Hillary's Tips for Fighting ISIS

In a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations today in New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democratic frontrunner, called for accelerating the operation against the Islamic State, with the U.S. at the helm. Her recommendations included a no-fly zone, more frequent airstrikes, and more special operations troops to assist the ground troops in Syria and Iraq.

She stated that "Our goal is not to deter or contain ISIS but to defeat and destroy ISIS," in a subtle jab at President Obama, who stated the day before the Paris attacks that the group was "contained". "But we have learned that we can score victories over terrorist leaders and networks only to face metastasizing threats down the road. So we also have to play and win the long game." However, she was cautious not to completely alienate Obama, reassuring that she was only intensifying his plan. 

Clinton sharply criticized her Republican candidate counterparts for using fear to discriminate against Muslims, and their intolerance of Syrian refugees in the U.S. She said that the Paris attack should not be used to "score political points." Clinton showed off her impressive foreign policy background, but she ran the risk of inflaming Democratic voters who are allied with Obama and are wary of Bush-style interventionism in the Middle East.

The bulk of her plan involved combining airstrikes with ground troops, especially in cooperation with the oil-rich Persian Gulf states which are allies of the U.S. yet  have remained silent about the Syrian Civil War. She called for a no-fly zone to be established in northern Syria, along the border with Turkey.  In her open confrontation against ISIS, Clinton's policies may be seen as aligning with Russia and Iran, which back Assad's regime, though she also criticized those countries.

What do you guys think of Hillary's recommendations? Do they seem like they could work?

How should the United States approach ISIS?

Is it acceptable to use the Paris attacks as political tools? Is this really what the Republican candidates are doing, or is Hillary bashing them in a move that's just as political?

Does Clinton risk alienating some of her Democratic voters?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-islamic-state.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/19/hillary_clinton_our_goal_is_not_to_contain_isis_but_to_defeat_and_destroy_isis.html

Trump's Muslim Database

Now, more than ever, the Syrian Refugee Crisis is more or less reaching its climax here in the United States and abroad. Everywhere around the world these refugees have been greeted with open arms and hatred all the same. In light of the House's decision to limit the amount of refugees, Donald Trump has come out and proclaimed that he would not be opposed to a national database that contained a name and number for every Muslim in America. With this, every Muslim would receive an identification card in accordance with the 'drastic measures' that would take place, additionally stating "we're going to have to look at a lot of things very closely". Come to think of it, his ideas are eerily similar to a particular dictator from mid-19-century Europe who maniacally ordered the killing of over 6 million Jews, named Adolf Hitler. You may have heard of this guy; I know I have. The former point aside, Trump also inconceivably stated that he would consider shutting down and implementing surveillance technology within the many Mosques that call America home. Not only is this incredibly unrealistic, it's useless. Fundamentally, A Mosque is a building where Muslims gather in prayer, that’s it, there is basically no other significance. Unfortunately, radical “Islam” (I use quotes because these men have no part in the Islamic faith and practice a faith that is in no accordance with the Qur’an) is a threat to all societies, not only the West. Even with this threat, Trump has gone a little far with his statements, such actions are unthinkable, just as the terrorism itself. Keeping this in mind, the strategy he has proposed is probably more for the ‘wow’ factor and media attention (which I am feeding right now) as opposed to a viable strategy to defeat terror. Get mad, Trump.

I actually know many Muslims. How could they possibly feel about this? What can the American people do to prevent such discrimination from ever occurring? Is America a haven for freedom anymore? If at all? How would you respond to this if you were a Muslim?


http://irregulartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/donaldtrumphitler.jpg
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34873057
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-threat-to-country/index.html

House Passes Bill to Block Refugees, White House Threatens Veto

The House passed a bill Thursday that will immediately arrest the admission process for Syrian refugees into the United States by a vote of 289-137. Following last week's attacks in Paris, in which 129 innocents were murdered at the hands of Daesh extremists, many American politicians have been vocal about security concerns stemming from the 10,000 Syrian refugees expected to emigrate to the country.

The bill requires the Homeland Security secretary, the FBI Director and the national intelligence director to personally sign off on each and every refugee admitted to the country. However, the bill still has to be voted on by the Senate, and Democratic leaders have already stated that they will move to block it.

The vote, in which 47 Democrats joined 242 Republicans, comes in defiance of White House veto threats, the same threats that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan called "baffling." While the bill will not permanently halt the flow of refugees, it will do so until a stricter vetting process is instituted, which would also mean the strictest-ever regulations for refugees fleeing a war-torn country. Proponents of the bill point to one of the Paris terrorists' supposed entrance into Europe through Greece with a group of Syrian refugees. The supporters argue that more extremists could easily infiltrate the ranks of the refugees, just as they have in Europe. However, the White House feels that the current measures are sufficient in vetting applicants despite FBI Director James Comey himself acknowledging the difficulty of collecting information that largely does not exist. Unless one of the applicants has previously been reflected in FBI databases for deviant behavior, there is no data to be found.

The White House asserted the fact that of the Syrian 2,174 refugees that have been admitted in recent years, "not a single one has been arrested or deported on terrorism-related grounds." The White House has also pledged itself to the idea that these regulations will only create obstacles for the already severely disadvantaged refugees without providing any real, additional security for the American people.

Personally, I wish that we could fulfill the 10,000 refugee pledge in the next year, but it seems less and less likely that our government is willing to accept the presence of the hypothetical threat posed by potential extremist infiltration. I won't deny that we have very little information on the Syrian refugees, but how could we? Syria is largely destroyed. The records, if they once existed, are no longer available. However, I don't think that means we should commit to the dramatic measures this bill has instituted and the fearful rhetoric that is being disseminated by many of our political leaders. France has more reason than any other nation to reject Syrian refugees, yet they have only further committed themselves to resettling 30,000 refugees over the next two years. While we should obviously be wary of who is entering our country, instituting a stricter vetting process that might include, as several GOP leaders have suggested, a religious screening process that would only let beleaguered Christian Syrians enter the country, seems like capitulation to the desires of Daesh. The United States appearing unsympathetic to the plight of Muslims fleeing from the terror of their rule would only further strengthen their rhetoric that the West hates all Muslims. Such a lack of empathy for families who have lost everything they once knew does not demonstrate American values. We should remain vigilant regarding who is allowed to resettle in our country, but we should not be apathetic towards those who are only seeking to rebuild their lives.


Do you support the bill?
What could be added to the vetting process to further vet applicants for resettlement?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/world/paris-attacks-us-france-refugees/
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/ted-cruzs-religious-test-for-syrian-refugees
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/19/house-passes-bill-bar-syrian-refugees-us-without-more-vetting/76041668/
http://time.com/4119155/syrian-refugees-congress-safe-act/

Should There Be Limits on Syrian Refugees

In light of the recent Paris attacks, the house has passed a bill "that would suspend the program allowing Syrian and Iraqi refugees into the U.S. until key national security agencies certify they don't pose a security risk." This bill goes directly against Obama’s belief that we should continue to allow Syrian refugees into the country. Obama has promised to veto this bill because of his beliefs in supporting the refugees. Obama stated in the Philippines that “We are not well served when, in response to a terrorist attack, we descend into fear and panic… We don't make good decisions if it's based on hysteria or an exaggeration of risks.”

This rapid decision to suspend Syrian refugees from entering the country may not have been decided logically. People may be letting their emotions cloud their judgement. Refugees are not allowed to simply walk into the U.S. whenever they want. The process to enter this country can  be painfully long and many people are rejected. Refugees are only allowed into the country “after subjecting them to rigorous screening and security checks.”

What people fail to realize is that ISIS is not a representation of the Islamic religion. In fact, ISIS is hurting Islam. Muslims are now being attacked for being a “terrorist” when in fact most Muslims do not believe in violence. A verse from the Quran even states "Whoever kills an innocent person, it is as though he has killed all of mankind." I believe that historian Reza Aslan said it the best when he stated “Islam doesn't promote violence or peace. Islam is just a religion and like every religion in the world it depends on what you bring to it. If you're a violent person, your Islam, your Judaism, your Christianity, your Hinduism is gonna be violent. There are marauding Buddhist monks in Myanmar slaughtering women and children. Does Buddhism promote violence? Of course not. People are violent or peaceful and that depends on their politics, their social world, the ways that they see their communities.”

Rejecting refugees is not only wrong because of the blatant prejudice it has against Muslims, but because it goes against our American beliefs. Obama argues that “Slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values… Our nations can welcome refugees who are desperately seeking safety and ensure our own security. We can and must do both." I completely agree with this. America itself was founded by immigrants wanting to start a new life. Everyone in America today, including myself, is of immigrant decent. FBI Director James Comey fears that this legislation would only “make it impossible to allow any refugees into the U.S., and could even affect the ability of travelers from about three dozen countries that are allowed easier travel to the U.S. under the visa waiver program”

What do you think? Was the house acting too rashly? Should Syrian refugees be allowed in America? Is this bill more beneficial than harmful?

Sources: 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/19/politics/house-democrats-refugee-hearings-obama/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/16/obama-calls-idea-of-screening-syrian-refugees-based-on-religion-shameful-defends-white-house-strategy/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/world/not-in-my-name-muslims-speak-out/index.html

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9735806/islam-isis-violent

Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialism

Bernie Sanders' biggest obstacle in his presidential campaign thus far has been his electability. Liberals are thoroughly on board with his agenda and his "democratic socialism", but other Democrats fear he is too far left to be an appropriate vote in a general election. Only recently has he aligned himself with Democrats, as he was one of two independent Senators. Another enormous issue for Sanders has been Americans' association with his political ideology with communism. Unfortunately, they see the word "socialism" in Democratic Socialism, and automatically think Stalin and the Soviet Union.

Bernie's speech today is, arguably, his most important one. He has to surmount all of the preconceptions that the American public--specifically the Democratic Party. He hopes to do this buy painting himself as the heir to a great Democrats' hero, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Democratic socialism, he says, is a democracy with socialist economic systems, rather than a socialist government. He argues that FDR's Social Security is, in fact, a socialist endeavor and that he is continuing the work of a great Democrat president.

He said, at Georgetown University this afternoon, “Democratic socialism means that we must create an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy. Democratic socialism means that we must reform a political system in America today which is not only grossly unfair but, in many respects, corrupt.”

Sanders clarified his political position, attacking misconceptions head on by explaining the difference between his intended government and a socialist government. He contextualized Democratic Socialism using FDR as an example of a president who lifted us out of one of the darkest times in American history.

In his speech, meet with enthusiastic support from the student body, Bernie touched upon many of his talking points--from free public university, to raising the minimum wage, to health care, to poverty. His message, overall, was one of "we can do better". I, personally, agree. I believe that we can do better as a country. Sanders did an excellent job of clarifying himself today. That said, he did appeal to the progressives once more, possibly raising a legitimate concern of his ability to centralize himself in a general election. I happen to be a part of the supporters that he speaks to, so I thoroughly enjoyed what I heard, but I can understand how people may feel that he was preaching to the choir at times.

Do you think Democratic Socialism is right for America? Has Bernie's speech helped to dispel misunderstandings, or would those who misunderstand also not listen to this communication? Does Bernie have a chance? Do you agree with any of his ideas?

http://www.npr.org/2015/11/19/456668030/bernie-sanders-explains-democratic-socialism-in-6-clips

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/19/bernie-sanders-defends-democratic-socialism-calling-it-route-to-economic-fairness/

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/19/bernie-sanders-to-invoke-roosevelt-in-speech-defining-his-vision-of-democratic-socialism/

Recent Tragedy in Paris Escalates Syrian Refugee Crisis in America

In response to the recent ISIS attacks in Paris, the debate as to how to handle Syrian refugees in America has been a heated one. Some lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat, have called for blocking or pausing the entrance of more refugees. Governors from about 30 states have said that they will not allow refugees to settle in their states. Other plans have been proposed by Republican President hopefuls Jeb Bush who feels we should prioritize Christian Syrians and Ted Cruz who says we should ban Muslim Syrians. Chris Christie even said that he would ban even "orphans under the age of five."
Just yesterday, Indiana Governor Mike Pence (pictured above) relocated a Syrian family of three to Connecticut, where Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy welcomed the family at their arrival in New Haven. 

Obama has publicly denounced the propositions of many governors to close the door on refugees or treat Christian refugees differently from Muslim ones. He said that this decision is what ISIS, or ISIL, wants as, "ISIL seeks to exploit the idea that there is a war between Islam and the West. And when you start seeing individuals in positions of responsibility suggesting that Christians are more worthy of protection than Muslims are in a war-torn land, that feeds the ISIL narrative. It's counterproductive."

Other political figures have also spoken about the recent anti-refuge sentiment. Senator Elizabeth Warren reminded us that "We are not a nation that delivers children back into the hands of ISIS murderers because some politician doesn't like their religion and we are not a nation that backs down out of fear."

While the question of how to deal with national security and the refugees is the main question, another issue is who has the power to make such a decision? Is it the Governor? Or the President?

In terms of law, the White House has the power to decide refugee admittance without the governors per a 2012 SCOTUS case on immigration. However, the policy question is still open as to whether the risks are too high.

I think that it's important not to play into ISIS's narrative as President Obama said. While I feel that rigorous checks are necessary to prioritize national security and to prevent terrorists from entering the country, it's important to remember that these people are fleeing the same thing that we fear. Refugee vetting has been extremely successful in the past. Since 9/11, 785,000 refugees have been admitted, and only 3 have been arrested for terrorist-related charges. Nicholas Kristof also brings up an interesting point that if ISIS really wanted to get someone in, they could have someone apply for a student visa to study at a university. What's next? Are we going to stop accepting foreign university student?  It's critical that the people who lead us are not fearmongering. At a time like this, it's important to come together not only as a nation but also as a world against one common enemy.

What do you think? Should we continue to let Syrian refugees in or should we halt this program? Is this Obama's call or is it up to the state's?





Sources:
http://www.newsweek.com/obama-republicans-blocking-syrian-refugees-scared-widows-and-three-year-old-395836
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/can-governors-block-syrian-refugees-probably-not?cid=sm_fb_msnbc_native
http://time.com/4119412/indiana-diverts-syrian-refugees/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/17/politics/chris-christie-paris-attacks-refugee-orphans/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/19/opinion/betraying-ourselves.html?em_pos=large&emc=edit_nk_20151119&nl=nickkristof&nlid=71834795&ref=img&te=1&_r=0

France Responds to ISIS; Bombs City of Raqqa

France has made it clear that they will not accept the horrific terrorist attacks on their nation by ISIS by bombing a series of ISIS sites in Raqqa, Syria. Two days after the tragic series of attacks in Paris that killed more than 120 civilians and wounded over 350 more, France bombarded Raqqa with twenty bombs to destroy several targets. This included a command center, a recruitment center, an ammunition storage base, and a training camp for the terror group. All targets were reportedly destroyed, and there were no casualties.

Although these bombings were an important military move, they were also a strong political move that was extremely symbolic. France is not going to sit back and fear ISIS after their terror attacks. They are showing to ISIS and the rest of the world that they are not afraid of ISIS and that they will fight back. Some are questioning whether or not this was the best strategy. Janine di Giovanni, Newsweek's Middle East Editor spoke on the issue, saying ,"I think that it's very complicated, launching airstrikes like this as a retribution, but also as a way of wiping out ISIS. Because, the other thing is, that you can't wipe out an ideology. You might be able to suppress them militarily, or you might be able to cut off some of their lines, but you can't suppress the key message they're spreading." This brings up a valid point. Although France and the rest of the world can battle ISIS militarily, they cannot destroy ISIS's core beliefs and messages. In addition, they cannot make people forget the terror involved in these attacks. Even after France's response, it is almost impossible to tell what the actual effects of these airstrikes will be. We know so little about what ISIS is doing that these airstrikes are more symbolic than anything else.

What do you think about France's response? Was this the right move? If not, what else could they have done?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/15/middleeast/france-announces-raqqa-airstrikes-on-isis/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/europe/paris-attacks-at-a-glance/

Friday the 13th Brings France More than Bad Luck

On Friday, France was attacked by several coordinated attacks across Paris run by ISIS Operators. The attack left around 130 dead, more than 300 physically wounded, and hearts across the globe flooded with rage. French President Francois Hollande called this attack "an act of war" on France, "organized and planned from the outside with inside accomplices," and added: "When the terrorists are capable of doing such acts, they must know that they will face a France very determined."

The next steps France will be taking, according to the associate director of the International Security and Defense Policy at the RAND Corp., Christopher Chivvis, appear to be towards counter-terrorism using overseas military tactics. Sending military forces overseas will be different from France's previous approach to counter-terrorism, as Frances original method was to take on terrorism on the domestic front.

"President Hollande has considerable capability at his disposal, including advanced airpower, highly trained special forces, and land and naval assets. France needs support of NATO allies and especially the United States to employ these capabilities to their fullest, however." says Chivvis. Luckily both President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron have proposed their support for France to investigate the attacks.

"We stand prepared and ready to provide whatever assistance the people of France need to respond." Obama said yesterday at a press conference yesterday and today British Prime Minister David Cameron addressed the attacks in France saying:“We have to send our support and our sympathy to all the people of Paris. They are, like London, like so many cities around the world, vibrant, multi-faith, multi-cultural societies. This is an attack on all of us who stand for the kind of fair and inclusive societies we want to live in.” This possible foreshadows the cooperation NATO and UN forces needed to fight the war up ahead.

The world has been scarred by many attacks by Radical Islamist over the years, but hopefully this will be the last time they get to play on the offensive side of the ball. 

What do you guys think? What should Frances roll in fighting ISIS in the Future? Is this enough for the US to deploy its forces back into the Middle East and now possible in Europe? 

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/europe/paris-attacks-france-response/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2015/11/13/politics/paris-terror-attacks-obama/

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/14/paris-attacks-david-cameron-emergency-cobra-meeting

Will Bridges Be Built Between the Democrats and Republicans?

 Democrats and Republicans are notorious for butting heads on policy issues and seemingly not much has changed with the government being on the brink of yet another shutdown. However, despite this, there is a glimmer of hope that relations will improve when the next president steps into office.

This week, two candidates, Hilary Clinton and Jeb Bush, made statements saying that the opposing party is not the enemy. Hilary had been criticized for calling the Republican party the "enemy" during the Democratic debates, however recently has clarified that the statement was just a little "tongue and cheek" and that she in fact has "great relations with Republicans." Furthermore, she added that she would do "whatever I can" to find common ground for the two parties to stand on.  This, in addition, to Jeb's statement at the Kent Country GOP in Grand Rapids that "Democrats are not our enemies" give light to what may be a positive future between the two parties.

Unfortunately these improvements may not come soon enough. The most immediate threat of government shutdown is result of the two-year budget deal that Obama has signed but has not been passed through Congress due to disagreements between the Republicans and Democrats over Planned Parenthood, the Environmental Protection Agency, and Obamacare. Obama signed the deal last week, ensuring that the government won't shut down until at least mid-December. However, Congress must agree on how to allocate the funds by December 11th otherwise a shut down will take place. As a result of the shutdown in 2013 and the potential for another this December, it is encouraging to see candidates, such as Clinton and Bush, that are actually addressing the issues in government, particularly in regards to the lack of cooperation between the two parties.

Do you think that the 2016 President will make more efforts to improve relations with the opposing party, whether it he or she be Democrat or Republican? If so, how successful do you think he/she will be? Do you think a compromise will be met even earlier, in time for December 11th? What may that compromise be?

ttp://www.cnn.com/2013/09/30/politics/government-shutdown-up-to-speed/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/12/exclusive-republicans-in-congress-prepared-for-possible-government-shutdown-fight/
http://www.sfgate.com/news/science/article/Bush-Democrats-aren-t-the-enemy-Washington-6628185.php
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/politics/hillary-clinton-republicans-enemy/index.html

Rubio and Cruz Go Head to Head on Immigration

Thursday spurred a heated debate between presidential candidates Senator Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. The two candidates have both alluded to problems that they have with one another's immigration policies but in an interview with Laura Ingraham, a conservative talk radio show host, Cruz began to openly criticize the actions and policies of Rubio. Cruz specifically called into question Rubio's previous stances on the "Gang of Eight Bill" that was proposed in 2013. This bill would have increased border control in an attempt to lower illegal immigration; however, Rubio voted against all of its amendments. As Cruz called into question Rubio's position, Rubio did the same for Cruz. Rubio released videos of Cruz from 2011 supporting immigration reform that would open up work visas so that more immigrants would have a path to legalization. Cruz has repeatedly expressed his staunch support of strict immigration reform that would lower the entrance of illegal immigrants, but his position has been wavering. Rick Santorum, former governor of Texas, also noted that Cruz supported increased worker visas. That said, Cruz now claims that he has changed his mind and would reform the H-1B program to prevent abuses.

The debate between these two candidates is indicative of a split within the Republican party and raises questions as to what their platform will be for immigration. Many republicans favor the option of granting a path to citizenship and see that deporting millions of people is illogical. However, some hardline conservatives support deportation and see it as necessary to uphold the laws. Rubio said,"We are going to have to deport some people, if you're not going to enforce the law, what's the point of having those laws?". Rubio specifically referred to the need to remove those who had criminal records. Javier Polmarez, the head of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, was quoted saying that this would still amount to six million people. Some candidates, such as Fiorina, have jumped on the feud and said Rubio is shifting his opinion to fit the party. The Republicans are struggling to find what exactly they support for immigration reform, although most oppose Trump's plan to build a "beautiful wall".

With the primaries in Iowa fast approaching, it will be interesting to see how the immigration debate develops. Rubio has expressed that the Republican party needs to change its ways in order to attract the Hispanic vote. Yet, Rubio is criticized for having not supported stricter border control to now saying that deportation is needed. Another injury to the Republican campaign are Trump's recent comments have hurt the view of the Republican party on behalf of the Hispanic community.

Does the Republican party need to change its immigration policies and modernize, or will this lose the conservative base? Is Rubio changing his opinions on immigration to fit the party? Should immigrants be given a path to citizenship or is deportation necessary?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/us/politics/immigration-fight-boils-over-as-ted-cruz-and-marco-rubio-battle.html?ref=politics&_r=0

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/259966-cruz-and-rubio-lock-horns-on-immigration

Rand Paul's Resurgence?

The last debate was full of surprises. Donald Trump and Ben Carson seemed to have lost some of the vigor they carried in previous debates. Jeb Bush and John Kasich who look promising in the beginning of the race tripped on many questions. So who replaced them? Rubio came out really strong in the last debate and maintained his composure, but this was not a huge surprise. What was surprising was Rand Paul's striking comeback. His poignant question "What is a fiscal conservative?" dug a hole straight through the rhetoric of the other candidates on the stage. While many were boasting about the need for advanced military technology or building a wall on the south border of the United States, Paul declared that these claims were completely against the conservative mantra.
By spending millions, Rand says, Republicans are being anything but conservative. Republicans claim that the budget needs to be shrunk, but they continually leave the military budget untouched. In addition, regardless of his other views, I think that his moderate foreign policy discussion made sense in attempting to solve the Syrian crisis with the cooperation of the Russian government while dismissing Clinton's no fly zone idea as reckless.
In regards to Trump, he could not stop talking about China and its involvement with the recently published TPP. His entire platform this debate was "China this" and "China that," especially in regard to the new piece of legislation. Paul directly addressed the moderators about this tirade, stating that China was not even a part of this deal, revealing Trump as extremely uninformed.
The entire debate, Paul did a good job distancing himself from the big-government Republicans, distinguishing a unique role in the race. I think that he showed that with every week, huge swings in the polls can result. Who do you think will emerge in the future? Is it possible for Bush, Kasich, or even Christie to make a big recovery like Paul? Do you agree with any of Paul's policies?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rand-paul-gop-debate-milwaukee_5642dbbbe4b060377346ef28
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-republican-presidential-debate-wrap-kass-met-1112-20151112-column.html

Is Football Really Worth it?

Will Smith will be starring as Dr. Bennet Omalu in the new movie Concussion. This movie tells the story of Dr. Omalu's work and his attempt to bring to light the negative effects of playing football. Dr. Omalu conducted an autopsy the brain of Pittsburgh Steelers Mike Webster, "which led to his discovery of a new disease that he named chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE". This disease is a "It is a progressive degenerative disease which afflicts the brain of people who have suffered repeated concussions and traumatic brain injuries. The brain of people with this disease will "gradually deteriorates and will over time end up losing mass".

Naturally this is not a topic we American’s want to address because of how popular football is. However, it is no surprise that football is dangerous and deadly for the players. The movie has a powerful message  acting “as a sort of demand for accountability, and the line of those being called to account is long”. NFL is being directly attacked by this movie. However, “the media and fans are exposed” as well. Interestingly enough, ESPN has decided to run advertisements for Concussion. However, it is unclear whether these ads will play during any Football related programming.

Football is deeply rooted as an American tradition. I’m sure this movie will make many people uncomfortable, however, it is going to take a lot for football to change. One of the articles even commented “The film will, temporarily at least, cause you to wonder how you can support the sport”.

Do you think Concussion will change people’s minds about football? Will the movie have an immediate impact? Should laws be implemented to protect football players?

Sources:

http://www.protectthebrain.org/Brain-Injury-Research/What-is-CTE-.aspx

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/league-of-denial/the-frontline-interview-dr-bennet-omalu/

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2588458-for-nfl-fans-concussion-movie-will-be-heartbreaking-enlightening-disturbing?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

http://www.businessinsider.com/espn-will-air-commercials-for-will-smiths-nfl-drama-concussion-2015-11

Are Candidates Becoming too Casual?

Recently, there have been many instances of candidates trying to be very funny and playful in public. 

Donald Trump decided to host Saturday Night Live, which is meant to be a comedic, late-night television show.  At many points in the night, Trump was very funny, evoking lots of laughs and smiles from the audience.  However, he also made many derogatory comments, as he often does when addressing the nation.  He has made numerous sexist and racist comments in the past, and surely did not fail to do so throughout his night on SNL.  One example of his typical commentary is when he made offensive jokes and comments about Rosie O'Donnell while he was hosting.

Jeb Bush has also been seen being very casual with his followers.  He has been verbally attacked by Trump about speaking Spanish to some of his supporters because Trump views this as kissing up to them and soliciting votes, as well as allowing citizens not to assimilate by speaking Spanish rather than learning English.  Most recently, Bush was seen giving a new supporter a chest bump in public.  His new follower has been a supporter of Ted Cruz's campaign, but after viewing Tuesday night's debate decided that his views are more aligned with Bush's.  After the voter stated that he was switching to follow Bush, Bush gave him a chest bump.  When questioned about this, he stated, "I do that for every convert."  

These acts of very casual and/or comedic behavior toward the general public, and toward their campaign supporters could be viewed as both positives and negatives.  One could view it simply as being relatable, perhaps humanizing a candidate whose relationship with voters may seem impersonal otherwise.  The candidates could be viewed in a negative light, however, as being too casual and not being professional, respectable potential future presidents of the nation.

In my opinion, actions such as a chest bump or speaking Spanish to Spanish-speaking voters are harmless, fun, and respectful things for a candidate to do.  I do not believe that it is appropriate, however, when candidates speak in an insulting way toward other candidates or toward certain groups of people, as has been demonstrated numerous times during this campaign season.

To what extent are casual actions towards the public positive or negative for candidates?

Are candidates' actions becoming too casual and relaxed in public, coming from potential future presidents? 

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/politics/jeb-bush-ted-cruz-chest-bump/index.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/2016-gop-debate-donald-trump-jeb-bush-spanish-213748

Racial Tensions at Mizzou and Yale Pose Constitutional Questions

 

This past week, racial tensions at the University of Missouri have reached an all-time high with protests by the football team and student leader Jonathan Butler forcing President Tim Wolfe and Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin to resign. African American students have dealt with inaction by the school leaders when dealing with racism on the mostly white campus.

The protests have been followed by threats on Yik Yak, declaring “I am going to stand my ground tomorrow and shoot every black person I see.” 19-year-old Hunter Park from Lake St. Louis has been arrested in relation to the threats.

However, protests have continued in full force, dividing the campus further. Controversy has expanded from racism to issues of free speech and free press. Protesters berated student photographer Tim Tai yelling “Go, go, go” as he tried to document the protests. Assistant professor Melissa Click, one of the many protesters, called for “muscle” to remove him from the protest site. Tai tried to fight back, stating, “The First Amendment protects your right to be here — and mine.”

In Nicholas Kristof's recent column, he connects the constitutional question at Missouri with the recent events at Yale. In response to students of color speaking out about marginalization on campus, the university sent out an email encouraging all students to “take the time to consider their costumes and the impact it may have," including costumes such as "feathered headdresses, turbans, wearing 'war paint' or modifying skin tone or wearing blackface or redface." A faculty member, Erika Christakis, spoke out against the email saying that her husband made a good point that “If you don't like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offense are the hallmarks of a free and open society." Students then angrily confronted Christakis’ husband Nicholas for not creating an equally “safe space” for all types of students.

These recent events tied to institutional racism further prove that it is impossible to turn a blind eye to the racial tension in American society. Our constitutional rights to free speech, free press, and the right to assemble pose an interesting problem when dealing with the opposing sides.

What are your thoughts on the recent events at Mizzou and Yale? What do you think will happen next? How do these events relate to free speech and free press? How do we protect those rights for both sides?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/opinion/mizzou-yale-and-free-speech.html?_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/us/university-of-missouri-racism-protest/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/us/missouri-football-players-protest-president-resigns/index.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/12/mizzou-student-files-simple-assault-complaint-against-assistant-professor-melissa-click/75640722/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/12/opinions/kohn-yale-protests/

The Fourth Republican Debate Illuminates Fissures in the Grand Old Party.

On Tuesday night, the top 8 Republican candidates once again took the stage to debate issues and try to flesh out each of their individual plans. Some candidates did better than others, but there was an overwhelming sense of a very divided party.

Candidates attacked one other, which is reasonable in a debate, but were occasionally somewhat unprofessional. Trump, ever the gentleman, exclaimed "Why does she keep interrupting everybody?!" when Carly Fiorina attempted to participate in the discussion. The comment reeked of his usual sexism and garnered lots of boos from the audience and a dismissive smirk from Trump. Rand Paul took shots at Marco Rubio's plan for military spending. Trump and Kasich faced off over money. Kasich is largely considered to have been one of the biggest losers of the debate, besides Trump. He came off as sullen and grumpy, far from presidential. Marco Rubio, overall, proved his debate chops once again. Carson's highly questionable past was barely touched (unfortunately), but he performed a bit more enthusiastically than he has in the past.

Obviously, candidates have to differ from each other in order to prove their worth to voters. However, the differences have quickly become divisions between candidates. The jabs seemed almost petty, rather than pointed and crucial. Personally, I think that having such a large debate is debilitating for candidates. It's very, very difficult to establish yourself and appeal to voters if you have only 60 or 90 seconds and must speak over 7 other people at the same time. The fact that there are so many people running for the Republican nomination also presents a problem for contenders. As I mentioned, they have to differentiate themselves somehow, and often alienate themselves in the process. Though it'll never happen, I think that a much smaller debate (maybe 4 people) would be much more beneficial to both voters and the candidates.

What was your opinion on the debate? Would smaller debates help? Who won the debate? Who lost?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/10/455560499/the-fourth-republican-debate-in-100-words-and-three-video-clips

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/10/winners-and-losers-from-the-4th-republican-debate/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/politics/republican-debate-takeaways/index.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34784688

Protest of Trump on SNL

This past Saturday, Donald Trump hosted the popular television show: Saturday Night Live. Per his usual persona, he did not hold back in the slightest.

He once again made numerous jokes that are regarded as highly offensive, including ones about Rosie O'Donnell who he has made fun of in the past. Many of the skits were focused around his policies, and poked fun at the absurdity of many of them. For instance, he handed the President of Mexico a giant check for the wall he believes he will build to "keep the bad ones out."

Despite the goings on inside, there were protesters lining the streets outside. Around 200 protestors marched from Trump Towers to the out side of NBC studios. They were trying to shame SNL for picking him as a host due to his previous offensive remarks. They believed that they should not have picked him because it shows support for what he has previously said.

Therefore they shouted things like "when i say Lorne you say Micheals!" (he is the head of SNL) and "Hey hey ho ho racism has got to go!"

The protesters said that their protest was bigger than just in regard to Trump. They want to send the message and by creating a mass assembly of people they can alert people to the issues at hand: Trumps racist and sexist comments.

This movement was organized by a number of organizations such as Black Lives Matter, ANSWER, women's groups, labor organizations, and students.

Despite their best efforts, the program still ran as scheduled, however, they did bring attention to their cause which is extremely valuable.

Do you all think that SNL should have hosted Tump? Or was it in fact disrespectful due to his previous comments? Also what impact do you think this protest will have on Trumps popularity? What do you think about Trump's comments during the show? Over all how will this publicity affect his campaign?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-hosts-saturday-night-live-amid-protests-n459341
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/08/anti-trump-protest-shuts-down-two-and-half-hours-before-snl-showtime/

Trudeau's Cabinet

Justin Trudeau was sworn into office yesterday, ending the ten year long reign of the conservative party. Trudeau is the second youngest prime minister in Canadian history and he hopes to bring a new era of liberal policies. But one of the main criticisms of Trudeau was his lack of experience. He was only elected into parliament in 2008, and was attacked throughout his campaign for this inexperience. So many assumed he would fill his cabinet with older, more experienced members to help guide him along the difficult job of prime minister. But this was not the case. 

Trudeau filled his cabinet with members mostly aged between 35 and 50. He also had a even number of female and male members, something that is rarely seen in politics. When asked why he did this, Trudeau simply replied "Because it's 2015". Many members have had no previous experience in politics. This very young cabinet creates a huge risk and reward scenario for Canada. This cabinet could be explosive and create new policies that actually target the younger generation, which is usually ignored. That being said, Trudeau could also fall flat on his face, with the inexperience causing huge problems down the road. 

But what does it mean for America? Canada is the United States number one trade partner and the countries have always had close connections. But Steven Harper and the conservatives had been causing tension between the countries, with differing policies and most notably, the different idea's about the Keystone Pipeline. President Obama has voiced his positive opinions on Trudeau and their is clear hope for better connections between the two countries in the future.  

Will Trudeau's inexperience along with his relatively young and gender equal cabinet harm his political abilities?

 Will Trudeau's liberal policies allow better connections to the US after Harper's tension filled reign?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34725055

http://ckom.com/article/276350/inexperience-hill-climb-liberal-cabinet-u-s-prof

GOP Pushing for Debate Changes

 

 

Following the CNBC debate where there appeared to be a lack of control on the moderators’ part, an unwillingness to call out the candidates on false assertions, and many trivial questions that took time away from actual substance (specifically the candidates economic policies), many people expressed their anger at how these - Republican - debates are being run. Many of the candidates have agreed to go around party leaders and negotiate directly with television networks, so that ground rules can be set for the remaining debates. One campaign has even gone so far as to say that they are not ruling out holding debates that are unsanctioned by the Republican National Committee. Barry Bennett, Ben Carson’s campaign manager even went on to say that “he didn’t think it would be hard to buy television airtime for such an event” (FOX). Additionally, GOP chairman Reince Priebus decided to suspend a partnership with NBC News on a debate that had been set for February, but even that was not enough to satisfy the campaigns. This past Sunday in a meeting of the campaign operatives, they discussed the issue and were able to come to a truce, with a modest set of demands for changes to the format of future debates. Bennett went on to say that these demanded changes mostly were about circumventing the “Republican National Committee in the coordination with network hosts, mandatory opening and closing statements, an equal number of questions for the candidates, and pre-approval of on-screen graphics.” (FOX) Bennett described the meeting as being very friendly and cordial, noting that they all agreed they needed to have such meetings more often.

Despite this and the fact that many of the candidates dislike of how the debates have been run, Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, and John Kasich declined to sign on. This split within the GOP field is likely to continue, what with the candidates all fighting for position (i.e. more time on screen, or fewer minutes in the hot seat). For Donald Trump he wants to see the number of top-tier debaters cut down, likely so as to give him less competition on stage and more air time. Fiorina, who’s still fighting to stay in the public’s eye, wants for more conservatives to get into the mix (be the moderators), helping to allow her more air time and questions geared at her policies. On the other hand there is Ted Cruz, who got the ball rolling on this issue by calling it out even during the debate, saying, “You look at the questions  — Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson can you do math? John Kasich will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio why don’t you resign?... How about talking about the substantive questions people care about?” (Washington Post). He also expressed that the questions asked “illustrate why Americans don’t trust the media”, garnering him loud cheers from the crowd. The next day Rubio backed up Cruz, in his statement where he said he felt that the debate was “a wasted opportunity” that was not only “unfair to the candidates, but also the to the American people” who were deprived of being able to receive the substance they need to have a solid understanding of the candidates’ stances.

    Furthermore, even given these new agreed upon chances, the media companies that host the debates are under no obligation to adopt them, really leaving the candidates with only the option of boycotting them to get their way. This pushback is happening despite the Republican National Committee’s attempts to improve the debate process (after issues during 2012), namely in reducing the number of debates as well as playing an active role in coordinating network hosts/moderators. With only three debates remaining before the first nomination contest it will be interesting the see the next steps the candidates and the RNC make in regards to this issue.

What did you think of the most recent Republican Debate? 

Do you feel that changes need to be made to the format of (Republican) debates?

How role do you think this issue is going to play in upcoming debates, will these proposed changes even make a difference?

How will the candidates use this issue to their advantage?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-cnbc-actually-messed-up-wednesdays-gop-debate/2015/10/29/b21203bc-7e52-11e5-afce-2afd1d3eb896_story.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/02/gop-campaigns-meet-to-try-to-fix-debates-after-complaints-liberal-bias-gotcha/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/politics/republican-debates-cnbc-donald-trump/

Kansas High School Football Player Passes Away From on Field Injuries

For some time now, football has been considered more than just a contact sport for many parents and their children. With advances in medical technology doctors today are finding more and more evidence for the damage football can cause to a player; evidence that was all but non-existent many years ago. Despite this, nothing really screams 'MURICA!' more than football. Unfortunately however, for the 11th time since July (National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research) yet another player has passed away due to injuries sustained on the field. This time, the victim was 17-year old Luke Schemm, the third victim in Kansas in 17 years. While game officials did not acknowledge any kind of neck or head injuries on the field, Luke tragically collapsed and died, subsequent to running into the end zone for a touchdown in the third quarter of his football game. Following his collapse on Saturday, doctors in Denver declared Luke to be 'brain-dead' as he was taken off of life support. The reasons as to why he collapsed are still not entirely known. The death of any individual is ultimately tragic, especially for someone so young. Luke was described as an outgoing and passionate persons, with a talent for both basketball and football.

Within the past few years, a lot of new information regarding the danger of football has come to light causing the NFL, in particular, to place many new rules and regulation regarding player safety. Yet with such an occurrence, it begs the question as to when a tragic event like this will happen again. What can be done, if anything, to prevent injuries and even deaths on the field? Who has to step up to face this challenge? Does this change your mind about letting your children playing football in the future?

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/68D1/production/_86533862_hi029969293.jpg
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/high-school-football-player-luke-schemm-scores-touchdown-dies-n457786
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34741125

What Was Bernie Sanders Motive To File Marijuana Bill In Senate?

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders filed a Senate bill Wednesday that would allow states to decide whether to legalize recreational use of marijuana and decriminalize the drug at the federal level. It's a sign the Democratic presidential candidate is willing to stake out a clear contrast on the issue with front-runner Hillary Clinton. This doesn't come as much of a surprise to be quite honest, Senator Sanders has always been adamant on legalizing marijuana. 

Some background on the pot issue is while some states have legalized pot, it remains illegal on the federal level. This bill is a long-shot in the Senate and Sanders declined to say whether he had any co-sponsors for the measure. However most likely he did have co-sponsors urging him to submit the bill. Sanders and others say it would allow growers and dispensers in states where marijuana is already legal to use the banks. A question I have is  did Bernie Sanders introduce this bill for more funding for his own campaign? It surely is possible because the common rule for campaigning is the more money you have for your campaign, the more likely you are to win presidency. Not only that, but is this recent bill by Sanders an act to win more young voters? Seeing that Sanders is relatively old, he might be trying to win over a lot of the younger voters which is an applaudable strategy on Sanders part. 

Some questions after reading the article are:

Is Senator Sanders actually serious about legalizing marijuana on a national level? Will this help or hurt his campaign?

If this bill is passed, how might it effect future policy decision-making on whether or not to legalize marijuana in all states?

In terms of submitting the bill somewhat unexpectedly, do you think that Sanders was motivated to gain potential funding for his campaign, in an effort to maybe boost his rankings in the polls?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-legal-marijuana/index.html

2015 Local Election Brings Some Surprising Results

(From left) Ms. Frances Walton, Ms. Karen Sulzinsky, and Mr. Douglas Silver.

          After a rousing debate given by this year's Board of Education candidates at the Ridgefield High School Candidates Assembly, there was much speculation by students about how the actual election would pan out. 

          It’s a majority opinion that the assembly was exciting and full of twists and turns; the headline chosen by the Ridgefield Press, “Students Drill Candidates in Assembly,” summarizes the event nicely. The candidates in attendance were Mr. Keidel (R), Mr. Murray (R), Ms. O’Connor (R), Mr. Silver (D), Ms. Sulzinsky (D), and Ms. Walton (D). Mr. Cordisco (R), who was scheduled to attend the assembly, could not make it.

          The issues discussed ranged from the under-funded arts programs in Ridgefield Public Schools to minority rights and included a lot in between! The topics certainly kept students interested. 224 students voted the following day in the Mock Election. In descending order from most to least votes received, the candidates favored by RHS students were Douglas Silver (205 votes), Karen Sulzinsky (177 votes), James Keidel (157 votes), Frances Walton (156 votes), Christopher Murray (78 votes), Sharon D’Orso (77 votes), David Cordisco (73 votes), and Tracey O’Connor (46 votes). Despite a clear trend among student voters, the adult voting population of Ridgefield did not seem to agree: “Vote totals in the school contest were: Sulzinsky, 3,065; O’ Connor, 3,058; Murray, 3,028; Walton, 3,006; Keidel, 2,779; Cordisco, 2,765” (The Ridgefield Press). Conversely, the results of the official vote reflected a favor for O’Connor and Murray, who [according to students] didn’t do as well as say Keidel in the RHS Assembly. 

          However, there may have been some faulty counting in this year’s election. Since Keidel only edged Cordisco out by a margin of 14 points, a recount is in order. Perhaps other results will end up changing too. Regardless, it’s clear that the parent and student voters have largely different values and opinions, which is reflected in who the age groups voted for, respectively.

The clear divide among parent and student voters in Ridgefield raises a few questions in my mind:

1. Could it be that some of the adult voters in Ridgefield are misinformed about candidates’ stances on the issues? 
2. Do you think that we should implement a system that allows BOE Candidate Debates to be public [not just for high school students]? 
3. Do you think that the results seen in this election are a product of misinformation, or a generational divide?

          Speaking on behalf of Ms. Fox, I encourage you all to comment respectfully to your classmates in your responses. After all, this is a post talking about issues in our own community; it would not be wise to offend anyone, candidates or otherwise.

Source (Photo): http://www.ridgefielddems.net/sulzinsky-walton-and-silver-for-ridgefield-boe-2015/

Source: http://www.theridgefieldpress.com/49195/democrats-nominate-slate-with-some-new-some-familiar-faces/

Source: http://www.theridgefieldpress.com/52424/students-drill-candidates-in-assembly/

Source (Credit to Ms. Fox): http://www.theridgefieldpress.com/53155/race-for-selectman-too-close-to-call/