Open Thread for SOTU Responses

Use this space to respond to the SOTU speech live or immediately afterwards if you wish. Once the official bloggers for this week post about the speech (presumably on Wednesday or later) then please respond or contribute to those threads.

Do Millennials Matter in US Politics?

To put it simply, a millennial is anyone who has reached adulthood beyond the year 2000. Millennials, also known as Generation Y-ers, are the latest victim of a trend that history often repeats: the older generations blaming their problems on the latest one. And while previous generations picking on the newer is a phenomenon that has existed since the beginning of time itself, a startling trend has appeared with the newest generation-- its ability to participate in politics.

Some more left-wing political pundits are critical on the issue of millennials' recent lack of voting participation in the 2014 midterm elections. They claim that the extremely low rate of people under 30 (which is by no means unusual, as this trend pops up every now and again) had an effect on the majority-Republican House that the midterms resulted in. While there is no doubt that many millennials do have right-wing beliefs, there is also substantial evidence that younger voters are more likely to identify as Democratic in their first few votes.

As said before, though, younger voters have maintained their absence in major elections not withstanding the Presidential elections every four years. This has lead to some believing that millennial's poor participation in the 2014 midterms would not have affected the elections any more than it would have the past midterms as well. A multitude of factors play into young Americans withholding their voting powers, such as low approval rating of government, lack of time in juggling school or work, or general apathy.

Questions:

Would a higher percentage of young voters participating in the 2014 midterms have changed the outcome of the election?

Why do you think millennials aren't voting?

Do you believe young voters have little effect on politics?

New Year, New Goals

(Washington Post)

The Democratic leaders are taking a bold step ahead by starting this year off with an aggressive new "action plan" to reallocate much of the wealth from the extremely rich to the middle class through new taxes on the former and more tax breaks on the latter. Last year, Democrats were criticized for having a lacking or weak approach to income inequality issues, so many see this as a way to toughen up and readjust their stance on the issue.

This plan hopes to also help boost wages and share economic growth (a growth that has recently been only heading more and more towards the top 1%). Many Democrats, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, believes that this bill is only evening out a rigged playing field that is in favor of the rich and powerful through special interests and loopholes (see Wall Street bankers).

With the Republican party majority in Congress, it is evidently unlikely that this radical bill will pass through either chamber. However, as we've learned in class, the motive for proposing a bill in Congress isn't always for it to just get passed. Often times, one party will draft particularly partisan bills just to make a bold statement and set the grounds for debate, which is what I think they're doing in this case. This article also mentions that the Democrats in Congress are hoping to use this bill as a leeway into crafting an alternative, less severe, bill that stops GOP plans to cut tax rates for top earners.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/democrats-in-a-stark-shift-in-messaging-to-make-big-tax-break-pitch-for-middle-class/2015/01/11/d4438468-9999-11e4-a7ee-526210d665b4_story.html
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/12/pf/taxes/taxes-middle-class/

Your turn!

1. What other motives do you think the Democrats have to unveil this bill (that will likely get shot down)?

2. Do you agree with this plan?

3. What are other ways the Democrats could possibly go about their goal of evening out income equality through tax cuts?

Is Warren Running for President? Who Knows at This Point

Elizabeth Warren has given conflicting signs on whether she will be contending as a Democratic candidate for the 2016 Presidential election. The Massachusetts Senator and former Harvard professor is seen by political pundits as an ideal choice for the next Democrat to run for the seat in the Oval Office, but so far, there isn't quite enough evidence to prove she desires to go for it at all.

Washington Post's The Fix, among other political blogs, has been covering Warren's supposed consideration for Democratic nominee since rumors began to spread among the politically savvy that the "liberal favorite" was thinking about joining the race as early as 2011. Whether conservative or as liberal as many people claim Warren to be, political bloggers all over the spectrum are going nuts over the Senator's "candidacy."

Of course, Warren is no stranger to being compared or pitted against her supposed rival in the race, Hillary Clinton. The two are strong contenders for the 2016 Presidential race, and while Clinton hasn't 100% confirmed her running, the former Secretary of State has much more of a chance of running than her Massachusetts counterpart.

As a matter of fact, Elizabeth Warren continues to deny running for President, and adamantly at that. Several times over, interview after interview, Warren refutes the possibility of even considering joining the race; like other possible candidates such as former Republican candidate Mitt Romney, skeptics in the blogging world can't quite believe that she's telling the truth, however.

Questions:

Why do you think Warren is denying running for Democratic nominee?

What is your opinion of the media's pitting Warren and Clinton against each other?

Is the media particularly obsessed with Warren's possible candidacy, or do you think other supposed candidates are being treated the same way?

Equal Marriage Advocates Hit a SCOTUS Roadbump in Louisiana

36 states now adorn the legal permission to wed same-gender partners as of 2014. The striking down of the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013 led to almost quadruple the states allowing same-gender marriages. Multiple victories for LGBTQIA couples granted equal marriage rights to states including Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, and both Carolinas. The Supreme Court of the United States had been on a roll, striking down ban after ban throughout the year; ten of the 14 states still without equal marriage are currently seeking Supreme Court review to appeal the ban.

Recently, however, marriage equality advocates have lost momentum in one of the newer states to appeal the marriage ban in Louisiana. On Friday, the Supreme Court announced that they have decided to not take the case despite a pending appeal from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. LGBTQ rights advocates representing the Louisiana plaintiffs stated in court documents that there is an "intense need” to resolve the issue, which has faced controversy from locals across the state since DOMA had been repealed, and in October, the state court upheld the ban on gay marriage.

According to Supreme Court press releases, none of the other four states will have no action taken on their bans. Equal marriage advocates remain stumped at the decision, but nevertheless will continue to fight the bans until the SCOTUS returns to the cases, if possible.

Questions:

Why do you think the SCOTUS decided not to take the cases in Louisiana or the other four states?

Will this decision stop momentum in gaining equal marriage rights in other states?

Should the SCOTUS return to these cases soon? Why or why not?

Where was Obama?

(us.hellomagazine.com)

This past Sunday, a unity march was held in Paris to honor those recently lost in the deadly terrorist attacks. Over 40 world leaders came together in solidarity with over 1 million people on the streets. However, the United States did not send any senior administrative members to the event. On one hand, the event was planned in only 36 hours, and thus planning a trip for the president to visit on such short notice would have been difficult. On the other hand, both President Obama and Vice President Biden had relatively free schedules that weekend, and Attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris already for security meetings, yet none attended the march.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest has publicly announced the administration's regret and mistake in not sending anyone of higher standing to the event. However, many are still upset with the decision, and potential 2016 GOP contenders have been using it as a strong point of blame towards the president and his administration.

Although it was unfortunate that the United States didn't send a higher-ranking representative to the march, I don't think its a terrible deed. It is evident that there is no ill-intent in the decision, and the administration has apologized publicly and honestly for its mistake. It is important to point out errors and blunders that the government makes, but I think this is blown out of proportion (it is/was on the homepage of CNN.) What happened in Paris is horrendous, and President Obama and other officials have offered support and given their condolences. Yes, they messed up, but I think to not accept the apology and instead point blame at Obama (like the possible GOP contenders are doing) is silly and unnecessary. Ultimately, this is about the French people and the horrors they have endured these past weeks. Our focus and concern should be on them, not the U.S. leaders.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/12/politics/obama-kerry-paris/index.html

A few questions to ponder:

1. Assuming that you agree the administration made a mistake, (feel free to argue that point as well) do you think the administration's apology was enough?

2. What do you think the administration should have done instead?

3. Do you think the media / certain officials are being over-dramatic about the issue, or are they rightly outraged?

A nation in debt, an American trait or universal?

The year 2015 is still anew for it has only been recently its new years celebration. This doesn't seem to affect Prime Minister David Cameron. Cameron has already devised a purpose for the year. He wants the voters to end the line of debt throughout the ages.

David Cameron did not give a speech about the importance of following a good party or a persuasion for reforms. Cameron instead reminded the voters that the decisions are in their hands because they have the power to vote. He lights the flames of democracy in this manner by creating an illusion of direct democracy. His words although are not absolute in public acknowledgement, he employs tactics of shame into the populace by making them the navigators of the economic train. He says to stay on the road towards recovery or take the path to ruin but really he means if the economic situation worsens it's on the people.

The United States is quite the same. The use of these tactics do not bring consequences one-hundred percent of the time. It has even been used to carve out the United States structure and to refine the government's mechanisms. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's presidency stands as a notable example as he attained three terms while increasing the scope of government along with its power. Currently the economy is doing great but not the people in it. This is do to the delay between recovery and effect. There are risky plans to accelerate it but can those plans end up being the paths towards ruin.

Questions:

How can the people of the United States end the tradition of debt?

What do you think about the economic situation?

What impact does public awareness have on governmental acquisition?

Political Correctness, Does it hurt the war on terror?

There is a new name for ISIS and it is Daesh. The group has been labeled as Daesh by the pentagon but it only has angered the group itself. Members of ISIS have begun to cut out the tongues of those who are bold enough to use it. Daesh is only a highlight of the power titles can have on individuals and plans.

Herd mentality is possibly arising from the collective calls that have been tossed onto the members of ISIS. People in Islam who do not see the United States as enemies are being corralled into a terrorist group. The government has been quick to make these corrals and the most recent corral is islamic radical terrorists. As a consequence those who are not part of ISIS are finding hostility to be persuaded to join. Not all islamists are bad, surrounding countries with sunni concentrations are not all bad but should they be considered part of the enemy? They are unintentionally providing aid by housing them. Condemn them to a search, jail them and kill them in dozens because of their instigations. Is this what the government is fearing? Hate crimes becoming the center of the priorities is likely but not realistic. This is likely because the government isn't picking a good corral. There needs to be more specificity. Extremists constitute parts of great majorities and there needs to be a straightforward name for the enemy.

Over the years the threat of radicalism has spread like an infection. This new form of terrorism is being fueled by the governments political correctness. Innocent individuals are becoming self radicalized and living in fear isn't helping them stay in neutrality.

Questions:

Can the political correctness drive a Sunni uprising?

How will this play out with the United States effectively calling out to ISIS to come and get it?

What other examples support an argument for either side of political correctness being an obstacle to success?

Bad World, Good Politics

The G.O.P. are now praying for a world spinning out of control in an effort to retain power for the upcoming elections in 2016. In times when the government has been entrusted with great national responsibility in international security affairs, the G.O.P. has been the most likely to be in power.

Some examples that support a world growing chaotic are: the Charlie Hebdo shooting, Kansas City Gun Shop, and the Fort Bliss shooting. As these issues stack, so will the opportunities for the G.O.P. to earn a continuous status of reign with their advantage in national security. Their dream plan can also end up in the opposite direction. Democrats built up an image of protection with presidents such as Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt, their image can end up a lot bigger if they end up answering the people's call that arises from G.O.P.'s failure to export stability overseas.

The G.O.P. now has to overcome it's internal struggle within the congressional houses, a developing cyber war and nuclear threats from North Korea, and rising hostility from Russia.

Questions:

Is there a new cold war lurking in the future?

How likely do you think the G.O.P. is to be able to secure a win in 2016?

What campaign tactics will the Democratic Party use to counteract the G.O.P.'s advantage in National Security?

John Boehner dodges the Boot, G.O.P. on the road towards dissidence.

G.O.P.'s elating Tuesday took a turn for the worst when Boehner's reelection as speaker suffered a loss of majority vote. Another organized attempt to kick him off his seat nearly created a downfall for John Boehner but the opposition failed to keep unity and high numbers.

Boehner won his reelection as Speaker of the House will this less than a majority vote. Wins like these are rare for Speakers of the House and it has only happened on four occasions since 1917. Daniel Webster's sudden addition near the end provided a huge blow to Boehner's leadership. Ultimately, Boehner continues to possess the gavel and within the same day he penalized webster for his actions. Daniel Webster no longer holds a position in the Rules Committee effectively losing a great deal of power.

This quarrel has made evident that the G.O.P. is divided to an extant and since they control the majority in both house, the senate is in a state of division. Legislature will be traveling on tough terrain as long as the division persists. With Fiscal conservatives and Tea Party augmentations lurking in the back, the G.O.P. is headed for public dissatisfaction. With the people's habit of blaming the majority party, the G.O.P. is destined to face another streak of election losses.

Questions:
What tactics will the G.O.P. issue to prevent public opinion from reducing their reign?

FreedomWorks’ Matt Kibbe said, "We knew going into this fight that it would be a David versus Goliath effort...," What reasons do they have for fighting a battle they can't win?

What justifies the opposition to eliminate Boehner?

North Korea has a 6,000 member Cyber Army in storage

The United States has punished North Korea with additional sanctions in response to the Sony hack. These sanctions aim to go after the North Korean government officials, and the Intelligence and cyber operations. These are suspected of being behind the Cyber attacks but now South Korea reveals the 6,ooo member Cyber Army.

The number alone is overwhelming but added to the threat is North Korea's possible mainland nuclear strike on the United States. The power of North Korea's grip on cyber specialties has been experienced and if the Nuclear Research is anywhere near the same, should we truly find discouragement and develop fear? North Korea's nuclear tests since 2006 have fallen short of capability and have been expected to remain the same.

Despite being in a stasis of reserve, the North Korean Cyber Army enacts detrimental delays to South Korea in its development. The nuclear age of warfare is now capable of fully transitioning into an age of cyber annihilation with North Korea being the most equipped to stand on top. In 2013, the force used against South Korea had been 3,000; therefore, in one year alone the collective power doubled. North Korea denies the Sony hack but mysteriously warns of greater threats in the mist ahead.

Questions:

If North Korea continues to carry out attacks in the United States through the cyber world, will the next potential target be another warning or will it be aimed at substantial damage?

Is North Korea's nuclear development and cyber superiority capable of causing enough damage to cause North Korea to be added to the list of terrorism?

Further sanctions are only failing to quell the problem, the economic squeeze placed on North Korea long ago has not been able to render it dead in its tracks in acts of cyber vandalism, with this in mind, what new course of plan can be carried out to deal with the pimple to progress?

In an effort to change legislation, the G.O.P. turns to the courts

As they prepare for their upcoming Tuesday takeover of congress, Republicans are looking to aggressively limit and undo Obama's legislative actions, not through legislation, but through the courts.

From the ACA to environmental regulations on power plants to immigration, the Republicans have been adamant about achieving repeal. In December alone, an amicus brief representing nearly 70 members of congress was submitted saying that the Obama administration had "exceeded the bounds of their prosecutorial discretion and abdicated their duty to faithfully execute the law," while another on the topic of health care subsidies read as saying they were the "most egregious example of the administration’s make-it-up-as-we-go approach to implementing."

It may draw parallels with progressive judges creating new rights through legal interpretation a.k.a. "judicial activism", but there are conservative legal scholars that argue otherwise. Instead, they say, it's asking the courts to restrain the President's erroneous uses of authority or as Patrick Morrisey, the attorney general of West Virginia put it, "it's a call for adhering to the rule of law."

Questions:

Is this new G.O.P. strategy of trying to influence the law through the court system more than just a reminiscent shadow of the judicial activism that was so condemned by conservatives before?

Is this merely congress trying to get another shot at Obama's legislation or do they have a significant point with it's legality?

Gun control advocates taking their battles to the state ballot

A November ballot victory in Washington had confirmed the gun-control movement's new strategy, focus on states in which they can introduce ballot measures. Their introduction of broader background checks in Washington has set the stage for what they hope will be a flourishing point as they embrace their growing support and a bit of an image change (i.e. using gun safety instead of gun control).

After the tragedies of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in 2011 and Sandy Hook in 2012, gun control group have said that their grass roots support is stronger than ever, even to the point that they outspent the NRA in the Washington election. In 2016, they are already looking to introduce measures in regions such as Maine, Arizona and Oregon.

As they work to refocus their strategy away from the federal government, the National Rifle Association has followed. The extremely vocal interest group has been so far successful in blocking most gun control legislation and even having a part in electing supporters out of office. Already the NRA has headed to court to fight this most recent ballot.

Some of the most recent pew surveys reveal a greater complexity to the american public's' overall opinion. A December 2014 Pew Poll reveals that, for the first time in two decades, over 50% of those polled supported gun ownership over gun control, but a 2013 poll found that three quarters of Americans support an extension of background checks. It makes sense that Americans see value in their right to bear arms, especially in cases of self defense, as well as wanting to keep guns out of the hands of those deemed not responsibly by society, but I'll ask "what do you think?"

Do you support an expansion of background checks?
What's your opinion on gun control advocates changing their chosen route of legislation?
If you support gun control, where should the line be drawn?

Recent polling shows growing consensus on anerican law enforcement reform

With the recent cases of Micheal Brown and Eric Garner burned into society's collective memory, attitudes among both the left and the right have started to show some common ground emerging. In a Washington Post-ABC poll taken within the last month, it was revealed that the differences between those that identified the furthest left, liberal democrats, and those that identified as the furthest right, conservative republicans, largely agreed on the topics of body cameras (94% and 79% support respectively) as well as bringing in independent prosecutors (97 and 76% respectively).

With an overall 86% consensus for use of police body cameras and the Obama administration already showing support for the measure, it's uplifting to see partisanship still hasn't removed all change of agreement. It's possible we may see congress legislate upon in within their next term, but who knows? I'll leave that question to you.

Questions:
Do you support the implementation of police body cameras?
Do you think independent prosecutors should be brought in when an officer is in question?
Do you think congress will act on this public consensus?

(REUTERS/Carlo Allegri)

Illegal Immigrants Crowd California DMV's for Licenses

Today marks the first day that illegal immigrants living in California have the ability to get a drivers license without showing a proof of residency (San Jose Mercury News). The bill that allowed the illegal immigrants to get a drivers license was because of the passing of  AB60, which was passed in late 2013 (California DMV , NBC News) and allowed over 6,000 illegal immigrants residing in California today to obtain a license. Theses license do differ from a normal license because they have "FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY" written on it so that Homeland Security could tell the difference (San Jose Mercury News). Only a few DMV offices around the state were open to accommodate all these people, such as the East San Jose office.

I think this is a good idea to allow illegal immigrants the ability to drive because it is the first step to becoming an american citizen. But like everyone else, I wouldn't want more drivers because the roads are already congested, especially in the LA area. I think this will help the President's immigration reform policies and also help the democratic party get more votes if this works well in the coming months. Driving can  be a necessity for people and it is great leap forward to having better immigration policies.

1. Do you think this will help the Democratic party secure future votes from immigrants?
2. What do you predict this impact will this have on future legislation in California?
3. What can the passing of this bill benefit people in California?

Proposed FCC plan creates opportunities for Google Fiber

Within the Federal Communications Commission's proposed regulatory changes (paywall) detailed within their recent broadband plan was the plan to treat internet providers as telecommunications under Title II. Although this would bring ISPs under stricter regulations, those that usually affect utilities, some see a bright side, especially in the case of Google Fiber (paywall).

Google Fiber is a Google's effort to offer internet through a physically wired service program. Between their $30-$300 initial cost 10 years of free internet at 5mb/s and their offering of 1Gbit(125mb/s) for $70, they've scared the established ISPs offering much weaker plans. The cost of laying wire, however, is relatively high and as such, they've only brought their service to a few key areas.

In a market where the largest internet service providers are also the largest telecommunications companies, it's no coincidence that outside companies are hard pressed to gain access to established infrastructure. Google Fiber has had to fight an uphill battle for alternatives to something as expensive as laying wiring in the ground, however, under the proposed shift to Title II, Google Fiber stands to gain access to utility poles as well as other essential utility infrastructure. This sudden opening of opportunities would allow them to cut costs significantly as they gain the ability to create greater competition and consumer choice in more areas.

Questions:
Should ISPs be put under greater regulation?
Should they be labeled as "utilities"?
Should Google Fiber gain access to the infrastructure built by other companies?
Would you like for Google Fiber to come to your area?

U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Cuba

Last Wednesday President Obama announced the the restoration of full diplomatic relations with Cuba. Catalyzed by a year and a half of secret prisoner trade negotiations facilitated by the Vatican itself, the US exchanged Alan Gross and an unnamed american spy for the last three members of the Cuban Five. The US is now looking to open up a full embassy in Cuba.

This move looks to end mistrust stemming from the cold war as trade is reestablished with almost 55 year estranged region. While travel bans were lifted in 2010, this new deal will loosen both travel and economic policies even further. Although the shift in diplomacy seems to be positive-- the Pope even sanctioned the deal-- there are those who are against such a change. A number of Cuban refugees spoken out against it with reference to the horrors they saw under the Castro regime and the reminder that a Castro is still in power.

Questions:
Do you think the US should restore relations with Cuba?
Are the opponents to such changes justified in their opposition?
What benefits or drawbacks might occur from the loosening of economic restrictions on trade to Cuba?


See this? This is Cuba. Looks nice doesn't it?

"The Interview" being pulled from theaters in regards to recent cyber attack on Sony Entertainment

Last week, Sony Entertainment had a company wide cyber attack that revealed many personal emails of chief executives, directors, producers, actors, and other employees had a drastic impact on the company. The FBI however have connected this cyber attack to a North Korea, and specifically the group of hackers who call themselves "Guardians of Peace", which wanted to halt the release of the movie "The Interview" starring Seth Rogen and James Franco. This movie angered North Korea's leader Kim Jung Un (ABC News) because the plot of the movie was about two American reporters being sent to assassinate Kim Jung Un. Sony's decided to pull the plug on the release of the movie, and so did theaters companies, such as AMC theaters, who felt that they will be threatened and hacked by the Guardians and that their information would be stolen as well (ABC News). The Guardians have threatened to take and expose more information from Sony if "The Interview" is ever shown, released, or leaked in any form (NY Post). Many Hollywood celebrities are outraged by Sony's decision to pull the movie out of theaters before it is even released, saying that it shows weakness (CNN) and President Obama saying that "[He] wished they had spoken to [him] first" (The Guardian). Jokingly, filmmaker Michael Moore tweeted "Dear Sony Hackers: now that u run Hollywood, I'd also like less romantic comedies, fewer Michael Bay movies and no more Transformers." He later added: "Oh, hackers, one more thing - I lost like $180K on [my film] 'Canadian Bacon.' Can u do the opposite of what u just did & get it back IN to theaters?"

I find this recent cyber attack quite disturbing, as do most people, thinking that Sony has shown weakness ti cyber terrorists and that they should have shown the movie. I also agree with the people who want the release of "The Interview" because it looked really funny, even though North Korea's leader didn't like it. Sony has gotten a lot of criticism for not showing its movie, and some theaters and people have volunteered to show it. With that much effort from other people and companies wanting to release the movie to the public on its expected release day, I believe Sony entertainment should stand up to these international bullies and show the movie. Even though the U.S. has more firepower, resources, and people to use, it is a waste of effort to use any of it on such a matter. The North Korean's could have taken this satirical movie and got back at the U.S. with a similar movie about North  Koreans coming to get our president, and we wouldn't have hacked them to stop the showing. This incident has shed some light on the new means of hacking that has not been seen before, and how our technologically connected planet can be targeted in new ways.

Questions:
1.What do you think Sony should have done in regards to this matter?
2. How do you think people will respond to this situation? Should they show the movie or not?

3. Should the president use his War Powers Act abilities to find and retaliate against the Guardians of Peace?
4. If Obama was running for another term (hypothetically if he could), how would this incident affect his reelection and how would his campaign staff have to help him?
5. Did you want to see the movie?

Diplomatic Efforts by Texas Oil Company to Ease Tensions in Middle East

A large new natural gas field has been discovered in Israel, a good omen for its neighbors Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority. Israel's newly found resources would be able to sate their energy needs, but the tension between the states is standing in the way of cooperation. An oil company in the United States, Noble Energy, could be the key to peace. Its recent diplomatic deals with Israel and the nearby countries are supported by the Obama administration (New York Times). Noble Energy plans to sell natural gas from Israel to its neighbors to bring peace to the Middle East area. The American government "has quietly pushed the strategy" (NY Times) to relieve international tensions yet also promote its own agenda. It hopes that the energy supply from Israel will be able to expand past just fueling Egypt and Jordan, to more of Europe.

I think that these international deals have a good chance of succeeding. In the past few years, Jordan's demand for energy has driven it to continue to use Israel's source, despite tensions between the two states. With more available natural gas and further encouragement from an outside party, it is quite possible that the diplomatic arrangements could work, especially in the U.S.'s favor. On the other hand, other gas companies seeking use of Israel's resources are looking to compete with Noble Energy. The new natural gas reserves are located in the Royee field, which isn't held by Noble or its partner Delek Group (Haaretz). This is an opportunity for outside groups, like Italian company Edison, to control energy resources in Israel. It could also inhibit Noble and the Obama administration's plans to promote peace, if they lose influence in the region.

Questions:
Do you think that Noble's efforts for peace will succeed, or is Israel better off with private companies using the new natural gas resources to compete with outside corporations (such as Noble Energy or Delek Group)?
How will the possible competition affect the Noble-Delek monopoly and nations' consumption of Israel energy?
In general, how would peace in the Middle East region help the U.S. and international community? Should the U.S. be involving itself to prompt peace, and are the efforts enough?

Uber Builds an Empire of Users and Lobbyists

As Uber, an app that connects people with nearby drivers for carpooling, gains popularity, the company also sees a rise in legislative attempts to regulate it and ensure rider safety. States have tried to introduce rules regarding the drivers and even halt its operation in the respective state (Washington Post). Such measures are usually backed by taxi and insurance corporations, but now, Uber quickly contacts its user base to counter regulatory bills. The company provides its users with convenient methods, allowing them to easily sign online petitions and display their protests to government officials. Additionally, Uber's professional lobbyists turn their influence on legislators whom they think can be persuaded to vote against the measures. In cases such as those involving the Virginia DMV and Illinois' bill, Uber has effectively used both its users and lobbyists to fight regulations, and usually, win.

The company's growing influence can be used a tool for the two major political parties. Currently, Democrats are generally supporting Uber. However, Republicans could also "'make a comeback' in Democratic cities" to target Uber's left-leaning audience (Washington Post). This tactic would call to the grassroots network supporting Uber and possibly attract the younger audience to the Republican Party.

Without the company's large network of users, I believe it would be more difficult for it to combat legislative regulatory efforts. Any corporation can hire lobbyists, but especially compared to other ride-sharing app rivals, Uber's fast and effective mobilization of its users allows the company to ask for and receive instant support--as in one case, people have answered so quickly that the rate peaked at "seven electronic signatures per second" (Washington Post). Uber is able to quickly show that its position is "representative" of the people and assure that they are working with them, instead of just sending lobbyists straight to lawmakers.

Questions:
Would Republican support for Uber bring voters to the party?
As technology becomes more prominent in our daily lives, will more companies be able to successfully employ the double tactic that Uber uses?
Do you think Uber, or similar companies, should be regulated, and how?