EPA to propose tougher rules on smog-causing ozone, setting up clash with GOP

The Environmental Protection Agency is drafting new legislation to impose stricter regulations on pollutants released adversely affecting the ozone. The Obama Administration backs the EPA's proposition, leading to new clashes between the White House and  Republican controlled congress. Recent air quality reports show higher than healthy pollutant values which lead to respiratory illnesses, which is a major problem in the United States. This legislation, if passed, will be the first increase on air quality limits since the end of the Bush Administration in 2008. The burning of fossil fuels is a main reason for the increased levels of toxins in the air. Many urban areas are hubs for ultra-high levels of air pollutants which have been linked to asthmatic attacks as well as other ailments. "We deserve to know the air we breathe is safe," EPA administrator Gina McCarthy stated in announcing the proposal. When deciding to update the law, the EPA was following a legal mandate for "bringing ozone pollution standards in line with the latest science" to protect Americans from serious health threats. As of now the current level of acceptable toxins in the ozone level is 75 parts per billion. This new revision would lower that number to somewhere "in the range of 65-70 parts per billion. While many environmental groups have been pushing for tougher standards, closer to 60 parts per billion, nevertheless they are supporting the EPA's standards full-heartedly as this change is better than no change. GOP lawmakers have taken a vow to fight this bill tooth and nail. Republican members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee stated their intentions to block what they say is one of the "most devastating regulations" set by the EPA in its 44 year history. Industry groups have waged war against these new restrictions warning that it will cost the economy billions in revenue. Many groups including state health and environmental agencies believe those estimations are exaggerated. Other groups point to studies presenting economic losses due to ozone-related respiratory illnesses and premature deaths. "The public should have the right to know whether or not the air they are breathing is safe," said S. William Becker the director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. He continues to say "there can be a false security thinking that levels at 75 ppb are safe to breathe when scientists are saying there are not." This new EPA policy is expected to be adopted next fall.

Should the EPA enforce stronger restrictions on air quality?
Are possible economic setbacks worth the benefits?
Should the president and the GOP work together to find a medium on this issue?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/epa-to-propose-tougher-rules-on-smog-causing-ozone-setting-up-clash-with-gop/2014/11/26/0a4670ce-756a-11e4-bd1b-03009bd3e984_story.html

Protests Flare After Ferguson Police Officer Is Not Indicted

The Ferguson protests that began with the shooting death of Michael Brown that began in August grew in anger and intensity as the grand jury released their verdict. The grand jury made of nine whites and three blacks announced that no charges were to be brought against Darren Wilson, the white officer who shot and killed the unarmed Brown. After it was spread that Wilson would not be charged, demonstrators "chanted and threw signs and other objects toward [police officers in riot gear]." Protesters threw bottles and rocks at police, and damage was done to several businesses and police cars. 29 people were also arrested. Understandably, Michael Brown's family was disappointed by the verdict, but they have issued a statement asking people to "'channel [their] frustration in ways that will make a positive change. We need to work together to fix the system that allowed this to happen.'"

The grand jury's decision to not charge Wilson in the death of Michael Brown is appalling and reminiscent of the Jim Crow era where trials with black defendants had all-white juries. The year is 2014, decades after the civil rights era, yet here we have a case where a white police officer who shot an unarmed black teen walks away free and gets money for what he did. Great job, America.

Some links to look at regarding the Ferguson decision:
Documents Released in the Ferguson Case (NY Times)

KKK Raising Money for Police Officer Who Shot African-American Teen (published 08/13)

All 4 Eyewitness Accounts of the Shooting of Michael Brown (in chronological order)

Strained relations undercut St. Louis County prosecutor (08/18)

Unorthodox police procedures emerge in grand jury documents (11/25)

Questions to consider:
Besides requiring the police to wear body cameras, what can people do to prevent police brutality?

Why has there been an increase in police brutality cases?

Cleveland police: Slain youth held air gun 'indistinguishable from a real firearm'

This past weekend yet another shooting of a young black male occurred, this time in Cleveland, Ohio. This event took place days before the country nervously awaited the trial proceedings of Officer Darren Wilson and the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The incident in Cleveland began Saturday night as police responded to a 911 call which stated "there's a guy in there with a pistol, you know, its probably fake, but he's like pointing it at everybody" the caller went on to say "he's sitting on a swing right now, but he's pulling it in and out of his pants and pointing it at people. He's probably a juvenile, you know?" Police later said it was not clear if the responding officers received the information about the suspect being a "juvenile" or the gun being "probably fake". When police arrived at the scene they encountered 12 year old Tamir Rice. Rice did not point his gun at the two officers or otherwise threaten them, but he did reach for his gun. The two officers ordered him to stop and to put his hands up however he reached in his waistband and pulled out his weapon according to reports. "Our officers at times are required to make critical decisions in a split second," Cheif Calvin Williams said "Unfortunately, this was one of those times." Rice succumbed from his wounds early Sunday morning at MetroHealth Medical Center after surgery was performed. After the incident, police recovered Rice's weapon, it was a large, black BB replica gun resembling a semiautomatic pistol. An orange tip indicating it was not a real firearm was removed leaving it indistinguishable from a live firearm. Residents of the neighborhood quickly angered by this event, one man told CNN "It wasn't a dog. It was a child. You didn't give him a chance. You just killed him." While this is true, the officers had no way to distinguish whether or not the gun was real or fake and according to head of the police union the two officers followed police protocol. While they followed protocol, both officers have been placed on leave following the incident.

Should the two officers involved in the shooting of 12 year old Tamir Rice be punished?
Should toy producers have greater restrictions on the similarity of appearances between their products and real guns?

Missouri Burning

Another surreal and depressing evening of racial politics on television. I won't soon forget the split screen of the President asking for calm as a vehicle was sacked and smoke and/or gas canisters were deployed. A sampling of readings, all but the first one published before the chaos ensued tonight:

The Ferguson Decision

Ferguson shows failure at every level

The Racist Housing Policies that Built Ferguson

The Rule of Law

LA Times Links to Suggested Readings

A Journalistic Review of the Original Incident

What a mess. Happy Thanksgiving America.

US and Iran Extend Nuclear Talks yet Again for 7 More Months

The United States and Iran have moved to declare a seventh month extension in their talks to dismantle heavy parts of Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Once again, the two sides continue to be far apart in reaching any sort of framework for making a deal for Iran to cut back on their controversial nuclear program. Arguably one of President Obama's top foreign policy goals, this comes as a huge disappointment and failure for the administration and also hits at a bad time, with ISIS and terrorist groups in the middle east commanding a huge amount of attention as we already know. It seems that this situation is nowhere close to becoming resolved, especially with Iran's supreme leader-Ayatollah Ali Khamenei- having yet to offer his acknowledgement that he is willing to make the huge sacrifices that Washington is demanding. On top of that, Iran's president told his fellow Iranians on national tv that no matter what happens in the talks "the centrifuges are spinning and will never stop." John Kerry then said "we would be fools to walk away" which is basically admitting that we do not quit because we are the United States and we have already put in too much work to abandon such measures. With that said, there are no clear indications of where these talks will go next. The next date to mark on the calendar is March 1st, which is the first deadline in reaching a political agreement in the new seven month extension.

After this yearlong effort failed and the US and Iran remain far apart, is it time for the US and the Obama adminsitration to alter their priorities in terms of foreign policy?

Should this issue take a back seat to the emerging ISIS threats and other middle east conflicts?

How does the Republican victory in the midterm election influence US foreign policy targets? Is the Obama administration going to make any sort of changes?

Sources and to read more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-talks.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/24/world/meast/iran-nuclear-talks/index.html?hpt=wo_c2

DEA checks 49ers’, Bucs’ medical personnel

Week 11 did not end as planned for the San Francisco 49ers'. No, they did not lose, they beat the New York Giants by a score of 16-10. It was the surprise visit by the Drug Enforcement Agency  that received attention at MetLife Stadium in East  Rutherford New Jersey postgame. The San Francisco 49ers' were one of three teams to be greeted by members of the DEA after their respective game this past Sunday the 16th (also visited were the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Seattle Seahawks). While no arrests were made, the DEA is responding to serious allegations by former NFL players in regard to the mishandling of prescription drugs by team medical personnel. A lawsuit was filed on behalf of the former NFL players this past May in a San Francisco federal court house. The most pressing of these drugs are pain killer medications. The lawsuit specifically claims that the NFL and its 32 team's doctors and trainers acted without regard for player health by withholding information about injuries while prescribing an excess of pain killers and anti-inflammatory medication to mask pain and increase playing time. One plaintiff described the distribution of these drugs through his lawyer as "like candy at Halloween" and went on to say that the drugs were even combined in "cocktails". A multitude of former players came forward describing a range of debilitating effects caused by these practices, they range from chronic muscle and bone ailments to permanent nerve and organ damage due to addiction. Although many of these conditions have not been fully linked to the use of painkillers, they players insist it came from the drug use. The NFL has stated that it is not responsible for the medical practices by each of its 32 teams and argues it should be handled by the players union. 

Should the NFL take responsibility for their teams actions and put forward some sort of relief fund in order to help the players harmed by drug use?

Is it the leagues responsibility to insure better quality care of its players by better monitoring of the situation and enforcement of new guidelines? or should each team hold their respective medical staff accountable?

http://www.sfchronicle.com/49ers/article/DEA-checks-49ers-Bucs-medical-staffs-5897391.php

University of California Is Set to Raise Tuition

The University of California board of regents, headed by former former secretary of Homeland Security and governor of Arizona Janet Napolitano, has voted in favor to increase tuition at a 5% increase each of the following five years. Out of state students currently pay 35  thousand dollars in tuition and fees across the UC system, not even including room and board which is about $14,000. These totals  are $9,100 above the national average for public 4-year institutions. While the UC system is above the average for all universities, it is under the cost of attending the University of Michigan and the University of Virginia, to name a few. This increase in tuition threatens the availability of attending a college in the UC system by the lower and working class who may not be able to afford the increases. “I would have real trouble paying any more, and so would a lot of people,” said Buckminster Barrett, an undergraduate at the Santa Cruz campus. “They say they’re worried about student debt, but this would force a lot of us to take more loans.” In California the average student graduates college accumulating $20,340 of debt, and many presume this will be another factor that increases that large number. 
During the recent recession California cut one billion dollars of the UC budget, but since the budget has rebounded and it reaches a  seven billion core operating budget. Governor Jerry Brown is a strong opponent of this recent increase in tuition. Brown's plan suggested a 4% increase in funding by the state, but  Janet Napolitano and her committee viewed that as not nearly enough.

Will this increase in tuition create an elitism in the UC system?
Could there have been a way around increase in tuition that was viable? Such as Brown's plan to increase funding or an increase in taxes to support the UC insitution.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/us/university-of-california-tuition-is-set-to-increase.html
http://projectonstudentdebt.org/state_by_state-view2014.php?area=CA

Florida State University Gunman Wounds 3, Then Is Killed by Police

Shortly after midnight on Thursday in Florida State's Strozier Library in Tallahassee Florida a man entered and opened fired on the students. The students rapidly headed for safety by going to the second floor, finding cover or by leaving the library all together. "I ran for my life...I ran right out the backdoor" said freshman Allison Kope. Three students were shot, and were admitted at Tallahassee MeidcalCare and are being treated for gunshot wounds. Florida State, along with many other universities in the country, has a campus wide alert system for situations just like this one which was quickly sounded. Police arrived on the scene, shortly after exchanging fire with the gunman. Killing the gunman, the campus was declared "all clear" by police a few hours later. 

This seems to be another chapter in the continuous saga of mass shootings. According to ABC News there have been 160 mass shootings from 2000-2013, the most frightening fact is that most of these shootings occur at schools. While the number of shootings per year are increasing, with no action being done by our government to address this horrendous problem. 

Should Congress pass bans or restrictions on guns in an effort to limit these type of shootings?

Would having armed guards at schools work as a deterrent to shootings? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/us/florida-state-university-shooting.html?ref=us

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/number-mass-shootings-rise-most-schools-fbi-report-n211261

And Now the Richest .01 Percent

              Research by Emmanuel Saez of UC Berkley and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics shows that the richest one hundredth of one percent of Americans now hold over 11 percent of the nations total wealth. How do these super rich people spend their money? If you said politics you are correct. Of the spending of the .01 percent, political spending is the fastest growing. It is even growing faster than their wealth. A way to show how rich the .01 percent are, is that in 1978 the .01 percent was 220 times richer than the average American. In 2012 the .01 percent were 1120 times richer than the average American. Along with the rich getting richer, the bottom 90 percent are getting poorer. In the mid 1980s the bottom 90 percent held 36 percent of the nation's wealth. Now they hold less than 23 percent. Meanwhile, the .01 percent account for much of campaign donations. In the 2012 election the .01 percent accounted for 40 percent of all campaign contributions. The author of this article wanted to bring attention to this inequality in the distribution of income and representation in politics.

-            Does this inequality in the distribution of income show that the US/economy is going in the wrong direction?

-      Should such a small percent of the population be able to to influence politics so much?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/and-now-the-richest-01-pe_b_6177200.html

Obama Condemns Islamic State’s Killing of Peter Kassig

On Sunday the Islamic terrorist group ISIS released a horrifying video showing they had beheaded a fifth Western hostage, and threatened to kill more in retaliation for US airstrikes. President Obama confirmed the death of Mr. Kassig who went missing in Syria more than a year ago at a checkpoint while delivering medical supplies. While on Air Force One President Obama released a statement saying how Mr. Kassig “was taken from us in an act of pure evil by a terrorist group…” The video seemed to show the same executioner as before, a man with a British accent. One glaring difference between this video and the rest was the quality and nature of the video. No beheading actually occurred on video and the video looked amateur and not choreographed. This could be a sign of US surveillance and drone strike making a difference, by making it so ISIS militants can’t stay out too long without fear of being detected.

-            Are US airstrikes in Syria and Iraq making a difference? If so how much of a difference?

-      Should the US do more to try and stop ISIS?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/world/middleeast/peter-kassig-isis-video-execution.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

The Homeless Question

While homelessness in America is no new phenomenon, it's persistence begs the question; what is to be done about the homeless?
In New York City, home to over 57,000 homeless people, parks have been "taken over" by homeless people not living in shelters.
And this is a common solution both for homeless people, and the residents that they seem to be disturbing.  Yet this has been employed in New York City, and while it is used by many homeless people, most find the system to be less than desirable.
Similar problems in Fort Lauderdale Florida have led to an ordinance prohibiting feeding homeless people.  At least one person however finds this unfair, and continues to feed homeless people in spite of two prior arrests for doing so.

This inevitably poses the question, what extent should the government be able to restrict what we as citizens can do?
That is, should they be able to prevent people from feeding homeless people?
Additionally, is this method a practical tactic against homelessness?  Is it morally right?
What is it about our current political climate that makes most Americans less sympathetic to homeless people, and less inclined to give government more power?
(E.g. under FDR the government imposed rationing on many goods as a result of the Great Depression)
Are shelters an apt solution to the homeless question?