Pope Francis Urges More Acceptance of Divorced Catholics

On Friday, April 8th, Pope Francis issued a document known as the "Amoris Laetitia," which is Latin for "The Joy of Love," where he called for priests to be less judgmental towards divorced Catholics, gays, and lesbians.

Source: New York Times

The document does not actually change any church laws or church doctrine on homosexuality, marriage, or birth control. In fact, the document still states that "the church cannot countenance same-sex marriages and unions" (New York Times), and that marriage between a man and a woman is still the Catholic ideal. However, it does urge more tolerance and acceptance. The Pope "emphasizes that "unjust discrimination" against gays and lesbians is unacceptable, downplays the idea of "living in sin" and suggests that priests should use their own discretion on whether divorced Catholics in new marriages can take Communion" (CNN).

This document comes after two synods, which are church councils of high-level bishops who come together to talk about these contentious issues. They discussed how the church should deal with people who are not living in accordance to the "Christian ideal of the intact, nuclear, family" (New York Times). The Pope has adopted some of the solutions discussed in these synods, including its solutions for divorced and remarried Catholics to be able to talk to priests in order to see how they can continue to participate in the Church.

Some believe that this is a good step in the right direction for the Church. However, some liberal Catholics do not believe that this has gone far enough, as the document still rejects same-sex marriages and unions. In addition, many conservative Catholics are concerned that this undermines Church values and could lead to a slippery slope.

Questions:
How do you think this will affect the lives of Catholics around the world?
Do you think this document was a good move for the Catholic Church, or did it go too far, or not far enough?

Sources: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/world/europe/pope-francis-amoris-laetitia.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/europe/vatican-pope-family/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/08/pope-francis-releases-key-text-family-matters/82782602/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pope-francis-softens-communion-ban-divorcees-shifts-tone-family-n552811
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-long-awaited-document-on-the-family-pope-francis-offers-hope-to-divorced-catholics-says-no-to-gay-marriage/2016/04/07/87be6dae-fb42-11e5-813a-90ab563f0dde_story.html

ISIS Kidnaps Syrian Workers, Again

ISIS is pretty bad.  The conflicts in Syria between the Assad regime and ISIS have killed tens and thousands of civilians in recent years.  Today, April 7th, 2016, there were reportedly 300 hundred civilian workers that were kidnapped from a cement factory (seen below).

ISIS has been known to kidnap large numbers of workers and execute those who they believe are working with the Assad Regime.  Not only do they bring in hundreds to basically indiscriminately execute, but they also have been known to take women as sex slaves and kidnap for ransom.  

NPR says that the "extremists have faced setbacks as Assad's forces push the group further from the densely populated area around the capital," which could have caused them to seek actions like kidnapping.   "Syria's minister of industry says his office is working to free hundreds of workers."  The death toll in the year 2015 was mostly civilian and it should be cause for concern as the Islamic State is terrorizing innocent people.

After the Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attacks in Brussels, there haven't been many changes or new ways to combat these terrorists. There have been countless, covert U.S. airstrikes and a lot of controversy but not much direct and effective action.  I don't mean to post another "what do we do about ISIS" post, but what should we do about ISIS.  Do we interfere with activity in other countries in attempt to do the right thing?  Does our involvement in foreign affairs only get people and nations to hate us more (go out to find WMD's but kill thousands of civilians and turn out empty handed)?  Or is it a mistake to be stand by and watch a country to get it's stuff figured out over the course of nearly five bloody years?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/07/isis-kidnaps-more-than-300-syrian-workers-state-tv-reports.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/world/middleeast/isis-said-to-have-kidnapped-dozens-of-workers-at-syria-cement-factory.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/07/473426381/isis-reportedly-carries-out-mass-kidnapping-of-factory-workers-in-syria

U.S. Clamps Down on Corporate Tax Inversions

On April 4th, the U.S. Treasury Department announced its plans to introduce new regulations that would discourage companies from planning corporate tax inversions. A corporate tax inversion is when a company based in the U.S. moves its corporate citizenship to a foreign country in order to get lower corporate tax rates. They usually do this by merging with a smaller, foreign company, so that they are able to change their tax address to the other country, while still having the majority of the company in the U.S.

Source: alextom.com

According to the Wall Street Journal, the new rules would try to stop "companies that have engaged in multiple inversion transactions" by "disregarding three years of past mergers with U.S. corporations in determining the size of the foreign company. By subtracting the value of U.S. assets a foreign company had acquired, the foreign company would become smaller in relation to the U.S. company." Additionally, the new rules would try to stop a practice called "earnings strippings," which is when "the US arm borrows money from what is now its foreign parent and then sends large interest payments back overseas. This reduced profits declared in the US and increases the profits declared in the lower tax jurisdiction abroad" (The Irish Times).

This move is expected to impact the originally planned merger of Pfizer, an American based pharmaceutical company, and Allergan, an Irish based pharmaceutical company. Pfizer initially wanted to merge with Allergan in order to invert to Ireland to take advantage of their lower tax rates. Since the new rules would remove some of the planned tax benefits, it's unclear whether Pfizer and Allergan will still go through with the deal. 

Obama praised the new rules and called on Congress to take legislative action against corporate tax inversions, stating, "Only Congress can close it for good and only Congress can make sure that all the other loopholes that are being taken advantage of are closed" (CBS News). However, others believe that increasing regulations is not the right way to stop corporate tax inversions. Instead, they believe that the best method would be to lower the U.S. corporate tax rate, which would encourage companies to stay in the U.S. 

Questions:

What impact do you think the new rules will have on corporate tax inversions, such as Pfizer's planned merger with Allergan? 

Do you think increasing regulations is the best method to stop corporate tax inversions, or is decreasing the corporate tax rate itself a better solution? 

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/business/dealbook/pfizer-allergan-merger.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/business/dealbook/us-acts-to-end-use-of-foreign-acquisitions-to-dodge-taxes.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-touts-new-federal-rules-that-target-corporate-tax-inversions/

http://blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2016/04/05/treasurys-new-inversion-rules-at-a-glance/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamathur/2016/04/06/note-to-treasury-the-problem-is-the-corporate-tax-rate-not-inversions/#300868415808

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/health-pharma/explained-the-upside-down-world-of-corporate-tax-inversions-1.2440947

France Cracks Down on Prostitution with Prosecution

From being a country that once had brothels, France is making some major progress in ending prostitution.  Just today, Wednesday April 6th, 2016, the French Parliament just passed some legislation that would penalize offenders with harsh fines or informational classes.

France is the country with the Eiffel Tower

In the United States, we have had laws that affected the customers as well as the facilitators and organizers accompanied to prostitution.  In California, it is a misdemeanor and a $1000 fine and a maximum of a year in prison.  In France they are fining first time offenders about $1,700 USD (1500 Euros) and more than doubling it for second-time offenders.  Offenders also have the option to take classes instead of paying the fines.

Some sex workers are in protest against the new legislation

This new bill repeals some unsuccessful, old legislation that punished prostitutes more harshly; it just encourage prostitutes to operate on the outskirts of town where there were less police, which created a more dangerous situation for them.  On top of that, France acknowledges that they can't just crack down on prostitution without getting prostitutes some help.  There are tens of thousands of sex workers in the country and they are attempting to provide fully funded training for prostitutes so that they are able to leave their past and make a living.

Do you think France is going about this the right way?  Should customers of prostitution be punished more or less severely?  What do you think about government funded therapy and training for ex-prostitutes?  Or is France's new approach just trimming the weeds?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35982929
http://www.euronews.com/2016/04/06/fines-and-classes-set-to-await-those-who-pay-for-sex-in-france/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/world/europe/to-discourage-prostitution-france-passes-bill-that-penalizes-clients.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-makes-paying-for-sex-a-crime-and-divides-opinion-among-the-nation-s-prostitutes-a6971916.html

The Most Interesting Congressman Ever

Duncan Hunter is probably the most savage United States representative in ever.  A recent development, from today April 6, 2016 showed that Mr. Hunter spent over $1300 of his campaign funds on video games.  He reportedly bought more than 50 video games through Steam, a digital video game distributor.  Hunter's spokesperson is arguing that it was Rep. Hunter's son, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did himself.  This is the same guy that vaped during the middle of a congressional hearing, here.

Cinemablend.org says that this, mini scandal, "all came to light when someone noticed Hunter had listed $1,302 worth of Steam Games on his 2015 year-end financial discloser, along with a note that these were 'personal expense – to be paid back.' Not such a big issue (mistakes happen, after all), except for the fact that, three months into 2016, the funds had not been repaid."

Hunter represents California's 52nd district which covers the greater San Diego area.  He went to San Diego State and studied business, and one day after the attacks on 9/11, he quit his job and joined the Marines.  Not only did he serve in the Marine Corps, but he commissioned as a Second Lieutenant and was honorably discharged after being promoted to Major.  

Duncan (right)

What do you think about politicians misusing funds, even in relatively trivial and small instances?

Duncan is very young, much younger than the rest of his colleagues, do you think his behavior might just be a result of his age?  Is this guy not the most interesting rep in the country, or he is just irresponsible?

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/California-Congressman-May-Have-Spent-1300-Steam-Games-Using-Campaign-Funds-Here-What-We-Know-129397.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/11/politics/duncan-hunter-vaping-congressman-plane-amendment/

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/apr/05/hunter-video-games/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vlq22Dd3_Q

Tay Talks, a little too much

For those of you that haven't heard, Microsoft launched it's first social media AI (artificial intelligence) that was supposed to communicate like a teenage girl.  Tay is not the first of her kind but it may have been the most disastrous.

Tay

Tay was secretly launched by Microsoft on March 23rd, 2016, a couple weeks ago.  Tay was only up for the length of about a day before it was "suspended" by Microsoft after reaching some edgy conclusions.  Tay was  available to chat on Twitter, Kik and GroupMe, according to the washingtonpost.  Microsoft said that Tay was created to communicate like other 18-24 year olds.  Beyond being designed to talk like a teen girl, Tay said some offensive stuff:

That's not even the worst of it.  Tay had said a lot more nonsensical things that were taken down when they deleted the tweets but in her defense, she's a conscienceless algorithm.  The bot was designed for other people to "connect with each other online through casual and playful conversation," according to techrepublic.org, would you engage in a conversation with some sort of artificial chat bot if you needed someone to talk to?  It's cheaper than a therapist.  Do you think having Tay designed to learn from its immature followers was a bad idea from the get-go?  Do we have place in our ever advancing, technologically drowned culture for people to have computer friends, or even computer arguments?  Or is it some kind of moral issue to create computer personalities?  (Have we learned anything from Will Smith in iRobot?)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/03/23/meet-tay-the-creepy-realistic-robot-who-talks-just-like-a-teen/

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-launches-tay-teen-chatbot-2016-3

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-microsofts-tay-ai-bot-went-wrong/

http://imgur.com/gallery/yMz1B

Cruz and Sanders Win Wisconsin Primaries

On Tuesday, April 5th, 2016, Wisconsin held both its Democratic and its Republican primaries. Although it was the only state to do so on this day, it was a critical state for both the Republican and the Democratic nomination races. Ted Cruz won the Republican contest, and Bernie Sanders won the Democratic contest.

As of 2:00 AM EDT, with 98% of the Republican precincts reporting, Ted Cruz won 48.3% of the votes, winning 33 delegates, and Donald Trump won 35.1% of the votes, winning 3 delegates. John Kasich won 14% of the votes, which was not enough to garner him any delegates. With 98% of the Democratic precincts reporting, Bernie Sanders won 56.4% of the votes, winning 45 delegates, and Hillary Clinton won 43.3% of the votes, winning 31 delegates.

Courtesy of the New York Times

This was Trump's most significant loss since the Iowa Caucuses, and many of Trump's opponents hope that this marks the beginning of Trump's decline. Cruz even told his supporters, "Tonight is a turning point...It is a rallying cry. It is a call from the hard-working men and women of Wisconsin to the people of America: We have a choice, a real choice" (New York Times). Cruz won 2/3 of "very conservative" voters as well as the majority of "somewhat conservative" voters. Additionally, when asked about Donald Trump, 58% of Republican primary voters "said they would be “concerned” or “scared” if he were elected, higher than the other two Republican hopefuls" (New York Times). However, Cruz still faces a large uphill battle, as Trump still has 740 delegates to Cruz's 514. Additionally, with Kasich still in the race, it could be difficult for Cruz to mobilize the entire non-Trump Republican base behind him.

On the Democratic side, this was Sanders's sixth straight victory, and Sanders supporters hope that he will be able to keep up the momentum in upcoming primaries. The Wisconsin primaries show Bernie's hold over young, white, and working-class voters, as well as voters who want someone honest and trustworthy, as 9/10 of voters believed Sanders was honest, compared to only 6/10 who said so for Clinton. However, Clinton still holds the lead in pledged delegates, as well as an overwhelming amount of the superdelegates. Additionally, Clinton won 7 out of 10 black voters in Wisconsin, and won the majority of voters over 45 years old.

The upcoming New York and Pennsylvania primaries will be very important for the nomination race, as they both have many delegates. 247 and 189 delegates respectively, and will also likely be harder for both Cruz and Sanders to do well in. New York is Trump's home state, and is supposed to do better in Northeastern states. Additionally, with Kasich still in the race, Cruz could potentially not win a majority in certain congressional districts, which would give some delegates to Trump. And for Clinton, both New York and Pennsylvania are more diverse than Wisconsin, which usually serves to help her. She also has already started courting voters in New York today in order to try to secure a solid win. However, Sanders also has ties to New York, his native state, and will be hoping to do well there in order to keep his momentum going.

Questions: 

What effect, if any, do you think Cruz's and Sanders's win in the Wisconsin primary will have on upcoming primaries and the nomination race as a whole? 

What strategies do you think the different candidates will try to use in New York in order to secure votes from both their solid base of voters and reach other votes? 

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wisconsin

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/5/11361254/wisconsin-republican-results-2016-ted-cruz-wins

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/us/politics/republican-primary-results.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/us/politics/democratic-primary-results.html

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/05/473165665/wisconsin-primary-cruz-sanders-look-to-stop-their-leading-rivals

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/wisconsin-primaries/476874/

Obama and Xi Announce Joint Signing of Paris Climate Agreement

Source: NBC News

On Thursday March 31st, President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China announced they will be formally joining the Paris Climate agreements in April 2016. On April 22nd, they will be joint signing this at a special ceremony in the United Nations headquarters. This is the first day that the plan is able to accept signatures from world leaders. The Paris Climate agreements that were drafted in the last United Nations Paris negotiations when over 200 countries agreed to end the fossil fuel era. The United States and China are two of the biggest carbon polluters.

Obama's decision to committing the United States to the UN agreement means lots of domestic change will need to happen and be promised by this election year's candidates. For candidates, it is no longer a question on whether climate change and carbon emissions will be addressed in their potential term but a question of how they will be following this agreement. Although the agreement does state it will apply until year 2020 and until 55 countries and 55% of global carbon emissions joins, with two leading nations joining, it is possible the agreement will in fact take place. This will most definitely affect the next president if they do decide to run for a second term because how they address domestic carbon emissions from 2016-2020 will set up their platform for the 2020 election year.

Even with this in mind, Obama's current domestic greenhouse gas emissions policy is still facing lots of pushback. His hope to cut emissions by 26%-28% in a span of 20 years still awaits resolution with more than half the states and many corporations.

Question:
How do you feel about Obama promising to sign on to the Paris Climate agreements in the last months of his term?
How do you feel current candidates will have to adapt their policies with the current state of both the Paris Climate agreements and Obama's greenhouse gas emission proposals in mind?

Source:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53591#.VwKXx5wrLcs
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/01/us-and-china-to-sign-paris-climate-deal-in-april
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/world/asia/obama-and-president-xi-of-china-vow-to-sign-paris-climate-accord-promptly.html

Alaska Air buys Virgin America in a $2.6 Billion Dollar Merger

On Monday, April 4th, Alaska Air announced that it will buy Virgin America for $2.6 billion dollars. Alaska Air is paying $57 per share and will take on the existing Virgin America debts and aircraft leases of $1.4 billion dollars, making the total value of this deal $4 billion dollars.

In fact, Alaska Air beat out its nearest competitor, JetBlue, to buy Virgin America, to become now the fifth-largest airline in the U.S., after American Airlines, Delta Airlines, United Airlines, and Southwest Airlines. The new combined airline will retain Alaska Air's brand, and will have about 18,300 employees and 280 aircraft, with its major bases in cities such as Seattle and San Francisco.

Source: bizjournals.com

This merger may attract regulatory scrutiny by the Department of Justice because in recent years, there have been many consolidations and mergers of U.S. airlines, resulting in some who believe that these airlines are colluding in order to keep fares high. In fact, in the past decade, the number of major U.S. airlines has decreased from nine to four. According to the Washington Post, "the remaining big carriers - Delta, Southwest, American, and United - fly about 80% of all domestic passengers." These mergers have resulted in less competition, helping airlines to raise prices and increase their profits. If the Department of Justice does look at this deal, they would be looking at "whether the merger will create a better competitor to the big airlines" by giving Alaska Air and Virgin America the flexibility to lower prices, or whether this deal will actually allow Alaska Air and Virgin America raise their prices (Washington Post).

The airline industry, at least in the U.S. domestic market, has the characteristics of an oligopoly, which we have been learning about in class, as it has 4 airlines that dominate the market with 61.1% of the market share, many passengers, and generally standardized flights. In addition, the big airlines also has more control of prices, and airlines have less freedom to enter or exit the market, especially because of the high price of starting an airline. As a result, passengers have less choice between airlines to find cheaper prices. Some of this is a result of deregulation of the airline industry in 1978, with the passage of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. This act initially led to increased competition, greater efficiency, and lower prices. However, starting in the past decades, airlines have started merger, which has resulted in less competition.

It's unclear as of now what effect this merger will have on the airline industry and prices for consumers and whether or not the Justice Department will be looking into the merger, but airlines seem to be trending towards more mergers, larger airlines, and less competition.

Questions:
What effect do you think this merger will have on the airline industry and on consumer prices?
Do you think the Justice Department will look into this merger?
In the case of the airline industry, deregulation has both increased competition at times and decreased competition at times. In general, do you think deregulation of industries is a good idea?

Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/04/04/alaska-air-buys-virgin-america-in-4-billion-deal/
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/alaska-air-clinches-virgin-america-deal-for-26b/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/04/investing/virgin-america-alaska-air-deal/
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011215/airline-industry-oligopoly-state.asp
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_28501683/airline-consolidation-has-created-airport-monopolies-increased-fares

"One Person, One Vote" Standard Upheld

Source: US Elections

On Monday April 4th, 2016, the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous vote decided in favor of the state of Texas in the court case Evenwell v Abbott. In this case, two voters challenged the redistricting of Texas voting districts in the 2013 Senate race. Districts were split up to have an even population of people instead of eligible voters. This includes children, criminals, illegal immigrants, and residents here using items such as visas. The state of Texas argued that because the government's decisions affect all constituents and not just eligible voters, all people should be taken into account when dividing up districts. 

By counting all people, the voting power of areas where there are not a lot of eligible voters is increased. Many of these areas are big cities which also tend to lean Democratic. This gives increased power to the Democrats in Texas. If the justices had ruled differently, rural areas which tend to lean more Republican would have gained the upper hand. 

By ruling in favor of Texas, the justices are merely stating the state of Texas has not acted unconstitutionally when drawing their districts. However, this does not concretely answer the question of how district apportionment should be determined. The justices agreed that this is still a choice left up to the people of the states. 

I personally agree that because all people residing in an area are affected by the decisions of the government, they should be counted in the population when drawing district maps. I feel this is less of a debate on who decides to register to vote and more of a debate on those privileged enough to have the right to have their voice heard. Because those who are not able to cast their own opinion during elections are still affected, they should be represented in some way- even if it is extremely minute.

Question:

How do you feel about district population being based on all residents and not just eligible voters?

Do you think this is what our founding fathers intended when they outlined our democracy?

Source:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-affirms-one-person-one-vote-standard-1459780169

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/us/politics/supreme-court-one-person-one-vote.html

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/275065-supreme-court-rules-states-can-use-total-population-in-redistricting

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/04/04/supreme-court-voting-rights-texas-districts-population-scalia/81121876/

Mossack Fonseca: The Panama Papers

“The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” -Anonymous

The biggest information leak so far in history is embedded in the Panama Papers. Mossack Fonseca is a law firm in Panama who protects its clients’ financial activity behind many walls of secrecy. Their clients include world leaders such as Vladimir Putin, celebrities, Forbes listers, and many high profile people with lots of riches. Mossack Fonseca provides services from wealth management to offshore services. Though not all of the activities behind this firm is illegal, some do misuse its services to avoid taxes or illegally move large amounts of money.

2.6 terabytes which approximates to about 11.5 million documents have been leaked from the Mossack Fonseca database. This means the email communication and account activity of many clients have been leaked for the world to see. The significance of this leak reveals what many have feared about offshoring law firms to be true- that tax havens, shell companies, and other illegal offshoring activities are taken advantage of.

Tax havens are used by the rich around the world to avoid paying taxes on all their assets. This leads to the income inequality and wealth gap problems we see in many countries including the United States. Proof and evidence of perpetrators utilizing this method can be found  amongst the leaked information from Mossack Fonseca.

On the other hand, shell companies are essentially “fake” companies created to move large sums of money in and out of borders or for shareholders to store money through illegitimate shares.

Though Mossack Fonseca has been known to have internal disputes about parting with some of their more questionable clients, it is evident not all of its supported activities are legal. Even though one of its clients, Thomas Chan Kui (who directs a shell company), was arrested due to a financial corruption scandal, Mossack Fonseca remained deeply divided on what to do about their relations with Kui- further proving their part in suspicious activity.  

Questions:

How do you feel Americans will react to this information leak in comparison to the Edward Snowden leaks?

In macroecon, how does offshore activity such as moving money or avoiding taxes affect the economy? For example, how does this contribute to the fiscal multiplier and why does that hurt every day Americans?

Sources:

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/300605/panama-leak-how-does-mossack-fonseca-work

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-panama-papers

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/04/how-a-hong-kong-corruption-scandal-sparked-strife-at-mossack-fonseca

Apple's Autism Awareness Month Films Spark a Larger Conversation

"Not being able to speak is not the same as not having something to say." -- Tami Barmache, Dillan's mother
To celebrate Autism Acceptance Month, Apple released two videos about a 16-year-old boy named Dillan Barmache who uses an iPad app to communicate. Since he is nonverbal, Dillan types out words and sentences on the app and a robotic voice reads them for him. He has been communicating in this way for three years.

Here is the shorter of the two videos:

(A longer video talking more about Dillan's life can be found here.)

I want to take this opportunity to relate Dillan's story to a larger problem. I feel like a lot of people have a negative stigma associated with mental disorders and what I love about these two videos is that they challenge the notion that just because someone is on the autism spectrum does not mean they are unintelligent.

"So many people can't understand that I have a mind. All they see is a person who is not in control," types Dillan. "But now you can hear me ... Having a voice has changed everything in my life."

However, in reality, these videos are Apple ads, and though increasing awareness and promoting acceptance is a step in the right direction, there is still much to do. In doing research for my term paper, (I discussed the lack of federal funding in programs for autistic adults), I found an article where Ari Ne’eman, an adult with autism and the co-founder of the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network and a member of the National Council on Disability, described an instance where he met “a non-speaking man with autism who was trying to find a job. Ne’eman said the man communicated with him through gestures, and obviously had plenty to say."

The details are complicated, but essentially, people with autism age out of the federally funded system at 21 years old. Here, they enter the tricky world of state funding, where they recieve significantly less programs to aid them thoughout their adult lives. A Washington University study found that while “74.6 percent of high school students had been receiving speech therapy during an earlier phase of the study, only 9.1 percent of young adults were receiving such therapy despite the fact that more than 20 percent were nonverbal and likely in need of such assistance."

Not only does this lack of communication impede the daily lives of people with autism, but it may prevent autistic adults from getting the few jobs that are available to them. Having federal funding extend to communication services for adults would help ease the transition between speaking in a classroom and speaking in a workplace.

Questions:
Did these videos change your perception of individuals with autism? Do you have any ideas for how to support teens with autism who may not have enough money for iPads or other technological devices? Is this an issue that more people should be concerned with?

Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-parenting/post/adults-with-autism-tell-congress-more-funds-needed-for-services/2012/11/30/f07f1aa2-3a78-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_blog.html

CSU Faculty Strike

Source: Bold Type Magazine

Beginning April 13^th, members of the California Faculty Association, plan to go on strike for a 5% raise in salary. The California Faculty Association union represents about 26,000 California State University (CSU) employees from all 23 CSU campuses. The union believes they are vastly underpaid while at the same time, the CSU system is not lacking the funds to support a 5% raise in pay.

This debate and negotiation for increased pay has been going on between the Board of Trustees of the CSU system and the union for the past year; however, a recent independent report found that the requested 5% raised by the union is not impossible for the administration to implement. Historically, the last time CSU faculty have received a salary increase of over 5% was during the 2007-08 educational year when their salary increase was at 5.7%. The Board of Trustees is offering a pay increase of only 2%.

The report states that a salary raise of 5% is “in the interest of students, who need caring faculty and certainly in the public interest as our country needs a well educated population.”

This strike would mean that faculty will not be teaching from Wednesday April 13^th until Tuesday April 19^th. Missing five class days will largely affect students’ education. Even with this, the 260,000 students in the CSU system will not be receiving a refund on tuition or an excused absence from classes where professors decide to continue teaching.

Questions:

Do you think the faculty should accept the 2% pay raise or continue fighting for 5%?

What are some projects the money could come from?

Sources:

https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2016/apr/1/csu-faculty-set-strike-after-independent-fact-find/

http://www.pe.com/articles/strike-796457-faculty-union.html

http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/CSU-needs-to-avoid-April-13-strike-7223245.php

http://boldtypemag.com/btm/the-first-csu-system-wide-strike-is-about-to-shut-down-all-23-campuses-heres-why

President Obama Commutes 61 Prison Sentences

Last Wednesday, the sentences of 61 people who were serving for drug offenses were commuted by President Obama. To commute a sentence means to grant early release for prisoners. About 1/3 of the sentences commuted were life sentences. The commuted sentences were for inmates who had committed nonviolent drug offenses such as participating in the drug trade or acting as an accessory to the crime by not reporting someone who may have been involved.

Source: Department of Justice via whitehouse.gov

During the emphasis on the war on drugs of the mid 1990s, many sentences given to people involved were especially harsh. In the past generation, mandatory sentencing (when people who are convicted of certain crimes must be punished with a minimum of years in prison) of those involved in crimes was strongly emphasized- leading to many disproportionate sentences for inmates. 

President Obama wanted to give these inmates a second chance, believing they were also treated unjustly by our judicial system. 

"Reminded me of how out of proportion and counterproductive so much of our sentencing when it comes to our drug laws are, both at the federal level and the state level," says Obama when having lunch with a few of the inmates who were granted clemency. 

This is not the first time Obama has commuted sentences of inmates. Previous to the 61 he commuted last Wednesday, Obama had commuted 187 other individuals. Still, there are over 9000 pending petitions for clemency.

He continues, "The power to grant pardons and commutations… embodies the basic belief in our democracy that people deserve a second chance after having made a mistake in their lives that led to a conviction under our laws." 

Question: 

Do you agree with Obama's argument that the concept of giving people a second chance is inherent in our democracy?

Do you feel like he is taking too large a role in pardoning sentences since he has pardoned more prison mates than the past 6 presidents combined?

Does offering clemency "fix" our judicial system or correctly right the wrongs of the past?

Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/politics/barack-obama-commutes-prison-sentences/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/03/30/president-obama-has-now-commuted-sentences-248-individuals

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/145823/20160331/obama-commutes-sentences-of-61-federal-drug-offenders.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/us/jesse-webster-an-inmate-serving-life-turned-to-his-last-hope-president-obama.html

California Minimum Wage to Raise to $15

Governor Jerry Brown is set to sign a measure to raise the state minimum wage from $10 to $15 within the next five years, making it the highest minimum wage in the nation. (The federal minimum wage is currently at $7.25.)

The raise could increase pay for 5.6 million Californians by an average of 24 percent and would especially benefit minority groups who hold the majority of low-wage jobs.

Yasmin Fernandez works two jobs to make enough money to support herself as well as family in Mexico. After paying her expenses, she has only about $150 a month for herself. She calls the raise "heavenly," saying that she can now have money to treat herself every once in a while and even more money for her family.

Other urban cities such as Seattle and New York City have followed in California's footsteps in raising their wages. However, NYC bakery owner Joseph Sferrazza brings up a drawback to the plan: "The rent is so high, the profit margin is already so low, I don't see how we can make it work," says Sferrazza, who will eventually pay his workers $15 instead of the current $9. "You can only charge so much for a cookie."

Raising the wage may seem like a good idea in retrospect, but in reality, it may just cause a domino effect that leads to higher prices, rendering the raise useless. It could put more people out of jobs since stores or companies may be unable to support the number of workers they currently have, ironically hurting the people that the higher minimum wage is supposed to help. Small businesses, in particular, will have a hard time keeping up.

However, perhaps the scariest thing is that this wage jump is way larger than economists have tested in the past, making it difficult to predict what exactly will happen to the economy in the long run.

"I would go so far as to call this reckless," says David Neumark, a UC Irvine economics professor. 

Thoughts? Was raising the minimum wage a good move?

Sources:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/money/2016/03/30/analysis-finds-raising-ca-minimum-wage-to-15-hour-would-cost-taxpayers-36b/
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/04/01/us/ap-us-minimum-wage.html?em_pos=large&emc=edit_nn_20160401&nl=morning-briefing&nlid=72521305
http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2016-03-29/californias-15-hour-wage-could-help-workers-cost-jobs

North Carolina Suffers Backlash from Anti-L.G.B.T. Bill

Last week, North Carolina governor Pat McCrory, (who is a Republican), signed a bill that eliminated protections for gay and transgender people, essentially opening the doors to discrimination in the state.

North Carolina is not alone. After last year's Obergefell v. Hodges case resulted in a victory for gay rights supporters all over the country, state legislatures began introducing bills to limit the Supreme Court ruling.

Courtesy of the New York Times
Prostesters against HB2 in Charlotte, N.C. 

This specific law, dubbed "the bathroom bill," specifically blocks transgender people from using public bathrooms of the gender they identify with. Moreover, it prevents cities from creating laws that would protect L.G.B.T. individuals.

The law created a massive backlash not only from the general public, but from politicians, celebrities, and other influential individuals. Twitter users used the hashtag #WeAreNotThis to express their disapproval. A statement by the NBA suggested it was reconsidering the location for the 2017 All-Star Game, currently planned to be held in Charlotte, if the act was not repealed. States such as New York and Connecticut have banned official state government travel to North Carolina. A letter signed by CEOs of large companies such as Apple and PayPal stated that, "We believe that HB 2 will make it far more challenging for businesses across the state to recruit and retain the nation’s best and brightest workers and attract the most talented students from across the country. It will also diminish the state’s draw as a destination for tourism, new businesses, and economic activity."

Is this backlash enough to repeal the bill? Why did McCrory and the N.C. government choose to create laws like these in the first place?

Questions: A lot of articles mentioned McCrory is up for reelection--how might that have influenced his decision? This situation also brings up the issue of federalism--should North Carolina and other state governments have the power to enact these types of laws?

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/us/north-carolina-law-antidiscrimination-pat-mccrory.html
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/30/11331138/north-carolina-lgbt-business

UCs Have Lower Standards for OOS Residents

A state audit released today reveals that the UC system is accepting more nonresidents, many of whom have lower test scores and GPAs than those of residents. In other words, it may be easier to get into a UC by being out-of-state.

"As a public institution, the university should serve primarily those who provide for its financial and civic support — California residents," says state auditor Elaine Howle. "However, over the past several years, the university has failed to put the needs of residents first."

The motive is largely economic. The estimated sticker price for OOS residents is $58,308, which is $24,708 more than the resident tuition and fees. The schools use the extra fees paid by nonresident students to balance out the budget cuts that cut funding by about one-third a few years ago. Another interesting note is that this report comes a few months after the announcement that incoming OOS (out-of-state) residents can no longer receive financial aid beginning in fall 2016.

The audit also reported that the UCs have kept their promise to admit the top 12.5 percent of high school graduates, but these students don't always get accepted to their first choice. In contrast, nonresidents usually get accepted to their first choice campus and outnumber the number of residents in impacted majors such as engineering. 

Personally, I believe this is completely unfair. The UC system should be admitting those who are qualified from California before reaching out to applicants from other states since this system was created to educate the students of California. Living here should be a plus factor rather than a disadvantage. 

What do you think? Should the UC system be placing "fairness" over profit maximization and other economic motives? Were the schools just doing what they had to do in order to keep the system running? 

Sources:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article68782827.html

http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/Audit-shows-UC-admission-standards-relaxed-for-7215364.php

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/audit-university-california-undermines-resident-students-38007048

Paying the Price for Stealing a Propaganda Poster

Recently, University of Virginia student Otto Warmbier was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor and imprisonment for stealing a propaganda poster from a hotel while on a trip to North Korea. 

Warmbier has been held in the Asian country since January, and his detainment was only made public in late February. He has admitted to taking the poster to give as a "trophy" to someone from his hometown church in exchange for a car. 

Courtesy of KCNA/REUTERS
“I have made the worst mistake of my life.” --Otto Warmbier

Press Secretary Josh Earnest has stated that the North Korean government is using Warmbier and other U.S. citizens as "pawns to pursue a political agenda." Human rights groups are obviously angry, calling the action "outrageous and shocking."

However, Marie Myung-Ok Lee of the New York Times has a different opinion. In this piece, Lee tells of her experience traveling to North Korea, which is not an experience many people have.

"Once your Russian-made Air Koryo jet lands and you are in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, you lose control. You hand over your passport “for security reasons.” You are taken where the government wants you to go, you eat what’s given, you are not allowed to seek out unscripted encounters," Lee says. She was not shocked at the sentence Warmbier received.

Lee also mentions that we don't take North Korea seriously enough. The country has certainly been the butt of the world's jokes for its people's steadfast loyalty to their culture and leaders; North Korea seems to be a separate world of its own in essentially every respect. Is "not taking North Korea seriously" the root of the problem here?

Other questions: What was your reaction to Warmbier's trial? Was his sentence justified? What could the motives be to imprison him? What does this situation say about the nature of North Korea as a whole?

Sources:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/16/470635455/n-korea-sentences-virginia-student-to-15-years-prison-hard-labor

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/opinion/sunday/please-cancel-your-vacation-to-north-korea.html

Scientific Research? Or Cover up?

Photo by Kazuhiro Nogi
Hunting whales in Japanese culture can be traced as far back as 10,000 B.C and is not only a staple food but also one of great cultural significance. After an 115 day hunting trip, 333 whales were killed and 230 were pregnant females which has caused international condemnation to fall unto Japan. Commercial whaling was banned in Japan in 1986 but every year, expeditions hunt under the guise of performing scientific research and in this case, the Japanese claimed that they were targeting so many pregnant whales to determine the age that whales reached sexual maturity in order to show that the whale population is healthy enough for regular hunting. Typically, only a small part of the whale gets placed under research while the rest is sold or distributed to markets and schools to encourage consumption. Australian environmentalists are upset because the Japanese may have hunted and killed whales inside of an Australian whale sanctuary and according to Australian Environment Minister Greg Hunt, “There is no scientific justification for lethal research.”
In 2014 the International Court of Justice ruled that Japan should stop all hunting and yet Japan has persisted in doing so.

Questions: How should the international community convince Japan to halt whale hunting? Would it even be possible to get Japan to stop?

Sources: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/japanese-fleet-kills-hundreds-of-pregnant-whales.html
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/27/3763754/japan-kills-whales-for-research/
http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/whale-wars/about-whaling/why-japanese-hunt-whales/

Dozens Killed in Amusement Park Bombing

“May God shower his wrath upon these attackers. What kind of people target little children in a park?”- Nasreen Bibi, mother of a child injured in the attack. 

Photo obtained by K.M. Chuadary/Associated Press


Over 65 people have been killed and more than 300 injured in a bombing that occurred in Lahore Park Pakistan. A branch of the Taliban known as Jamaat-ul-Ahrar has taken responsibility for the attacks.
“The target were Christians. “We want to send this message to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif that we have entered Lahore. He can do what he wants, but he won’t be able to stop us. Our suicide bombers will continue these attacks.” -Ehsanullah Ehsan

They planned out the bombing to ensure the death of Christians during Easter Sunday. The suicide bombing carried out at Gulshan-e-Iqbal park which is a popular spot for children. All public parks were shut down and the government called upon the help of the people of Punjab to donate blood to the wounded. The explosion prompted a Facebook safety notification check that was accidentally sent to many people worldwide which is why many people may have received a Facebook notification asking if they were okay. The chief minister of Punjab has issued 3 days of mourning and death rates are expected to rise as most of the people injured are in critical condition. 

Questions: How is security supposed to reduce the chances of future attacks? How should the Pakistani government respond? 

Sources: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/27/dozens-killed-in-blast-outside-lahore-park-pakistan

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/lahore-park-bomb-1.3508742