Term Limits Hurt Michigan

A letter was written on Monday, September 14th, by Warren Mayor Jim Fouts addressing the need to repeal Michigan's term limits law (The Detroit News). Jim Fouts agrees that there needs to be drastic action, but he wants to completely repeal the term limits law. Fouts believes that the number one reason behind this is the inexperience, which has led to inaction and misjudgments by state legislatures.


One example that Fouts clearly underlines in his letter is the disregard legislators have in regard to legislation due to the inconvenience of term limits. Fouts discusses how fireworks were made legal to use on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Dec. 26. These are industrial grade fireworks. "Many people throughout the state complain about neighborhoods sounding like a war zone. These fireworks have a particularly toxic effect on pets, small children, the elderly, war vets, and those who simply want to sleep without fear of their house catching fire. This is a classic example of misguided action caused by inexperienced legislators" (The Detroit News). Evidently, people are rising eyebrows concerning their trust in their state government.


Not only are irrational laws passed, but legislation is completely rushed. The example that Fouts gave was the 2014 Proposal 1, which was yet another misguided proposal that passed through the Legislature. This proposal was written to benefit the large manufacturing industry that spent millions on the campaign. Unlike other ballot proposals, it was written and approved by the state legislature. "The ballot language was very biased, one-sided, and misleading. It did not create one job that was promised" (The Detroit News). "Almost three quarters of the tax reduction goes to large industrial manufacturers," Jim Fouts says. The proposal language mentions schools, public safety, and jobs making it sound much nicer than the ballot proposal really is.


The change in tax structure that this proposal emphasizes will reduce the money Warren and other cities in Michigan will get due to a loss in personal property tax revenue. Next year, Warren will lose "$10.6 million plus a lot of new tax money generated by over a two billion dollars investment in their new downtown area" (Detroit Free Press). Now cities will be forced to drastically reduce services or increase taxes both of which are "unacceptable!" These proposals and others were rushed through the legislature with little understanding of the ramifications of these. Most proposals, if not all, were written not in the interest of people, but the interest of special interests. Since the members of the House only have three two year terms (Michigan Government), after only four years they are "lame ducks." They can’t get re-elected and are obviously looking for another job. Experience in any other field is rewarded and term limits are diminishing experience.


Should we have term limits? Explain why or why nor. Are term limits affecting legislation? Should we blame term limits for making Michigan's state legislators truly inexperienced? Michigan's six year limit in the House seems very low compared to other states such as Nevada and Louisiana who have a twelve year limit for House members. Is there a right set number of years that would avoid a term limit from interfering with legislation? Should we have voters instead, vote politicians out of office rather than wait the entire term limit? Should we ban term limits all together?


Sources:
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2015/09/14/letter-fouts-term-limits/72082540/
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2014/prop-1-110414.aspx
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/macomb/2015/01/16/warren-mayor-fouts-withdraw-appeal-prop-personal-property-tax/21886145/
http://house.michigan.gov/citizens.asp


Source of image: Detroit News

ISP's don't have the right to edit information

On September 14, 2015, The FCC stated that they did not violate the First Amendment when it implemented net neutrality rules.  While broadband provides sued saying that they had the right to filter out information on the internet, the FCC came back saying

"ISPs are conduits for the speech of others; they are not delivering their own messages when they connect their customers to the Internet...Rules against blocking and throttling Internet content thus do not violate the ISPs’ constitutional rights" (arstechnica)

All of this comes after the FCC's decision to classify Broadband providers as Common Carriers. With this new classification, they are stripped of their First Amendment rights that news companies and websites have. The only exception that was given was that Broadband providers were allowed to edit and "Practice" their First Amendment rights on their own websites.

During this whole ordeal, Broadband providers did make the claim that they are in a similar position to Cable TV providers and because of that they should have the right to “exercise the same editorial discretion as cable television operators in deciding which speech to transmit.”

Yet the FCC countered back saying:
"that cable TV is different from Internet access because cable TV systems have limited capacity on which to carry channels. ISPs, by contract, face no technological obstacles preventing them from providing access to all lawful Internet content" (arstechnica)

So what do you think?

Do you think that ISP's should have the right to filter information they find to be objectionable (e.g. Illegal Content, Torrents for pirated software, etc...)

Do you think people have too much freedom to do what they want or say on the internet?

Sources:

Arstechnica [Link]

Court case [Link]

Another court case [Link]

Texas schoolboy handcuffed for bringing homemade clock to school

A 14 year old Muslim boy in Irving, Texas was put in cuffs for bringing a homemade clock to school to show off to his teacher. Ahmed Mohamed showed his new creation to his English teacher but was pulled out of school in cuffs at 3 p.m after administrators commented that "it looked like a bomb". The police claimed that they did not believe that Mohamed was creating the clock for fun of it and that it was reasonable for people to be concerned about it being a bomb. The principal, Dan Cummings, sent out a letter stating that the device was not dangerous and reassured that nobody was hurt. He however, goes on in the letter to talk about how students should be careful on bringing prohibited items to school. The actions by the school has lead a backlash against them about how young people in this country should not be shut down from innovating with electronics. Many are also questioning whether or not the school would go this far to detain Mohamed if he were not Muslim. The backlash also included a creation of the new hashtag of #IStandWithAmed. This is not the first time that this city has been in trouble for Islamophobia, since the mayor, Beth Van Buyne, has accused Muslim leaders for trying to create Sharia law in Irving, Texas and has taken measures to ensure that the paranoia does not come true. Although Mohamed has not been arrested and has been let go, he is still suspended from class for 3 days. In response he has vowed to never bring an invention to school again and plans to transfer schools. His father commented "This is not America. That is not us". This story has inspired a White House invitation from the president himself on Twitter, an invitation on Facebook from Mark Zuckerberg, and an internship offer from Twitter. This obviously leads to a bigger question on relations today with Muslim Americans. Only 27% of Americans have a favorable view of Muslims and hate crimes against Muslims have skyrocketed 5 times after 9/11 jumping from 20 actions of violence a year to 100-150 a year. Many GOP candidates will claim that the United States needs to protect itself domestically against Islamic terrorism despite the fact that 90% of domestic terrorism is caused by non-Muslim terrorists and more than 50% of domestic terrorism is caused by white national groups with anti-government ideologies.

Thoughts on US relations with Islam?

Sources:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/16/sudanse-american-boy-handcuffed-homemade-clock-school

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/us/texas-student-is-under-police-investigation-for-building-a-clock.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/11/anti-muslim-hate-crimes-are-still-five-times-more-common-today-than-before-911/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/11/13-years-after-9-11-anti-muslim-bigotry-is-worse-than-ever.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html

Flash Floods Kill Twelve in Utah

Flash floods occurred all over Utah's border with Arizona on Tuesday killing up to twelve people.  A "large wall of water and debris" triggered by heavy rain pounded nearby canyons and swept people away in their cars (Reuters).  This was not the only "deadly incident attributable to the fast-moving water. In Zion National Park's Keyhole Canyon, four people who were canyoneering were killed and three are missing, National Park Service officials said" (CNN).  Utah Lieutenerary Governor Spencer Cox commented on how this is simply "another tragedy for our state. Reeling right now" Twitter.  In Hildale, a small city in Utah, hundreds of volunteers are helping to search for one person still missing, Washington County officials said, after floodwaters swept through streets.  "It was an act from God," Hildale Mayor Phillip Barlow told reporters of Monday's tragedy.  "This is something we can't control. ... It happened too fast." (Deseret News). 

“Most people, they entertain themselves with their children by just driving around,” Mrs. Jessop said. “We come up to the canyons a lot; we get water. It’s just a fun place to come. They must have just gotten caught in it” (The New York Times).  The vehicles were found a quarter-mile away, and some of the bodies were not found until Tuesday because they were carried far downstream into Arizona (one was five miles away).

Crews have worked ever since Monday evening monitoring floods and searching the banks of Short Creek due to spontaneous rain showers.  Fortunately, contractors have worked to clear most of the mud and debris, and the National Guard has been called in to help with the cleanup.  “In the flash flooding two occupied vehicles were hit by a large wall of water and debris at the Canyon Street Maxwell Crossing and were carried into the flood,” Washington County Emergency Services said in a statement on Facebook. Utah Governor Gary Herbert said he was "heartbroken," and that the state has offered its full resources to Hildale to aid the search and rescue effort (Reuters).  In disregard to the floods, three people died and four were missing once going to explore canyons at Zion National Park, less than twenty miles north of Hildale, before Monday's heavy rains.  

My question to you is should the federal government step in and assist the state of Utah with help in the form of aid?  Would this create more tension?  Should the federal government get involved at all?  When a sudden emergency such as this one takes place, what steps should be taken to address the people at large (how can we avoid skewed data in the number of deaths)?  In addition, if the Zion National Park Canyon was monitored better, could flash floods have been completely avoided?  This then leads to another pressing issue: where should our tax dollars be going and lastly, who should be the ones to decide this matter (the state legislatures or the counties and local governments)?  

Sources:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/15/us-usa-utah-flood-idUSKCN0RF0IA20150915

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/15/us/utah-arizona-flooding/index.html

https://twitter.com/SpencerJCox

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865636851/3-dead-4-missing-in-Zion-National-Park-flooding.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/us/utah-flash-floods.html

https://www.facebook.com/Washcosafety?fref=nf

Planned Parenthood Connection To Government Shutdown

As some of us might have heard, the government is most likely to shut down for the second time in two years this late September. The last time the government shut down was in 2013, and it was as a response to the two legislative houses not being able to compromise on what should be included in the Affordable Care Act. One of the biggest reasons for this next government shut down will be: debate over Planned Parenthood.

Most people hear this and are confused about the relation between the two. The reason why the legislative branch is getting divided by this is because of a controversial video that surfaced online where Planned Parenthood executives were trying to sell aborted fetal tissue to make money. The republicans want to completely take away all the federal funds that the government is currently giving to the Planned Parenthood organization, while the White House and Democrats have declared that they will not support any efforts to do so. The reason why September 30 is thought to be the date when the government will shut down is because that is when the existing continuing resolution to this organization ends. In this case, the continuing resolution is a appropriation bill that has been giving federal money to the Planned Parenthood organization for them to use in their operations and other needs.

In this case I agree with the Republicans. Through giving money to an organization, the federal government is stating that it's supporting what that organization is doing and what their goal is. While Planned Parenthood has had good intentions in what they are trying to accomplish in the world, the federal government cannot support an organization, whose representatives, are trying to do something as vulgar as sell aborted fetal tissue for profit. Regardless if you are pro life or pro choice, this is just something that I find unacceptable, and I think that the democrats and Obama should not oppose cutting funds to the organization just because Planned Parenthood has been a supporter of their party.

This issue involves a lot of political conflict because the Democrats have gained a lot of votes and support through their pro choice arguments and affiliation with Planned Parenthood. But now that this has happened, they are put in a spot where they either continue supporting Planned Parenthood, or, they realize that what has happened is too great in magnitude, and they cut their support to the organization. I don't think this will hurt Obama or the Democrats, because it does not mean that they are no longer pro choice so they will not loose their support. It just means that they do not agree with what this organization has tried to do and they do not affiliate with such organizations, which is why I cannot understand why the Democrats will not agree and cut the federal funds.

This argument ultimately leads to the upcoming government shutdown that is to happen in the end of September, and the legislative will eventually have to come up with compromise for this issue. I think a good solution is for the federal government to add some sort of "condition of aid" like they imposed on state grants. A condition would allow the government to support the organization and give them money, but the organization cannot partake in certain actions that the government denies to them.

A few things to think about:

Do you think what the Planned Parenthood organization tried to do by selling aborted fetal tissue is right?

Secondly, should the federal government cut funds to the organization? What other compromises or solution could the Democrats and Republicans come up with so that either the government doesn't shut down, or that the shutdown doesn't last long?

Article links here and here.

Tony Abbot ousted by Liberal Party in Australia

Malcolm Turnbull, the Minister of Communications in Australia, has beaten Tony Abbott, now
former Prime Minister, in a 44 to 54 party ballot vote to become the Prime Minister. The Liberal
Party in Australia is much like the GOP in the United States that believes in fiscal conservatism and
social conservatism as well. Poll after poll has shown Mr. Abbott to be at record low approval ratings
at 24%, leaving many Australians angry with the current government and earning him the title as te
"Australian George Bush". This left the Liberal Party to believe that Mr. Abbott was unelectable and
thus Malcolm Turnbull challenged Mr. Abbott for the Prime Minister position. This will be
Australia's fifth prime minister within the time span of 5 years. The position of Prime Minister in
Australia is given the leader of the party with the majority of seats in Parliament. Like the US, he/she
is not elected by popular vote.  However, leader of the party can be challenged and will have to win a
majority of votes within his/her party to stay as prime minister; this is called a leadership spill or
could be thought of as an impeachment within the party. This is not the first time the former prime
minister has been challenged since Mr. Abbott was challenged in Feb 2015 and won by a 61-39 vote.

Mr. Turnbull is very vocal for the United States presence in the Asia Pacific region in order to
counter balance the China power move in the South China Sea. However, he also sees Obama's Asian pivot as "utterly flummoxed" and is open to a Chinese world power. The new Prime Minister sees the US to open itself to China and has a realpolitik/balance of power approach to China-U.S relations like Kissinger did in the 70s. He disagrees with directly challenging China on the issue of the South China Sea and is also skeptical about utter devotion to being an ally of the United States. However, he does recognize that relations with China should be with extremely cautious approach.

Tony Abbott

Sources:
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/sep/14/malcolm-turnbull-to-be-australias-new-pm-after-ousting-tony-abbott-in-party-vote

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/malcolm-turnbull-in-mainstream-on-foreign-policy/story-e6frg76f-1227296054301

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/09/poll-tony-abbott-record-low-approval-rating

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-31270510

https://www.liberal.org.au/member/tony-abbott

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/australia-george-bush-2014521131043210644.html

Labell v. City of Chicago - The suit over Chicago's 9% streaming tax.

On July 9^th 2015 the city of Chicago expanded its 9% 'Amusement Tax' to include internet services in addition to its preexisting tax on various forms of 'Amusement' (such as baseball games or events). With this tax, services such as Netflix, Amazon, Xbox Live, and Hulu would be effected as now consumers would have to pay more for the service. This caused outcry when brought up and implemented as many saw this as unfair and just a way for the city to get more money out of people. Finally on September 9^th 2015, a group of Chicago residents filed suit against the City of Chicago as well as the City's Comptroller - Dan Widawski.

This is the first page of the filed complaint.
Link [Here]

In the suit the plaintiffs claimed that the City's Comptroller had overreached his authority by applying the tax to online services. In addition they added that this would create a "new tax" for the people and that only the city council had the ability to authorize a tax via city ordinance.

Secondly, the plaintiffs claim that they are being harmed by the tax as they now have to pay more for the services they use.

Lastly, the plaintiffs claim that the city is breaking the law by violating the Federal Internet Tax Freedom Act. This act states that states and local government cannot "impose discriminatory internet-only taxes".  With this in mind, the plaintiffs believe that the city has violated this by creating a tax on internet services.

The Supreme Court also has had a say on something similar. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota was a case where the state of North Dakota attempted to tax Quill Corp who had no actual physical presence in North Dakota (They only sold things to people within the state). The supreme court agreed with Quill Corp. and during their official statement said:

"The lack of a physical nexus in a state is sufficient
grounds to exempt a corporation from having to pay
sales and use taxes"

So what do you think?

Do you think the City of Chicago has any legal ground to implement this new tax?

Do you think the Comptroller has exceeded his power?

Do you think the plaintiffs have a strong legal standing?

Sources

Link to article [Here]

Link to legal complaint [Here]

Professor Ethan A Schmidt Shot on Delta State Campus in Mississippi

An American history professor was shot on Monday, September 14th, while sitting in his office at Delta State University in Cleveland in Mississippi.  The man shot, Ethan A. Schmidt, was the assistant professor of American history who taught both undergraduate and graduate courses at Delta State.  The campus remained on lockdown for several hours.  Law enforcement officials suspect Shannon Lamb, a geography and social science professor, of shooting Ethan Schmidt.  "Shannon Lamb is also a suspect in the death of a woman in Gautier, Mississippi earlier on Monday", police officials told reporters at a news conference (The New York Times).  "Cleveland Police Chief Charles “Buster” Bingham told an afternoon news conference that authorities did not believe Lamb was still on the campus", which is close to the Arkansas-Mississippi state border (Reuters).  Investigators said they believe the suspect drove away from the campus after the shooting.  "He could be driving a black Dodge Avenger", authorities said, asking anyone with the information to call police (CNN).  “We’re working right now under the assumption that both events are related,” a spokesman for the Gautier police, Matthew Hoggatt, told The Sun Herald in Biloxi. “We hope that they are not. But at this point in time, information indicates that they probably are linked in some way, shape or form.”

A deputy coroner in Bolivar County, Murray Roark, said the coroner’s office had been notified of the shooting around 10:40 a.m. A twitter post was made around 12:30 p.m. telling faculty and students to “please stay inside and away from windows,” (Twitter).  Officials said the shooting took place near Jobe Hall, where many of the university’s professors have offices. More than 3,000 students are enrolled at the public university and while students and professors remained barricaded in the buildings, some took videos and photos of the campus.  At about 1 p.m., one Instagram user wrote, “2 professors and 20 students in classroom ... no word on evacuation yet” (The New York Times).

Classes were cancelled for the remainder of the day and will be cancelled tomorrow as well.  Delta State University posted on their website that "counselors from other public state institutions will be on campus tomorrow to conduct group sessions at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., and individual sessions will be available beginning at 10 a.m" (Delta State University).  "I am deeply saddened by the awful news of Ethan's passing," Sean Cunningham, the department chairman, said in a statement. "He was an outstanding teacher, scholar and friend. Even more importantly, he was an incredible husband and father. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Ethan's family" (New York Daily News).

How has social media - like Twitter and Instagram - helped keep our communities safe? Would the framers look highly upon social networking or would they view technology as a threat to the development of dangerous factions or extremists?  Having just learned about the case U.S. v. Lopez, should the federal government have the final say regarding gun control or should the states be the ones to decide this right?  School shootings are still continuing all over the country.  What measures should we take at the federal and/or state level to keep our schools safer? 

All Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/us/delta-state-shooting-mississippi.html?ref=us
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/14/us-usa-mississippi-shooting-idUSKCN0RE1SL20150914
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/us/mississippi-delta-state/
http://www.sunherald.com/welcome_page/?shf=/2015/09/14/6414159_happening-now-officials-called.html
https://twitter.com/DeltaState/status/643460450437451776
http://www.deltastate.edu/news-and-events/2015/09/additional-updates-from-delta-state-university/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/active-shooter-reported-delta-state-university-campus-article-1.2359780

Source of the image displayed in this post: The New York Times.

Russia Sends Troops To Syria, Obama and State Department Respond

After Putin's meeting with Iran's Quds Force commander in late July, Russia has gradually sent around 1000 troops to Syria, and these troops are equipped the same way as the troops that Russia deployed into Crimea(Russian version or US Rangers). Putin has said that Russia wants to help Syria defeat the islamic state and the ISIS organization. Putin, I believe, has made some valid points, saying that ,you cannot defeat the the terrorists with air strikes only. He believes that the best way to defeat the Islamic State is through the Syrian military because they are the best equipped for the job and they are down on the ground. This I do not agree with.

President Obama spoke out on this saying that, "We are gonna be engaging Russia to let them know that you can't continue to double down on a strategy thats doomed to failure." (Double down effectively means risking more to get a bigger reward) The president is talking about the military support that Russia has been providing for Syria by sending them weapons, and now they take it a step further by sending in forces hoping that they can get some sort of reward out of this.

The State Department however states "I don't know if we can call it a buildup necessarily" John Kirby (State Department Spokesman). Kirby is talking about the 1000 Russian troops that were sent to Syria. I disagree with the view the State Department is taking on this. I feel like this is a bit similar to the way the US reacted to the Rwandan Genocide, where the US tells the public, in a sense, nothing is happening, that we should be worried about. They do this because they either don't want to get involved, or they don't necessarily know what to do about the issue. I think this act by Russia does signal a buildup, because Putin is no longer just sending weapons, he is sending Russian soldiers. I see this is a "no duhh" situation, meaning that I don't think we should be questioning weather this is a buildup of Russian military involvement in Syria or not, we should question what the US will do about it?

I find it that the government has deceived us people way to many times over the years about what is happening in the world, weather by withholding information, or by providing us with false or misleading information. The reason why they are able to continually to do so, is because there have been no consequences for previous politicians or presidents who, after the fact, have been discovered to have intentionally spun or deceive the public in one way or the other. I believe the public has the right to always know the truth and be informed on what the US in doing on issues at hand. This is something that is not specifically addressed in the constitution, but it is a big issue that has affected this country many times.

A few things to think about:

Do you think the US should be worried about Russia sending troops in Syria and being involved with Iran as well? Is the Syrian military the ideal source to defeat the islamic state?

Secondly, Why do you think the State Department is downplaying these events that are occurring? Do you disagree or agree with the State Department?

(Feel free to comment on these or any other topics)

Article: FoxNews

Shutdown Politics Divide GOP

“Perhaps the most unconcealed aspect of American politics is the obvious gall with which politicians secretly try to secure reelection” -Daniel Jun, speaker of quotes and claimer of random years since 2013.

An upcoming government shutdown is creating a divide between Republican senators. This shutdown, scheduled to happen at the end of September, has elicited both support and vehement rejection. This vehemence specifically stems from two Republican senators, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. The two claim that having a government shutdown would only hinder the Republican Party, but there are realistic queries as to their motive, namely reelection. And this cynical worry is actually bolstered with hard evidence.

The article states that “the GOP paid no political price in the 2014 election for shutting down the government in 2013… it is not irrational of [Cruz, a Republican in favor of the government shutdown] to think that shutting down the government will be a cost-free endeavor (from a GOP political perspective).”

However, there are several aspects of election that may make the government shutdown less than simple for the Republicans. In presidential election years more Democrats tend to be politically active, meaning that a 2016 government shutdown could have unexpected consequences. In addition, Johnson is a weak candidate in his state, so a shutdown may actually create negative results while not affecting those already in good standing with their constituents. This is also the second government shutdown in two years, and the cumulative effect that this could have is completely unknown. Finally, the Republicans are attempting to gain control “over the House, the Senate, and the White House, simultaneously, for the first time in a decade” and Democrats may be less than happy with this grab for power.

Is a government shutdown really a good idea? And, as a side note because this came up earlier in the article, should we have elected officials who can run for as long as they are reelected?

Link to the article here.

Lazy Narrative Journalism for the Quadrillionth Time

Journalists shouldn't get spun as often as they do. Working on a tight deadline is no excuse for reporting a generalization that isn't supported by basic analysis, yet it happens all the time. Jonathan Chait provides a topical example:

If you have heard about Jeb Bush’s new tax plan by reading political reporters, you have probably heard that it is a “proposal to reform the tax code” that will “crack down on hedge fund managers” (CNN), that it is “mainstream and ordinary” with “a populist note” (NPR), that it “challenged some long-held tenets of conservative tax policy” (the New York Times), and has “a nod to the populist anger roiling both parties” (The Wall Street Journal). It is, in other words, the same sort of coverage George W. Bush received when he unveiled his tax cuts in 1999, and which the campaign successfully cast as a populist departure from traditional Republican priorities.

On the other hand, if you have learned about the tax plan from some of the new policy-focused writers, you have drawn a very different impression. It is a “large tax cut for the wealthiest” (the Upshot) and a reprise of the Bush tax cuts, but “with more exclamation points" (Wonkblog). The difference lies between journalists who write narratives drawn from quotes from campaign sources and those who build their coverage on data. George W. Bush was fortunate that data-based journalism barely existed 16 years ago. His brother is counting on the power of narrative to obscure the data.

Apple And Microsoft Have Disagreed To Hand Over Data To The Federal Government

Everyone has been talking about Apple's New flagship devices the iPad Pro and the iPhone 6s that were announced on September 9, 2015. However not many people know of the legal confrontation that is occurring between tech companies such as Apple and Microsoft, with the federal government. The government obtained a court order to the messages that were needed in a criminal case involving guns and drugs, but Apple responded that their iMessage system was encrypted and they could not comply.

Another case that has resurfaced in court is the case with Microsoft. This case goes back to December 2013, when Microsoft refused to comply to a warrant issued by the courts for emails in an investigation of drug trafficking.

The main argument being made by these two tech companies is that they have encrypted systems and thus they cannot give out that information. Part of the reason that they have encrypted their systems is because of the NSA info leak that happened a couple of years ago. They encrypted their systems because some of the information that leaked out seemed to point to the fact that the government had been hacking the private systems of these big tech companies and had access to their information.

The discussions and court arguments between lawyers have subdued for the time being, but a decision on this issue could be crucial to setting a standard on weather or not the federal government has the right to people's personal information that these tech companies have in their possession. Much like Marbury vs Madison where the judicial branch established itself the power to control whether laws are or aren't constitutional, the result of these two cases can decide weather the government has the right to access necessary information from tech companies when it is needed for a case. Personally, and I know a lot of people disagree with this, I would not have a problem if the government obtained access to peoples phone and computer records, but only when its believed that doing so can help prevent any attacks or catch criminals. I think a lot of people have a problem with this because they do not have trust that the federal government would act responsibly with this information, and some people just feel that they need to have some sort of personal privacy, otherwise what's the point of having freedom if the federal government has the ability to watch your every move. I can see this point of view, but I believe that security should always be a priority because protecting the lives of people is always a priority.

Something to think about:

Should the federal government have access to peoples phone and computer data when it will help in preventing an attack or catching a criminal? If so, who decides when its necessary to have this access and when its unnecessary?

Articles: Cnet, NYTimes

Where the states stand on Medicaid Expansion

Many states are still ambiguous towards the expansion of Medicaid.  Twenty-nine states along with the District of Columbia have already expanded Medicaid, the most recent state having agreed to do so being Alaska. However, it is important to note that Alaska lawmakers attempted to stop Governor Bill Walker from expanding the Affordable Care Act’s program, otherwise known as ObamaCare.

Interestingly, four states are looking into expanding Medicaid. They are Montana, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming. Montana released an alternative Medicaid expansion plan for a routine public comment period, but it is not likely to be passed. The governor of Tennessee, a Republican, is publicly against ObamaCare, but does intend to use federal funds to provide coverage for an additional 200,000 low-income residents by helping to purchase health plans. This plan was scrapped in February 2015 by a key Senate committee. Utah is still struggling to create a viable plan that could pass in the Legislature, and Wyoming shot down its own expansion plan in February 2015 as well.

Nineteen states have not expanded Medicaid. It is clear that political factions have a role to play in this as many Republican governors have refused expansion. Louisiana Governor Bobby Lindal (Republican) stated that expansion “would cost his state $1 billion over the first 10 years.”

This entire blog post is meant to incite one meaningful question: what are the states’ responsibilities in providing their citizens with healthcare? Are states meant to keep a watchful eye over their citizens, keep the wolves away from the herd, but simply observe passively as the sheep to die from accidental injury and disease? Many countries all over the globe, from Austria to Russia, Hong Kong to New Zealand, provide universal health coverage.  

It is also necessary to note that the article that this blog post is sourced from is clearly inflected with Liberal views. The article provides, ultimately, Liberal propaganda (one example being that the article tended to provide statistics on the amount of people that Medicaid expansion could help, with just enough evidence favoring the Republicans to create a slightly neutral news article). Yes Medicaid will provide subsidies for many Americans who cannot afford expensive healthcare, but do such positive benefits balance out the problems Medicaid expansion could create?

Link to the article here

Trump Continues To Climb Further Up The GOP Candidate Polls After Signing The Loyalty Pledge

On September 3rd, 2015 Donald Trump signed the Republican party's loyalty pledge stating that he would not be running on his own if he did not win the GOP's candidate race, and also, that he would back up whoever did win the race for the Republican Party candidate.(CNN) He was the only Republican candidate that had not signed the loyalty pledge and so, had received quite a bit of criticism of being considered "fake" because of his affiliation with the democrats and Clintons a few years back. Even though the pledge does not bind the candidates in any legal perspective, after signing it, Donald Trump rose even higher in the GOP polls where he now stands at 32.1% of votes, 18.3% ahead of his closest competitor Ben Carson who sits in second with 13.5%. (HuffingtonPost)

This pledge can be seen in different perspective through different people. Some Republicans might view this as a good thing because if Trump looses, he cannot run on his own and pull away the voters that would otherwise have voted for the Republican nominee. But on the contrast Trump along with the other GOP candidates have signed the pledge to back up whoever wins the GOP candidacy, meaning, if Ben Carson or Marco Rubio somehow manages to pull the win, the Democrats would be able to bash whichever candidates wins for being affiliated with Donald Trump in terms of the pledge. (Slate)

And why might is seem bad to be affiliated with Donald Trump for some people, you may ask?

Well, In addition to a lot of people thinking of Donald Trump as a racist old white man, there are mainly two arguments Donald Trump has made that I along with quite a few other Americans, find to be so ridiculous that they are actually funny.

First Donald Trump has argued that if he were president he would build a wall across the almost 2000 mile border between US and Mexico. In addition he would deport the 11.3 million illegal immigrants that work in the US at the moment. The reason I find this improbable to be consider and passed is because it would require a tremendous amount of money, time, and most likely military power to carry through. In addition the economy would be hurt, and this is without even mentioning the families that would be torn apart from deporting these immigrants.

Second argument Trump has made which seems ridiculous to me, but a few other GOP candidates agreeing to it in some way, is that if he won the presidency he would push for an of amendment to ban the birthright citizenship section of the fourteenth amendment. This section of the fourteenth amendment gives automatic citizenship to all babies born in US territory regardless if their parents are here legally or not. I myself do not agree with this because, being an immigrant(from Europe) myself, I find it that most immigrants, weather legal or illegal, come here so their kids can have a brighter future. Now in no way am I saying illegal immigration is a good thing and should be rewarded. I still think something has to be done about illegal immigrants coming to the US, but I do think that most people that come here to give birth to their children, do this so their kids can have a brighter future, and if any of us were put in the same situation we would do the same thing. In addition, the fourteenth amendments was put into action, in part, to protect the rights of the immigrants that were coming to the US in the mid to late 1800's. Amending it nowadays would be a bit ironic because you're taking away this right from the immigrants nowadays, that was deemed constitutional to the immigrants in the 1800s.

A few things to think about:

Would building a wall be reasonable for the US to do especially since 40% of immigrants come to the US by plane? Should we invest that much money to build a wall and deport almost 12 million immigrants?

Secondly, should we add an amendment to the constitution that amends part of the fourteenth amendments? Should the rights that immigrants have change over the decades?

Finally, How difficult would it be to try and get the bill passed for a 28th amendment amending part of the 14th amendment? Could it ever happen?

(Be free to comment a response to any of these topics or others you found interesting.)

Obama Orders Federal Contractors to Provide Workers Paid Sick Leave

Tensions between political parties seem to be on the rise again, and not in a good way. President Obama signed an executive order “on Monday requiring federal contractors to provide up to seven days of paid sick leave a year.” Obama then proceeded to publicly oust the Republican congressional leaders for endangering the economy. The current President of the United States continued from there to accuse Republican presidential candidates of undercutting American workers. Obama renounced the Republican candidates’ portrayals of themselves as “champions of the middle class” when they opposed labor unions.

It is important to note, no matter how obvious this fact may seem, that this was designed to his union base. However, this executive order will not go into effect until after his presidency as it must first pass a public comment period. This act, if passed as is, will hopefully bring about changes in state and local governments, expanding their leave policies.

Obama’s aggressive responses to the Republican candidates were implicit replies to Mr. Walker, who claimed “his battles with labor unions would prepare him to take on terrorists” and Mr. Christie who “said a teachers’ union deserved a punch in the face.”

Mr. Walker, however, retorted with by saying “I think the president and his allies fear us more than anybody else in this race because they know we don’t just talk about it; we get it done. We fight, we win, we actually get results.”

Prior to the current executive order, Obama sided against the Democrats in favor of new free trade agreements with Asia and Europe, inciting extreme anger within many Democratic political leaders.

Ultimately, how many of these decisions are actually for the people? There are clearly ample motives and secret vendettas possible in every action committed by Obama. Did he create this executive order just to get his party to like him again? Did he create it to use as a weapon against Republican candidates? Or did he truly believe in following through on justice and trying to help the people he swore to protect?

Link to the article here

France and Britain announce plans to accept more refugees in migrant crisis

French President François Hollande gives the announcement
 during a press conference on Monday.

On Monday, President Hollande announced that his country, France, will accept 24,000 refugees over two years and British Prime Minister David Cameron announced that the UK will accept 20,000 Syrian refugees over five years. An estimated 381,000 migrants have arrived in Europe in 2015, and about half are from Syria.

Cameron’s plan would likely accept only Syrians from refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, to discourage migrants from risking their lives in the perilous journey into Europe and to avoid favoring the refugees who could afford to pay for the trip into Europe at the cost of those who can not.

There are an estimated 4 million Syrian refugees living in Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey. (about 1.9 million in Turkey, 1.1 million in Lebanon, 630,000 in Jordan, 250,000 in Iraq, and 130,000 in Egypt, according to the UNHCR.)

Although they constitute the largest group of migrants, not all of the migrants are Syrians. Tens of thousands of Afghans, Etrians, and Nigerians, have come to Europe in 2015. People from these countries would not be included in Cameron’s plan, but might be able to find refuge in France under Hollande’s plan.

Cameron plans to expand the Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme, which would allow the accepted refugees to reside, work, and access public funds in Britain for five years, after which the refugees could apply to settle in the UK.

The 24,000 migrants President François Hollande would let into France would constitute France's part in a plan Hollande is pushing in which each of the 28 EU countries would take a share of 120,000 European migrants over the course of two years. Hollande has also called for “hot spots” to be established along the borders of Greece, Italy and Hungary, countries through which large numbers of migrants are passing. These “hot spots” would process asylum applications there and deny ineligible migrants before they make their way through Europe to countries such as France and Germany.   Both announcements came after a picture of a 3- year- old dead Syrian boy made headlines around the world, increasing international sympathy for the plight of migrants. Named Aylan Kurdi, the boy drowned off of the coast of Turkey after the boat he was on to get to Greece capsized. He was part of a Kurdish family fleeing violence in Syria. The image lead to calls in Europe to let in more refugees, and more pressure on political leaders to allow more refugees in.

Questions: What obligations do nations have in this crisis-- do they still have obligations to help refugees Saudi Arabia and other gulf states (like Qatar and Kuwait) have taken 0 Syrian refugees. Since Gulf states like Saudi Arabia helped fund fighting against Assad in Syria, are they obligated to take in Syrian refugees? Or do nations have no obligations to people of another country, regardless of their circumstances? Are European countries obligated to take in the refugees flooding into the continent? Is a state in which power is ostensibly derived from the people (referring to European parliamentary republics, not Saudi Arabia) obliged only to act in the best interest of its people, or do states have an obligation to help those in the greater global community with dire needs? When those two interests conflict, which should supersede the other?

The US has accepted about 1,500 Syrian refugees thus far and offers to accept 5,000 to 8,000 refugees next year. Should the US let in? Is the US obligated to promote the "general welfare" of humanity as well as her citizens, or does she only have to consider the well- being of her citizens?

All Sources: (in order in which they appear)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/world/europe/europe-migrant-crisis.html?

hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/09/08/438539779/the-migrant-crisis-by-the-numbers

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24583286 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34171148

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/France-to-take-24000-migrants-under-EU-refugee-plan-Hollande/articleshow/48856028.cms  

http://www.wsj.com/articles/image-of-syrian-boy-washed-up-on-beach-hits-hard-1441282847 (The picture of the Syrian boy can be found in this article. Warning: It is disturbing.)

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/25/434576046/u-s-to-accept-up-to-8-000-syrian-refugees-next-year

Source of the image displayed in this post: Reuters.

State vs Federal, Budget vs Justice

California legislature is currently debating a reform of the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws which, if signed into law, would mean “law enforcement would only be allowed to seize property and money if a property owner is convicted of a crime. The legislation also prohibits law enforcement agencies from transferring seized property and cash to the federal government.” This last sentence makes it very clear as to why the federal government would be so against such a reform;it would lose assets should this be passed. The federal government threatens California lawmakers with the fear of losing eligibility in the federal government’s Equitable Sharing Program, from which “California law enforcement agencies received more than $89.6 million.”

There are dissenters to this legislation even within California. Alice Dery, deputy chief of the Justice Department’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, has made it clear that should the proposed legislation be passed, California law enforcement of all levels would not be eligible for the Equitable Sharing Program. Sean Hoffman, director of legislation for the California District Attorneys Association, wrote that the reforms “will cripple the ability of law enforcement to forfeit assets from drug dealers when arrest and incarceration is an incomplete strategy for combating drug trafficking.”

If, as multiple reputable sources indicate, the new legislation will only result in a lower budget and worse ability to combat drug traffickers, then the answer is clear: do not pass the legislation. However, it has already passed, with a vote of 38-1, and the state Assembly is to debate the changes this week.

Let us not forget, however, that this legislation would help to prevent the unjust acquisition of private property. But does this legislation that would inspire inefficiency in an already bureaucratically-burdened system provide better for the common good than the current system? What the article ultimately presents is a choice: lose millions of dollars of federal funding and help to stop the unjust theft of private property, or keep millions of dollars and be able to more efficiently fight crimes?

Link to the website here

Pope Francis' visit brings up Religion in US politics.

Pope Francis will make his first ever visit to the United States on September 22, 2015. In his visit, the Pope will first meet with President Obama at the white house. After doing so, he will give an address to a joint meeting of the United States Congress. This specific address is special, as it is something that has not been done by any other Pope in history. Pope Francis will then go on to New York city, and later give another address in front of the United Nations. Click here for more information.

The Pope's visit brings up the topic of religion in United States politics. The visit and the address that he will give to congress offers us a look at the great evolution of the acceptance of different religious views in US politics. Looking at Catholic religion we can see this distinct evolution by looking at how, "President John F. Kennedy had to defend his Catholic faith more than half a century ago," (CRUX) But nowadays this is not the case for politicians such as John Boehner (speaker of the House of Representatives) and Vice President Joe Biden, both of which are catholic and are so openly. These two politicians  in addition to many other catholics in US politics, do not have to "prove" themselves worthy for serving America just because they are Catholic, like President Kennedy needed to. This exemplifies the evolution of religious acceptance in politics that the United States has experienced throughout the decades. Even though Article 6 of the Constitution and the first amendment gave people freedom of religion when running for federal office, in the 19th and early 20th Century it was very difficult for a catholic to be elected to hold a high office in the US. This has now changed as nearly 30% of congress are Catholics(National Catholic Register). The Pope's visit, and especially the address he will give to congress has had people talking about the evolution involving religion in US politics and holding political office which I believe has been a great step forward because politicians should make their decisions on what the people they represent want and whats good for the country, and their personal religion should not affect the decisions they make in office.

In contrary to the federal government we see something different when looking at individual states. Article 6 of the constitution states that the government cannot issue religion tests to people running for office, but it didn't say that states could not do so. In fact there were states that had implemented some sort of a religion test in their constitution that tested weather candidates running for state office believe in God or a higher power. These tests were deemed unconstitutional and have been taken out for the past few decades but there are still a few states that have "language in their constitutions either requiring state officeholders to have particular religious beliefs or specifically protected"(Wiki) Wille I myself do believe in God, I still believe is is unconstitutional to have religious tests and even have language in the constitution like the states above do requiring religious beliefs in candidates, because it is discouraging people from trying to run for state office. The religious tests were deemed unconstitutional and I believe that was on the right grounds, but I also believe states should not have any sort of language concerning religion in their constitutions because there should be no correlation between political decisions and one's religion

Religion and politics is a very intricate thing to talk about, but is it even something we should even be concerned about? Because shouldn't politicians make political decisions based on what the people want, not their own religious beliefs? 

Secondly, should the federal government further interfere with the states mentioning of religion in their constitution when it comes to who can hold federal office? Was it enough to make all religious tests unconstitutional or should there be completely no mentioning of religion in a state's constitution when it comes to who can hold state office?


(Picture Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/pope-francis-is-coming-to-america-after-avoiding-it-for-78-years.html)