since the terrorist attacks that took place in Paris on November 13th, Islamophobia has been circulating the country and the world. People, including politicians, have been quite vocal with their opinions. “Nobody, nobody, nobody wants your evil cult in this county,” as well as numerous other anti-muslim remarks were made during a protest outside The Islamic Center of Fredericksburg, an Islamic center with plans to expand. These events frighteningly resemble much of the backlash following the events of 9/11 and seems to be becoming a trend following terrorist attacks.

Fear is a powerful weapon, and politicians, such as Donald Trump, are using this to their advantage. In a recent interview Trump was quoted saying "I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down." Here Trump is referring to seeing Muslims celebrate post-9/11. (There is no evidence of this and police deny this happening). In this fearful time, people want answers and someone to blame. People are looking for a scapegoat. It is for this reason that people like Trump are able to gain support and spread their own unjustified views of Islam.

My questions for you are:
Besides what I mentioned, why do you think people like Trump are able to gain support (especially in a time like this)?
What are some parallels of this event from history? Elaborate. (Think scapegoats, unjustified blame, characterizing a whole group based off of a few's actions, fear tactics, etc!)





References: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/22/donald-trumps-outrageous-claim-that-thousands-of-new-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/attacks-on-american-muslims-are-growing-uglier-by-the-day-it-must-stop/2015/11/23/a55d99d8-91e9-11e5-b5e4-279b4501e8a6_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_dvorak-1215pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Former President of South Korea, Kim Young-sam, dies at age 87

Kim Young-sam, South Korea's former president, died of sepsis and heart failure on Sunday.  He was admitted to the Seoul National University Hospital with a fever on Friday.  Mr. Kim is credited with leading South Korea out of military rule.  He played a crucial role during the nation's transition from dictatorship to democracy.

Kim Young-sam was born in 1927.  During this time, South Korea was still a Japanese colony.  At the age of 27 he was elected to Parliament and was well known for his criticism of the dictator in power at the time, Park Chung-hee.  Mr. Park seized power in a coup in 1961 and cruelly silenced his opponents.  Before being assassinated in 1979, Mr. Park expelled Mr. Kim for his criticisms.  Soon after his assassination, Chun Doo-hwan, an army major general, engineered a coup resulting in another military dictator.

In 1992, Mr. Kim won the election becoming the first civilian leader in South Korea in over three decades.  He quickly purged a group of army officers who went by the name Hanahoe that regularly blackmailed and assaulted members of Parliament.  Soon after, he managed to convict and arrest Mr. Chun and Mr. Roh, Chun Doo-hwan's successor.  Another huge change Mr. Kim brought was his barring of owning back accounts under pseudonyms.  This was considered one of the most important landmarks in South Korea's fight against corruption.  Finally, Mr. Kim had persuaded President Bill Clinton to cancel the U.S.'s plan to bomb North Korea.  Mr. Kim had planned to meet North Korea's leader, Kim Il-sung determined to bring peace.  Unfortunately, two weeks before the first summit meeting between the two nations, Kim Il-sung died of heart failure and the summit was canceled.

Despite Kim Young-sam ending his presidency on a poor note, he is well respected for his role in South Korea's growth from dictatorship to democracy.

Sources:
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/21/new-york-times-digital-kim-young-sam-former-president-of-south-korea-dies-at-87.html

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/kim-young-sam-president-who-led-south-korea-out-of-military-rule-dies-at-87/

What if a Girl Wants to Become a Boy Scout?

       There is currently a group of girls in Santa Rosa, CA called the "Unicorns" who wish to become official members of Boy Scouts of America (BSA). Between the ages of 10 and 13, many were previously Girl Scouts, but disliked the non-adventurous and laid back atmosphere of girl scouting activities. The mother of one of the girls claims, "After lunch, you take a nap for an hour you sit on your bunk and you can read or color or write to a friend. You can't talk." These girls decided to take matters into their own hands.




       The idea all started when the "Unicorns" took part in a BSA-affiliated event that was open to both boys and girls. Since then, they have also participated in a "camporee", which is basically a series of friendly competitions in which many different Scout troops come and participate in outdoor challenges. The girls impressively earned 2nd place. In addition, the girls have formed a "companion council", which is a group loosely affiliated with BSA, in this case, a local den. The small group attends the same den meetings, participates in the same den activities, earns the same Cub Scout patches, and has even secured the support of several local BSA leaders. Unfortunately for the girls, BSA official policy is this: "The Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts programs are designed for boys and young men.", which means that the girls will never be able to become official Boy Scouts and perhaps more importantly, that the girls will be forced to disband their companion council group.

This brings up an interesting question: Should girls be allowed to join Boy Scouts?  Before I present the arguments for both sides, I know that some of you may have been wondering about Title IX. Hmmmm...If you can't discriminate based on sex, then the girls have a pretty good argument, right? Wrong. Section 1681 (a)(6)(B) of Title IX  grants exceptions to both Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. Just thought it would be good to clear that up!

       One side would argue "yes" for several reasons. The first being the fact that girls want to do more "Boy Scout-like" activities that are not available to them in Girl Scouts. The second being the fact that it is unreasonable to believe that girls would be unable to keep up with the boys' activities. The girls who won 2nd place in the camporee can testify to that. The third being that if local leaders support the measure, why are they still being hindered by the "higher" ranks of the BSA administration?

       The other side, arguing "no" would also have a compelling argument. They would argue that Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts are organizations that , for over 100 years, have been devoted to the development of the young boys and young men in this world. Meetings should be a place where boys get to interact with other boys, which is a unique and valuable experience. They don't believe that girls are in any way inferior to the boys, they just believe that it is expected that Boy Scouts be for boys. If girls want to do more "Boy Scout-like" activities, then she should pressure her own Girl Scout troop or council to change, not attempt to gain entry in to an all-boys organization. Also, during camping outings, the possibility of boys and girls sharing tents could potentially be something to worry about. [Lastly, not all Girl Scout groups are like what was described in the first paragraph by one of the mothers. I know from experience that there is a significant amount of troops, at least in this area, that do participate in camping, hiking, and shooting activities. There are definitely some troops like the one the mother described, but don't go thinking all troops are like that.]

I should add that to BSA's credit, there are several coed programs that are offered. For example, "Venture Scouts" is basically the same thing as a traditional Boy Scout troop, except for two differences. The first difference is that Venturing is open to both boys and girls. The second is that there is even more of a focus on high adventure and outdoor activities. As another example, "Sea Scouts" is a program, like Venture Scouts, where both boys and girls are able to function similarly to a traditional Boy Scout troop, except with an emphasis on water activities, especially maritime and boating skills.

As a Boy Scout myself, when I saw this in the news, I thought it would be really interesting to explore and especially relevant to our last unit. What do you all think? Should girls be allowed in to Boy Scouts? If so, should boys be allowed in to Girl Scouts? Any other thoughts, questions?



**[bracketed statement is from my own observation. I am not taking sides on the issue here but rather adding a little bit of my own knowledge from experience teaching large groups of girls at Girl Scout camp]**

Sources:
-http://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix-education-amendments-1972
-http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/All-together-now-North-Bay-girls-troop-fights-6594440.php
-http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/23/us/girls-in-california-are-latest-to-seek-to-become-boy-scouts.html
-me?

More Mexicans Leaving the U.S. Than Arriving

Despite all of Trump's overblown claims and racist remarks about Mexican illegal immigrants, a recent Pew Research study shows that more Mexicans are leaving the U.S. to return home than are arriving here.  From 2009 to 2014, the U.S. has had a net loss of approximately 140,000 Mexican immigrants.  In comparison to the 2.3 million net gain of Mexican immigrants between 1995 to 2000, the U.S. is seeing a complete reversal of a historical trend.  This change can be explained by the slow recovery of the U.S. economy after the Great Recession, stricter enforcement of U.S. immigration laws, and a significant improvement in the Mexican economy over the previous decades.  One reason for the improvement in Mexico's economy can be seen in their fertility rate.  At a surprisingly high rate of 7.3 in 1980, women were expected to have seven children in their lifetime.  Seen as the "replacement level" sufficient enough to keep population stable, the rate dropped to 2.2 in 2009.  Due to this drop in fertility rates, Mexico's economy has been able to flourish.  Less pressure on the labor market results in less incentive to more north.  Combined with the struggling economy after the Great Recession, it is clear why fewer people were seeking job opportunities in the U.S.  
What does this research show about Trump's stance on Mexican illegal immigrants?  In fact, China recently overtook Mexico in 2013 as the top source of U.S. immigrants.  Will this data effect the immigration policy of presidential nominees?  If so how?  Is a wall across the Pacific Ocean Trump's answer?

Sources:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/more-mexicans-are-leaving-united-states-to-return-home-than-arriving-in-united-states/

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/more-immigrants-to-the-u-s-come-from-china-and-india-than-mexico/

Why are so Many Young People Feelin' the Bern?

So, I thought I would just write about a few of the reasons why young voters are so enamored with Bernie Sanders. After all, according to a PEW study, almost 50% of folks aged 18-49 view "socialism" favorably. In comparison, by the same study, only 13% of 65+ year olds view "socialism" favorably. Now, understand that viewing the word "socialism" favorably is not the same as supporting Bernie Sanders, but it is no secret that Sanders is becoming rather popular in the younger tier of voters. By the way, this is by no means a definite, concrete news story, nor is it a comprehensive analysis of the ideology and platform of Bernie Sanders. This is simply a summary of ideas that I have gathered from other sources.

In a nutshell, after reading several articles, I came to the following conclusion:
   The reason why more young voters support Bernie Sanders is because they are young, and the reason why his support drops as voter age increases is because, well, they are older.

Now, understandably, that may not make a whole lot of sense, so let's take a closer look:
1-Economics- Many of the "older" generation have been able to get an education, get a job, and have a relatively successful economic life with no major setbacks. That is not the same for many in the younger generation. Why? 2008. In 2008, one of the worst economic disasters in the history of the country. Imagine graduating college during this time. What would you do? It was much more difficult for young people in the job market. You have just racked up a significant sum of college debt, and now your job prospects are slim. And for young workers who only had a few years of experience under their belts, you still need to pay off your college loans. Taking in to account the lingering effects of the recession, NPR claims that younger people are not as well of as their parents were when they were young. The parents, like I mentioned earlier, didn't suffer anything like 2008 when they were young. Their job security was better when they were young. The older generation has more faith in the economic system, whereas the younger voters have less faith in the economic system. Enter Bernie Sanders, who promises to make college more affordable and take on corporate america. Older voters have little reason to want such drastic change, but the young voters may be attracted by concepts such as less student debt and perhaps even the proposed rise in minimum wage. Essentially, Sanders offers hopes of a better economic future that young voters seem to be drawn to.
2-"Socialism"- The second reason actually does have something to do with the fact that Bernie Sanders classifies himself openly as a democratic socialist. Older generation may think of the former Soviet Union when they think of socialist. On the other hand, younger people may not default to that association of socialism with Soviet communism and the poor welfare of its citizens. They may associate socialism with some European countries like Sweden or Norway which have substantial amounts of healthcare and college tuition subsidized by the government. To younger voters, this sounds appealing. To older generations who may not be able to get over their "experience" with socialism (combined with less need for things like cheaper college tuition), Bernie Sanders has less to offer.

For all of you out there who are feeling the Bern, why? What makes Bernie Sanders so special? I know for a fact that I did not come close to summarizing all of the reasons why Sanders is appealing, so let's hear it!


Sources:
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/21/456676215/why-do-young-people-like-socialism-more-than-older-people
http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/20/bernie-sanders-millennials-young-voters
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/27/a-big-challenge-for-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanderss-avid-supporters/

Growing Opposition to Syrian Refugees

In a statement given by Mayor David A. Bowers, the Democratic mayor of Roanoke, Virginia, he links Japanese internment during WWII to refusing to assist in the relocation of Syrian refugees; "I'm reminded that President Franklin D, Roosevelt felt compelled to sequester Japanese foreign nationals after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and it appears that the threat of harm to America from Isis now is just as real and serious as that from our enemies then."  As ludicrous as this comparison is, it is, to an extent, true.  Just like the "real and serious" threat of the Japanese Americans being completely false and a product of wartime paranoia, the Syrian refugee threat is the same.  Although the threat of terrorists entering the US as a refugee is not nonexistent, Republicans seem to be taking an extreme stand.

Putting Mayor Bowers' flawed history aside, there has been a significant increase in anti-Islam rhetoric in GOP.  Trump's suggestion of closing down mosques, increasing surveillance of Muslims, "certainly" and "absolutely" creating a database of Muslims in the US, and sending immigrants back, has caused a lot of controversy; "I'm putting the people on notice that are coming here from Syria as part of this mass migration... If I win, they're going back."  Although Trump's being the most extreme, other Republican presidential candidates are also solidifying their stance on Syrian refugees.  Stating that Obama's "nothing short of lunacy,"  Ted Cruz suggested that the US should accept Christian refugees from Syria but not Muslim.  Ben Carson compared terrorist Syrian refugees to "rabid dogs" in your neighborhood.   Finally, Marco Rubio supports Trump in closing down mosques on the grounds that "any place where radicals are being inspired" should be closed down.  Although Jeb Bush supports Ted Cruz's stance on only accepting Christian refugees, he strongly disagrees with the closing of mosques stating that "that's just wrong."  

During times of crisis, the balance between freedom and national security is questioned.  What is your opinion on the Syrian refugee issue?  Are the Republicans over reacting to a nonexistent threat or are they taking necessary precautions?  At what point should some freedoms be denied for "national security?"


Sources:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/11/pulling-up-welcome-mat#comments

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rabid-dogs-and-muslim-id-cards-anti-islam-rhetoric-grows-in-gop/2015/11/19/1cdf9f04-8ee5-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_islampolitics-848pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/16/9746456/map-syrian-refugees-governors

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/world/paris-attacks-syrian-refugees-backlash/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34884544

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/01/donald-trump-says-hed-send-back-syrian-refugees-taken-in-by-us.html

Supreme Court Asked to Address Alabama Same-Sex Custody Ruling

A woman in Alabama is asking the Supreme Court to reverse a decision made by the Alabama courts regarding custody of her children. The woman, known as "V.L.", shares three children with her ex-partner, who is their biological mother. Although they were never legally married, the pair moved to Georgia together to receive more parental rights as a same-sex couple, including legal adoption by V.L.

As these rights are not included in Alabama law, upon returning to the state, V.L.'s rights as a parent were voided and she is now denied access to her children. The argument made by Alabama justices is that, based on the fact that "Georgia law makes no provision for a non-spouse to adopt a child without first terminating the parental rights of the current parents", the state of Georgia essentially broke their own law by recognizing V.L. as a legal guardian of her children without terminating the parental rights of V.L.'s ex-partner.
However, V.L. maintains that she should still have the rights guaranteed to her by the state of Georgia, and that Alabama has broken the Full Faith and Credit Clause ("Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state") by voiding her rights as a parent.
Interestingly enough, while the Alabama laws on same-sex adoption are seen as "terrifying" (Cathy Sakimura; National Center for Lesbian Rights) by LGBT+ rights groups, the courts seem to be sidestepping the issue. Instead, they seem to be determining this case based purely on interpretation of the Constitution.
It is unknown whether or not the Supreme Court will take the case, but LGBT+ activists are hoping they will, as a win in favor of V.L. would further legitimize same-sex couples as deserving of the same rights as different-sex parents.

Questions
-Who do you believe is more in the constitutional right in this case? Alabama or V.L.? Why or why not?
-Why do you think the courts are avoiding the fact that the case has to do with a same-sex couple?

Sources
-http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/justices-asked-to-take-up-case-of-lesbian-parents-adoption-r#.hn9owKoXk
-http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/18/lesbian-mother-asks-supreme-court-to-reverse-ala-ruling/
-https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/us-supreme-court-is-asked-to-hear-lesbian-adoption-case/2015/11/16/bd1180c4-8c9b-11e5-ae1f-af46b7df8483_story.html
-http://www.npr.org/2015/11/17/456432166/supreme-court-asked-to-take-messy-case-on-interstate-same-sex-adoption

Planned Parenthood v. Casey II: Whole Woman's Health v. Cole

During the Planned Parenthood Case that was recently presented (at least in 1^st period), it was briefly touched upon that there will be a new case that the court is expected to rule on later this year regarding a Texas state law passed in 2013 which purportedly is hindering women who wish to receive an abortion. I thought it may be appropriate to expand on that, as the Constitutional Law unit is coming to close. [Let us all take a moment to pause, take a breath, and try not to panic about the test tomorrow].

First, let’s examine a few of the provisions of that Texas law:

1.                          1-    Abortion providers must have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals (within 30 miles). What does this mean? This means that any physician who performs an abortion procedure (surgical, medicinal, etc…), must be able to admit, or “check-in” the recipients of the abortion procedure at a nearby hospital if need be. That means if there is a women’s health clinic that performs abortions that is not affiliated with a nearby hospital and the doctors there do not have admitting privileges at said nearby hospital, then that clinic runs the risk of getting closed down, an issue that we will explore later on

2.                           2-    Abortions must be performed in buildings with the same building standards as “Ambulatory Surgical Centers”. What is an ASC? Great question! It has nothing to do with the large truck with sirens and lights. Rather, they are clinics that operate independently from hospitals and specialize in surgical treatment. Almost 100% of the time, this is outpatient surgical treatment (walk in, get surgery, leave same day vs walk in, get surgery, leave week later). I am not about to dive in to the fascinating field of building codes and regulations, but essentially, many abortion centers would require additional renovation in order to meet this standard.

Now, here comes the problem. According to Planned Parenthood and several other organizations, more than half of Texas’s abortion centers have been forced to close because of the 2013 law. There used to be 42, and now there are 19. Opponents of the law argue that these closures came to be for several reasons. The first reason is that many of the clinics had physicians who did not have admitting rights at nearby hospitals. If this was the case and physicians were unable to obtain these admitting rights, then the clinic is in violation of the fist provision that was discussed earlier and therefore, must be closed down. The second reason is that many clinics were not up to standard with the same building codes as the ASCs. That does not mean that the clinics were unsafe in any way, (they may have been…it just is not something you can automatically assume), it just means that they were not built the same way as ASCs, which are used for various types of surgery (Orthopedics, Ophthalmology, Urology, Gastrointestinal, etc…).

         According to studies cited by Reuters, the closure of half the states abortion clinics has negative implications. The study estimated that between 100k-240k women aged 18 to 49 have attempted abortion procedure themselves, using practices like special herbal concoctions, teas, and sometimes medicines which are illegally  obtained from Mexico without a prescription.  Unfortunately, women of lower social classes are most often the victims of the closure of abortion centers, and constitute a large percentage of those who are attempting abortions themselves. But underprivileged women are not the only victims. Many women, instead of being able to use a local clinic, must travel long distances from their town to an abortion clinic ( Texas is a BIG state and if there are only 19 abortion centers within the entire state, well…you get the picture). By doing so, they are forced to take of more time from their jobs and/or find childcare for their children, both of which have negative economic impacts on women regardless of class, but especially in the case of poor women. In addition, another study found that the average wait time for an abortion was three weeks, adding to the stress of the long drives and time off work.

           In Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) the Court held that it is permissible for states to put restrictions on abortions just as long as the restrictions were not unnecessary burdens. Now, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, along with the law’s other supporters, claim that regulations like these are essential for public health. If a woman has complications arising from her procedure, then the physician who was conducting the procedure should be able to put her in a hospital in order for the women to receive adequate care. Opponents to the law cite studies which results show a very low complication rate in abortion procedures. One such example would be a NCIB study which showed that in legally induced abortions, the mortality rate was .6 deaths per 1000 procedures, which amounts to a 0.0006% mortality rate. Feel free to double check the math. Also, if you are going to have an abortion, supporters argue, you had better have it in safe facilities that are well-equipped to handle emergencies. I, personally, agree with that argument, BUT, does a well-equipped abortion clinic need to be as well-equipped as an ambulatory surgical center, which performs various, and often more serious, types of surgery?

Here is the essential question: Whether or not you are pro-life or pro-choice, from a strictly legal standpoint here, does the Texas law being challenged in the Supreme Court violate the “unnecessary burden” limit imposed by the decision in PP v. Casey?

The court will rule on the constitutionality of the two provisions of the law that we explored in a case called Whole Woman’s Health (an abortion clinic) v Cole (Texas commissioner of Dept. of State Health Services). Stay tuned for the decision.

           This brings up several interesting discussion points: How do you think the court will rule in regards to the “essential question”? Are the two provisions of the Texas law unnecessary burdens? Should lawyers and judges be able to make decisions about the building codes of hospitals? Why shouldn’t doctors be able to make their own decisions on what they need or don’t need for an abortion procedure? Should ASCs and abortion clinics be held to the same standards? Why or why not? Additional thoughts?

Sources:

 http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/17/us-texas-abortion-idUSKCN0T62C220151117#R8hqDWBJ7WVpPldo.97

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/16/us-usa-court-abortion-states-idUSKCN0T30VV20151116#R5K14G07QpMSEteT.97

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/us/perry-signs-texas-abortion-restrictions-into-law.html

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/whole-womans-health-v-cole/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22270271

http://www.advancingsurgicalcare.com/whatisanasc

El Niño Will Be Strongest In 15 Years

And now for something completely different.
The El Niño weather phenomenon will be the strongest in fifteen years*, says the World Meteorological Organization (an agency of the UN). Increases in ocean temperatures are larger and more rapid than previously recorded– the Pacific Ocean is 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit above average. Effects of El Niño include severe droughts and flooding, seen not only in California but in Southeast Asia as well, where, in Indonesia, wildfires outbreaks have been devastating the country. Droughts have also been worrying Central America and eastern and southern Africa, where millions are at risk for starvation. Additionally, El Niño will bring heavy rainfall for California, southeastern America, and northwestern Africa.

While El Niño is not caused by climate change directly, it will bear some of the effects. “... This naturally occurring El Niño event and human induced climate change may interact and modify each other in ways which we have never before experienced,” says WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.
The good news, however, (and we all know we need some) is that previous strong El Niños have prepared the world for weather-induced catastrophes. Jarraud adds that "We are better prepared for this event than we have ever been in the past... The level of international, national and local mobilization is truly unprecedented, exemplifying the value of actionable climate information to the society."

*Sources vary.

Questions
-Do you think the strength of El Niño will change the course of climate change debates? Why or why not?
-Since this is a global phenomenon that affects the United States, do you believe we have a responsibility to give aid to those more severely affected in other countries?

Sources
-https://www.wmo.int/media/content/el-ni%C3%B1o-expected-strengthen-further-high-impacts-unprecedented-preparation
-http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/17/el-nino-on-track-to-be-one-of-the-worst-ever-un.html
-http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-el-nino-temperatures-new-record-20151117-story.html
-https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/11/16/by-one-measure-this-wicked-el-nino-is-the-strongest-ever-recorded-what-it-means/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_cwg-elnino-350pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Feminist Icons

Related to our drive-by look at civil rights, here is one of the better interview driven pieces of journalism I've read in the past year:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/fashion/ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-gloria-steinem-on-the-unending-fight-for-womens-rights.html

Prisoners for Drug Trafficking Released Sooner Than Expected

The amount of time one serves in prison as a result of their punishment determined by a court has and always will be a concern for America's legal policies.  An example of this concern can be directed towards the fact that tens of thousands of people who have been serving prison terms for "drug trafficking" will be released before their actual sentences end.  In fact these sentences are being cut by "an average of 2 years."  This change is a result for the severe over population in prisons along with the actual expense for their upkeep.

Some people believe that this is early releasing of said prisoners is more beneficial than damaging to the community.  Julie Stewart, president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, stated 'people have been over-punished for decades.'  The Justice Department said that "there is no evidence" that proves inmates in prison for longer periods of times affect the chances of their returning to prison.

The class has recently reviewed the judicial system and the process of cases making their way up to the Supreme Court.  Taking into account the complexity of the American legal system, it is hard to determine the punishment for breaking said law.  Not to mention the difficulty in determining what is constitutional or unconstitutional.

As a response to the prison sentences being shortened, do you think this will have a major impact on US policies regarding drug trafficking.  Will this have any significant impact on American society.  Is the punishment for drug trafficking too extreme?

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/us/with-early-release-thousands-of-inmates-are-adjusting-to-freedom.html
https://listencurrent.com/current_events/544-prisoner-early-release

CIA Director Criticizes Post-Snowden Surveillance

The recent ISIS terror attacks have spurred interesting comments from John Brennan, Director of the CIA. Citing the attacks in Paris, Brennan claimed that he "would anticipate that this is not the only operation ISIL has in the pipeline”, and that the recent measures to reduce government surveillance have only weakened America's ability to identify "murderous sociopaths".
The surveillance reform Brennan refers to comes after the NSA scandal that began in 2013, when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden began releasing confidential documents exposing the highly suspicious and essentially corrupt acts of the agency, especially in regard to obtaining phone records. The passage of the USA Freedom Act in June of this year was meant to reduce the intrusive powers of the NSA and increase the privacy rights of American citizens.
However, John Brennan believes that this act and the general reevaluation of NSA power has made it more difficult to identify possible threats to the nation. While not commenting on France's intelligence and security, Brennan did say that the attacks were "not a surprise", implying that (at least) the CIA may have known about a planned large-scale ISIS attack.

Questions
-Do you believe that, in light of terrorist attacks, privacy rights should be weakened in order to protect citizens? What is the line between privacy and prevention?
-Do you believe Americans have a right to decide the level of privacy they can have, especially in times of terror? Or is this the government's right to decide?

Sources
-http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/us/after-paris-attacks-cia-director-rekindles-debate-over-surveillance.html
-http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/16/citing-paris-attack-cia-director-criticizes-surveillance-reform-efforts/

Lebanon Attacks: Forgotten by Media?

A couple of days earlier, a double suicide bombing terrorized and attacked the streets of Lebanon, destroying a busy shopping area in the Bourj Brajneh district around 6 p.m. According to the Lebanese Health Ministry, about 43 people were killed and about 239 people wounded. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attacks, but these statements are not verified, according to CNN. ISIS also claimed that it was targeting Hezbollah, a Shitte militant organization that backs the Syrian government.

"There's a lot of shattered glass on the street, a lot of blood, and it's really just a scene of chaos and carnage," said journalist Tamara Qiblawi. Citizens have been advised not to be near the scene as well as nearby hospitals so ambulances can take victims to the hospital more easily.

The White House condemned the attacks on Lebanon, stating that it would "only serve to reinforce our commitment to support the institutions of the Lebanese state, including the security services, to ensure a stable, sovereign and secure Lebanon." Iran, an ally of the Hezbollah, also condemned the attacks. Lebanon's prime minister, Tammam Salam, also condemned the bombings, who also called for a national day of mourning. Salam adds, "I pray that this tragedy is enough to wake up politicians so that they can put their differences aside so we can protect the country."

Additionally, the Lebanese Army revealed in a statement that the bombers had struck at 6 p.m. in order to maximize casualties. Furthermore, the body of a third bomber was found near one of the blast sites with his explosive belt fully intact. 

Many people took their sentiments about the attack to the social media. Some people also complained that the news of these attacks did not nearly get as much news coverage as the attack in Paris, which happened a day later. Facebook was also criticized for having the "Safety Check" feature in response for the attacks in Paris, but not for the Beirut bombings. Zuckerberg stated that prior to Friday, the feature has been only used for natural disaster events and now he plans to "activate Safety Check for more human disasters going forward as well."

How do you feel about these criticisms toward the media? Are they justified? Why or why not? Do you feel that the media has not had enough coverage for the Beirut bombings? Some believe believe that the events did get different media coverage, but for valid reasons, such as the fact that the Paris attacks were sudden, while the attacks in Lebanon happened in Beirut, an active war zone. Is this a valid justification? Overall, how do you feel about media and its power to spread awareness about various events, such as terrorist attacks?

Sources:
NY Times, BBC, CNN, The Washington Post (photo credit)

The Refugee Crisis and Islamophobia: Should States be Allowed to Turn Away Refugees?

After the devastating bombings in Paris, 19 U.S. governors, including Lindsey Graham (mentioned in the previous post), have voiced strong opinions against allowing immigrants in to the United States. All of the governors are part of the Republican Party. One additional democratic governor from New Hampshire also is against accepting refugees. Currently, the Justice Department is investigating the legality of the states’ refusals to accept Syrian refugees. What they have concluded so far is that technically, it is legal for these states in interfere with the organizations who are helping the refugees get in to the country (NGOs) to a certain extent. The investigation is still ongoing. 

       Several Republican candidates have also spoken out against the idea of having Syrian refugees, specifically Muslims entering the United States. Senator Ted Cruz calls the idea “lunacy”. He goes on to say, "Christians who are being targeted, for genocide, for persecution, Christians who are being beheaded or crucified, we should be providing safe haven to them.” Former Governor Jeb Bush offered similar sentiments, stating, “We should focus our efforts as it relates to the refugees for the Christians that are being slaughtered." Many other Republicans (Kasich, Paul, Carson, the list goes on…) also have voiced their opinions against permitting victims fleeing ISIS from entering the U.S.. Christians most certainly are targeted by ISIS; both Bush and Cruz are absolutely correct in that regard. However, ISIS, even though it is an “Islamic” (and that does not mean that the organization represents the true values of Islam in any way) persecutes against many Muslims as well. ISIS is a Sunni extremist group, and if you are a Muslim who does not agree with their ideology, especially if you are a Shiite Muslim, you are automatically a target—and being a target of ISIS can often be a death sentence.

       Up until now, the United States has taken in ~1,900 Syrian refugees over the past four years, but has pledged to take in up to 10,000 during the next fiscal year. In comparison, Germany has accepted 40,000 in August alone (lately, they have been taking much fewer). During the past 4 years, the United Kingdom has accepted almost 5,000 refugees, but the government recently enacted a plan to allow 20,000 spread out over the next 5 years.

       One fear (among many) that some harbored against refugees fleeing from the violence in Syria was the possibility that some are bound to be ISIS-affiliated and are using their refugee status to gain access into a country in order to coordinate and carry out a terrorist attack. Now, after the attack in Paris claimed by ISIS along with the pair of suicide bombings in Beirut—also claimed by ISIS—this fear, for many, has become very real. There was even a Syrian passport found near the body of one of the terrorists. Whether or not this is of any significance remains to be seen, as it is not unheard of in places like Turkey for non-Syrians to purchase fake Syrian passports on the black market in order to get preferential treatment in the refugee/asylum process in Europe. Even so, one of the attackers was indeed able to enter France under refugee status. That is a scary thought.

       What do you think about the idea of states refusing to accept refugees? Should that decision be up to them or up to the federal government? Obama and most democrats support the idea of allowing Syrian refugees to enter the country. What about the comments by G.O.P. presidential candidates? Would you consider them racist? A manifestation of Islamophobia into national politics? Justified given the circumstances? Other comments? 

       Unfortunately, this is a sad story any way you spin it. 

Sources:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34835353

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/islamophobia-syrian-refugees-usa-governors-151116164708308.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeb-bush-syrian-refugees-christian-muslim_5648b98de4b045bf3def84df

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fake-syrian-passport-paris_5648f9ade4b060377349887e

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/germany-imposes-surprise-curbs-on-syrian-refugees

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/253244-white-house-planning-to-admit-10k-syrian-refugees

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/us/politics/gop-governors-vow-to-close-doors-to-syrian-refugees.html

Lindsey Graham warns of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil

South Carolina senator and Republican presidential candidate Lindsey Graham warned of "another 9/11" during an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of The Union" on Monday. During the interview he stated that the United States must get boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq and play a very large role in the war against ISIS. If we don't get involved, Graham asserted, we can expect a similar attack to the horrific bombings and shootings in Paris, France here in the United States. The senator called for 10,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq as part of a regional military force.

Do you guys think Graham's warnings should be taken seriously? Do you think that, with the recent arrival of refugees on American soil, there could be the potential for an attack on the scale of what happened this past Friday? Would it be a good idea for the U.S. to play a large role in the war against ISIS?

Source:
CNN
Photo: www.politico.com