Potential Public Health Emergency?

There is a new virus for everyone to be aware of. The zika virus is spreading rapidly in the America’s, “the head of the World Health Organization said Thursday, with another official estimating between 3 million to 4 million infections in the region over a 12-month period”. This is a new virus and there is not enough information available yet to truly understand the effects. About “80% of those infected with the Zika virus don't even feel sick, and most who do have relatively mild symptoms such as a fever, rash, joint pain or pink eye”. However, the symptoms are much worse for pregnant women and infants. Although it has not been proven, there is a “strong” connection between the virus and the “steep increase in the birth of babies with abnormally small heads and in cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome”. This syndrome is a “rare autoimmune disorder that can lead to life-threatening paralysis”. Clearly, this virus is dangerous, and the uncertainty of the effects of the virus poses another serious threat. This virus is not new to the world, it is only new to the Americas. It is a “mosquito-borne disease” that is now in “23 countries and territories in the Americas”. However, all of the people in the United States that are infected contracted the virus in another country. “Dr. Margaret Chan, the director general of the W.H.O., said she was convening an emergency meeting on Monday to decide whether to declare a public health emergency.” The WHO is rapidly getting involved with the virus in fear of the “widespread criticism that it had allowed the last major global health crisis —Ebola — to fester for months without a coordinated, effective strategy”. There is not even a vaccine for this virus yet so action must be taken to prevent the continuous outbreak of the virus.

What do you think about the outbreak?

Do you think the government should get involved and work alongside the WHO to find a solution?

Should pregnant women be banned from traveling to infected areas?

Since Brazil is one of the infected countries, do you think the Olympics will be relocated?

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/health/zika-virus-global-response/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/health/zika-virus-spreading-explosively-in-americas-who-says.html?_r=0

The Show Must Go On

Tonight at 9 pm another Republican debate is taking place, with or without Donald Trump. This will be the last debate before the Iowa caucuses on Monday and there are a lot of things to watch out for.

The first question on everyone’s minds is whether or not Donald Trump can win even if he not present at the debate. His absence may have a negative effect on CNN’s ratings, but it is still unknown whether they will put a dent in his poll numbers. By skipping this debate, Trump is avoiding a potentially damaging debate against his main competitor Sen. Ted Cruz. However Cruz has already started against Trump, saying he is too fragile and is scared of Megyn Kelly. Since he will not be there to defend himself this debate could be the time for some of his competitors to step up to the plate, or podium in this case. Trump’s absence could also either be a blessing or a curse for Ted Cruz. On one hand, now Cruz will have a chance to shine and really grab the attention of voters; plus he hopefully won’t be hounded about Canada. However, without Trump he the highest in the polls (some polls have put him up by 5%). Thus he could be the target of cross-fire in this debate, especially from Sen. Rand Paul who has been calling him a flip-flopper on immigration.

This debate may be the first Republican debate this campaign season that focuses more on actual politics than on mocking (or bullying Jeb Bush). Hopefully it is more civilized as it will be focusing on big, policy-heavy questions such as the war on ISIS and tax policy. On the other hand without Trump in the picture, the candidates might take this opportunity to show their tough side. Such as Gov. Chris Christie, a loud and straight talker, who has been stuck in Trump’s shadow. However former Gov. Jeb Bush warns his fellow candidates to not suddenly tough in Trump’s absence saying, “They’ve all been kind of polite and scared of him, I guess. Now that he’s not there they might pile, which I think will look weird.” This is very hypocritical of Jeb Bush, who has been relentlessly attack Marco Rubio on everything, even his choice of footwear.

Another person of consideration in this debate is Bernie Sanders who has been gaining momentum and recently spoke at the White House. With his numbers so close with Hillary Clinton, who has been receiving the brunt of Republican attacks, it may be Sanders turn to face the heat on the Republican floor. Whether or not the address Bernie Sanders will be a sign about how seriously they take his chances of becoming the Democratic nominee.

How do you feel about Trump putting personal hostilities ahead of the democratic process? What effects do you think his absence will have on his poll numbers and on the debate in general? Who do you think will be the most outspoken? Who do you think will win?

What other predictions do have for the debate tonight? If you are responding after watching the debate did anything above happen? Did anything surprise you?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/28/politics/republican-debate-2016-what-to-watch/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/01/28/fox-news-republican-debate-four-things-to-keep-your-eye-on.html

Indiana Moving Closer to Repealing "Religious Objections" Law

Only a year has passed since Indiana put forward its controversial 'religious objections' law that essentially legitimized discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodation within the state. But already, there's action within the Indiana's senate to suggest amends are attempting to be made between law makers and the LGBT community. With the new bill advancing thru the state's senate, all of the restrictions formerly stated would be rendered illegal, a significant move in the bitter relationship between Indiana and the LGBT community. However, with this taken into account, this bill would ultimately fail in outlawing discrimination based on gender identity, excluding much of the transgender community from protection under the law. In addition to this, the bill also saves accommodations for small businesses, religious groups as well as adoption agencies within the state. Surprising to some, the Republican-led committee is also motioning to make an amend to the bill that would repeal the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A bill that was widely criticized for too carefully protecting freedom of speech for religious groups.

Obviously there is much debate within the state of Indiana regarding the recent legislative actions. Curt Smith, president of the rather conservative India Family Institute, requested to the senate, "Please, please, please do not", in reference to passing the bill. On the other end of the spectrum, campaign manager for an LGBT advocacy group, Freedom Indiana, Chris Paulsen asserted that, "It's not right to leave the transgender community out. We're moving backwards... We need full protections. While both men do have the right to their own opinion, America is in fact the land of the free. And under the Constitution, it is essential that all citizens are to be equally protected under the law of the land. Morally righteous or not, it seems as if allowing the LGBT community to feel comfortable at home is the lawful and constitutionally just thing to do in this situation. It is rather hypocritical for a nation to refer to itself as the protector of freedom, but then not provide true freedom for all of its citizens. Of course this is much easier said than done. It's also fair to look at the perspective of the very conservative individual in this instance as well. Many feel that if they are in fact free, they should have the freedom to choose who and who they don't provide their services to.

The Indiana Congress still has to vote on the bill.

Is this bill advancing through the Indiana senate enough? Should disputes such as this be under the full jurisdiction of the national government? Should the state have even been able to pass the 'religious objections' to begin with?



http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/1/28/indiana-advances-bill-to-repeal-religious-objections-law.html
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Indiana-StateSeal.svg/2000px-Indiana-StateSeal.svg.png

The Make Student Grants Truly Tax-Free Act

Our very own Senator Richard Blumenthal (D) has sponsored an act to make more student grants tax-free. This effort was introduced in the Senate Committee of Finance on January 21st of this year. The bill is referred to as the S.2462 - Make Student Grants Truly Tax-Free Act, which amends section 117 of internal revenue code 1986. If passed, federal student aid like the Federal Pell Grant, The Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant, and the TEACH Grant will be pulled from the list of taxable gross income. This  reduction of the financial pressures on college students is a step in the right direction, helping low-income students better afford college.The bill would go into effect in the taxable years after December 31st 2016. This bill will no doubt be difficult to pass considering that the majority of congress is republican, though slipping pork into this act would probably make it go smoother. It's an important measure to take in consideration of the supposed student debt crisis afflicting recent college grads and college students. Does this bill have a ghost of a chance? Will it's implementation be effective in aiding students working toward their degree?

Sources:

https://www.opencongress.org/bill/s2462-114/show

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2462/text?utm_campaign=govtrack_feed&utm_source=govtrack/feed&utm_medium=rss#

Trump Bows Out of Thursday Bout

On Tuesday, GOP front-runner Donald Trump announced that he would not be participating in Thursday night´s Fox News/Google debate.

Trump cited the presence of one moderator, Fox´s Megyn Kelly, as the reason for his to-be absence on Thursday, stating earlier in the week that "She doesn't treat me fairly. I'm not a fan of hers at all."

His reasoning for these statements is what he perceived to be the unfair treatment he received at the hands of Kelly in the August debate, in which she challenged Trump on his history of denigrating women. In response to the recent demands made by Trump and his campaign to have Fox remove Kelly as a moderator, the network has simply stated its unwavering support for Kelly as a journalist, and has steadfastly refused.

"Megyn Kelly is an excellent journalist and the entire network stands behind her - she will absolutely be on the debate stage on Thursday night," said Fox News chairman and chief executive Roger Ailes, in a statement on Tuesday.

Ted Cruz, ever the political jockey, has meanwhile chided Trump for being ¨afraid¨ of Kelly, and has offered to debate him one-on-one, without moderators. This would be ideal for Cruz, who was an accomplished debater at Princeton and is essentially level with Trump in recent Iowa polls. Regardless of how little we all seem to enjoy Cruz (although the polls suggest there are Cruz supporters, apparently) he would almost certainly dismantle Trump in a one-on-one debate, all the while aiming for the evident chinks in Trump´s armor. Such weaknesses include, but are not limited to, his ignorance of most things political.

What has been a blitzkrieg of a national campaign for Trump thus far has seemingly stalled in Iowa with Cruz´s recent surge in the state polls, and Trump cannot afford to miss such an important debate. Caucus and primary season is just beginning, and with Trump´s Iowa lead whittled down to a mere seven points, he needs to be on the stage Thursday, peddling his product for all of the nation to see.

Trump´s absence will be one of the prominent topics of discussion at the upcoming debate, and if he isn't there to guile his way out of every challenge, his opponents will have a field day.

If Trump actually wants to be president, he needs to be debating tomorrow.

Will Trump's potential absence hurt his national standing?
Will you be watching Thursday´s debate if Trump is not present?
How are we to be entertained now?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/26/donald-trump-will-skip-next-republican-debate-his-campaign-manager-says/?_r=0
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-says-he-wont-participate-in-gop-debate-on-fox-news/2016/01/26/58fa0b2e-c490-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html

Michael Bloomberg Is Supposed to Run in 2016; What This Could Mean for Our Front-Runners

If you thought the presidential race was hot before, now it's even got front-runners like Trump sweating.

Michael Bloomberg, former mayor of New York City, is rumored to enter the race if either Hillary Clinton doesn't get the Democratic nomination or if Trump does get the Republican nomination (CBSNewYork) The 73 year old billionaire, if he would enter the race, would enter as an independent. 

Bloomberg has a strong, tight fiscal policy, representative of the Republican party. According to OntheIssues.com, he has been quoted as saying Wall Street executives deserve bonuses and also “turned NYC’s $5 billion deficit into a $4 billion surplus” in 2007. 

However, Bloomberg has liberal social views on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control, and the environment. For example, while many Republican candidates still believe global warming is a myth, Bloomberg took major steps to implement change in NYC when he was in office, banning smoking, creating PlaNYC 2030: a 25-year “blueprint to reduce air pollution, build housing, improve mass transit and develop abandoned industrial land.” (OnTheIssues).

Essentially, Bloomberg is what many independents and other moderate Democrats and Republicans are looking for. Someone who believes that abortion is a fundamental human right, but also has been proven to handle money extremely well. A happy medium.

This could have many front-runners sweating, such as Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. When the Wall Street Journal interviewed voters in New Hampshire, people seemed to be curious about the new guy in school. “‘I’m at that sort of Clinton fatigue stage,”’ an Independent Clinton supporter named David Grooters said in Iowa (Haddon). Originally coming to support Clinton, Grooters may have just summarized how many voters feel about many of the candidates, which is just tired of the same three-ring circus. “‘“He’s brilliant. He understands the economic system, and we have too many people who are running right now who are economic idiots’” said a Jeb Bush supporter in New Hampshire (Haddon). 

Both Republicans and Democrats seem a little tired of their front-runners. The real question may be if Michael Bloomberg could really pull an entire country together as an Independent. We should all keep a close eye on him, as he may be what the middle ground has been looking for. 

As David Grooters, an independent said,

“So yeah, Bloomberg would be an interest.”

What do you think? 

Do you think Bloomberg will really run?

Do you think Bloomberg has a shot of winning?

Do you think 2016 could be the year of a critical election?

How would the election change if Bloomberg were to run?

Do you think the election would become more serious or more insane if he confirmed he was running?

Fun Question:

Predict a Donald Trump tweet about this whole situation. Bonus points if you use the same type of grammar he uses.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/voters-react-to-possibility-of-michael-bloomberg-running-for-presidency-1453663727

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Mike_Bloomberg_Environment.htm

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/01/25/bloomberg-possible-presidential-bid/

Trump says Obama's tears "sincere"

Recently, President Barack Obama gave an emotional speech about gun control, speaking heavily about the incident that occurred at Sandy Hook, as well as Columbine and the streets of Chicago. During his speech, he began to weep for the children that has been killed during the Sandy Hook shooting. President Obama has recently been advocating strongly for new gun control measures to be passed to help limit these kinds of events, and the passion he showed during this proves that he really care about what he is preaching.

An interesting person who decided to comment on this issue was none other than Republican candidate Donald Trump. Trump says he disagrees with President Barack Obama on his gun control measures -- but that doesn't mean the President's heart is in the wrong place.  Trump is quoted saying "I think he probably means well." It is certainly interesting to hear Trump say something nice about someone, as he is normally known to make humorous comments about others. He probably spared the current president because he gains nothing from insulting him and it was a truly moving speech. He even continued to say "I actually think he was sincere, I'll probably go down about 5 points in the polls by saying that, but I think he was sincere," 

While his views may be different from Obama's, seeing that all these laws are simply restricting the second amendment, he was able to put that aside for a second to praise Obama's honesty. However it was only for a second, as shortly after that he belittled the democrats and specifically Hillary Clinton's ideas of gun control.

Are you surprised that Trump would say he believed the President's tears are real or is that something he would do? Where do you stand on the issue of gun control, and has what Obama said changed your viewpoint at all?

Sources:http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/opinions/robbins-obama-cry/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264898-trump-obamas-tears-were-real

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/donald-trump-obama-tears-sincere-executive-action/index.html

Cuban Immigrants coming to the U.S.

Last week, 5 Central Americans countries came to an agreement to help thousands of stranded Cuban immigrants make their way to the United States.                      

Nicaragua decided to close their borders to the some 8,000 Cubans traveling north from Columbia and Ecuador trying to make their way to America. A group of the Cubans will be flown to El Salvador and then taken to Mexico on buses to get around the obstacle of Nicaragua closing its borders.

While the idea of 8000 new Cuban immigrants coming to the country is intimidating for some, the trends have shown similar numbers in past years. There was a dramatic increase of immigrants particularly after Obama stated that relations between the U.S. and Cuba were mending.

In 2015, more than 43,000 Cubans entered the U.S. at ports of entry. This is said to be a 78% increase over previous years. This is due partly to the Obama administration’s decision in 2009 to ease restrictions on Americans traveling there and Cuba’s decision in 2013 to relax exit controls on Cubans seeking to leave the country.

The Cuban immigrants is welcomed by the U.S. once they set foot on American soil. The Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 grants special privileges to Cubans. They are the only country in the world that if the Immigrants stay in the U.S., after a year and a day they will be granted a green card.

With the news reporting a lot on immigration recently, people think that the U.S. – Cuban relations could shift. But the government, specifically the Department of Homeland Security, shut that down saying that no changes will be made.

How would you think that the recent immigration news effect the allowance of Cubans to America?

How does the closing of Nicaragua’s borders effect not only the immigrants but Cuba and the U.S.?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/us/cuban-immigrants/index.html

Gun Violence and Control throughout the Decades

Gun control and new gun laws are nothing new in the United States. On the 5^th, Obama decided to go forth on the issue, without Congress’s planning, to unveil a series of executive actions designed to help prevent gun violence in the United States. To take a look and put into perspective the events of the gun laws, the history of gun laws has been taken into account. Back in 1934, new criminal penalties and taxes on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns were implemented. The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 put restrictions on the interstate guns and ammunition. It required for the first time, dealers to register themselves. This came to be in response to Al Capone and Bugs Moran gun violence. The next big thing to happen in terms of gun control was after the assassinations of JFK, MLK Jr., and Robert Kennedy. Lyndon Johnson singed a reform law which introduced stricter licensing and registration standards. It also introduced a ban on the selling of guns and ammunition to felons. Then in 1986, Reagan signed the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act banned the future sale of any fully automatic weapons or machine guns to private purchasers. Bill Clinton passed the Brady Bill in 1993 which required by law that federally licensed dealers conduct background checks on handgun purchases. Reagan, Ford, and Carter signed a letter endorsing new legislation that banned the manufacture of certain weapons. Commonly known as the “Assault Weapons Ban” the law expired in 2004 and is yet to be renewed. Most recently, on Tuesday, Obama stated how ‘anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks or be subject to criminal prosecutions.’

How does this new idea relate to the ideas of gun control from the past?

How did the past gun control actions influence what the President said and what is going on in the country?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/obama-executive-action-gun-control/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/politics/gun-control-america-history-timeline/index.html

Paul Ryan Investigates the Possibility of Authorizing War Against ISIS

Today, newly appointed House Speaker Paul D. Ryan ordered the House majority leader and the House Foreign Affairs Committee to investigate authorizing war against ISIS. Ryan is acting on the belief that Congress should carry out its Constitutional duty and declare war, which puts him at odds with Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, and many other high-ranking Republicans. They say that President Obama already has the authority to wage war against the Levantine terrorist group.

However, despite this conflict of opinion, Ryan reported having instructed the House Foreign Affairs Committee to "begin the process of gathering ideas and having listening sessions with our members about whether and how we could [authorize military force]." Ed Royce, the chairman of the committee, has been reluctant to act but has recently reconsidered due to the horrific Paris and San Bernadino attacks. He says he will investigate a way to give American commanders more flexibility using an AUMF (authorization of military force), but like other he believes that the decision is up to the President to step up and fight back. The situation harkens back to 2001, when Congress authorized force to avenge 9/11, and 2002, when another AUMF was used to begin intervention in the Iraq War.

Ryan has a history of deferring power to House committees. But it is uncertain how much muscle he will use to back up his opinions, given the need for party unity as we approach the election. He seems to be firmly against the President in most cases, having stated recently that the atrocities committed by ISIS had the same emotional effect on him as the Newtown shooting. In any case, a growing number of Republicans are considering using Congressional power to authorize force in a classic case of checks and balances. As with most things, only time will tell.

What do you think Ryan's instructions mean? How will he continue to act?  Do you believe that greater military force is needed against ISIS? How should Obama act?


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/us/politics/paul-ryan-orders-closer-look-at-authorizing-war-against-isis.html?ribbon-ad-idx=9&rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article

Trump Says North Korea is Not Our Responsibility

Just yesterday, North Korea claimed to have conducted its first-ever successful hydrogen bomb test. This is obviously frightening if true, with the quite insane Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un in control of a weapon of mass destruction. Most people quickly responded to this issue trying to figure out what the US should do in policing North Korea. Donald Trump, on the other hand, says that the US should not be doing anything directly, and that it is China's responsibility. This contradicts the United States' history of being a world police.

Instead of directly policing the issue, Trump thinks that we should put pressure on China to do something about it. He is viewing this issue in a very economic way, stating, "China should solve that problem and we should put pressure on China to solve the problem. If they don't solve that problem, we should be very tough on them on trade -- meaning, start charging them tax or start cutting them off. You'd have China collapse in about two minutes." Although I agree that we should put pressure on China to help with the North Korea issues, I don't know if trying to cause their collapse is the best strategy. This quote shows Trump trying to flaunt his economic prowess, but to me ultimately just proves his inexperience in foreign policy.

It has always been an implied responsibility that America should help police world affairs. It is definitely an interesting take by Trump to claim that this responsibility should not exist the way it does. I do not agree exactly with how Trump would like to go about this issue, but part of me agrees that whenever a world issue comes up, nations should not always look to the United States for answers. We definitely need to stay involved in certain issues, but we must choose wisely.

Do you agree with anything Trump is saying? What do you think is the best way to monitor this North Korea issue?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/donald-trump-north-korea-china-ted-cruz-immigration/index.html

                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Planned Parenthood Supports Clinton

Planned Parenthood stated Thursday that it would endorse Hillary Clinton, the first endorsement in a presidential primary in Planned Parenthood's 100 year existence. 

Clinton will accept the group's support Sunday at a campaign rally in New Hampshire. 

The decision to break with tradition and endorse Clinton comes at the same time that the House had approved a measure. The measure would repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act and strip away federal financing for Planned Parenthood, which provides reproductive and health care services. 

Clinton stated she was "honored" by the endorsement and added that as president she would "defend against attacks on reproductive health care, and protect access to affordable contraception and safe and legal abortion across the country."

The endorsement adds $20 million to spend on presidential and Senate races in crucial battleground states, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 

Clinton hopes that abortion rights and the Republican candidates' positions will motivate female voters to support her. Polls show that access to legal abortion is one of the most motivating issues for female voters, particularly in critical swing states. Half of male voters and 60 percent of female voters said Planned Parenthood should receive money from the federal government, according to a New York Times-CBS News poll. 

The Clinton campaign has functioned as a marketing arm for Planned Parenthood featuring a section on its official website, "17 times Hillary Clinton stood with Planned Parenthood". In addition there are Facebook messages and Instagram posts with the hashtag #StandwithPP. 

However, the endorsement does not come without risks for Clinton. Planned Parenthood is a polarizing topic and the group suffered setbacks this summer when anti-abortion rights activists released a video of an official from the group talking about the price of private parts. 

Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, sent endorsement surveys out to all the presidential candidates on both sides, but only heard back from Democrats. She said Clinton's record on women's issues and health care gave her an edge against her Democratic rivals. 

Do you agree with Richards and her opinion on Clinton's position against the other Democratic candidates?

To what extent is this helping or hurting Hillary and her campaign to become president?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/07/planned-parenthood-in-its-first-primary-endorsement-backs-hillary-clinton/?ref=politics

Rubio's Shiny Boots

A surprising focus on Senator Marco Rubio’s shiny, stack-heeled ankle boots, first noted in a Twitter post on Monday by a New York Times reporter, has grown over the last few days into one of the weirder firestorms of the presidential campaign.

Senator Ted Cruz’s communications director, Rick Tyler, wrote on twitter: “A Vote for Marco Rubio Is a Vote for Men’s High-Heeled Booties.” “Rubio has those cute new boots and I don’t want to be outdone,” Senator Rand Paul said before an appearance on “The View.” Carly Fiorina posted a Twitter message with a picture of her own pair of high-heeled boots, with the message “Yeah, @marcorubio, but can you rock these?”

"Bootgate" has eclipsed any other fashion story of the election thus far, including any fashion story related to the two female candidates, Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina.

This fashion story highlights an important lesson about the wardrobe of male politicians. 

Looking back at the party’s last debate, six of the eight male participants wore almost exactly the same outfit: red tie, white shirt, and dark two-button suit.

On the one hand, this means if you stay within the expected norms, you pretty much ensure that your clothes remain off the table as a subject of conversation and criticism. There is a reason, for example, that Presidents Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes all wore shoes by the same shoemaker, Allen Edmonds, for their inaugurations.

On the other hand, however, it also means that when any variable is changed it can provoke an outsize reaction, including broad analysis of the rationale behind the choice. 

A candidate can either choose to embrace your point of difference, or retreat back into the straitjacket of familiar dress.

While on the campaign trail Thursday in New Hampshire, Rubio called the talk about his boots "craziness."

Rubio's footwear, to a certain extent, conveys his message of himself as the face of the new American and surprising clothing choices can work to a candidate's advantage if properly strategized. For example, Rick Santorum's use of the sweater vest in the last election. It began as an object of mockery, but Santorum managed to make it into something of a signature. He wore the vest so much that the campaign began selling Rick Santorum vests on his website for supporters to wear! 

Do you think the discussion about Rubio's boots is blown out of proportion or do you believe that fashion plays a role in the candidacy of a President?

If you were Marco Rubio how would you react to this situation? Would you make it a joke? Would you continue to dress "out of the norm" or play it safe?

Source: 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/07/rubios-boot-choice-draws-curiosity-jabs-from-republicanrivals.htmlAdvertisement

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/marco-rubio-calls-focus-his-boots-craziness-n492276

Bernie Sanders Promises to Break up Banks

Bernie Sanders recently announced that if elected President, he promises to break up the banks that are “too big to fail” within his first year in office.  Throughout his entire campaign, Bernie Sanders has made one of his key points the corruption and power that the Wall Street banks have and has even called out fellow Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton for her involvement with Wall Street.  However, I strongly believe that breaking up certain banks in the United States will have many repercussions.

The U.S. and the American dream were built upon the principle of a free market that allowed businesses to compete and win out as long as a company did not have a complete monopoly.  Banks in no way have a monopoly considering the amount of competition.  In addition, if Bernie Sanders was able to actually break up the banks, it would have devastating effects on the U.S. economy.  Investment would be way down and the American economy could possibly collapse.  While the big banks were contributors to the economic crash, in no way were these banks the sole cause of the crash of 2008.  Furthermore, all the money that was given to bail out the banks was paid back by the banks, so the government was not giving these banks free money like some people believe.  Bernie Sanders claims that smaller banks would give loans at more affordable rates to small and medium sized businesses do not seem very logical as well.  However, smaller banks would be less likely to loan out money to people that have subpar or even average credit scores, since a bank with less assets is less likely to loan out money.  There certainly needs to be some changes to the current regulations to ensure that such an event does not occur again, but breaking up the banks is not one of them.  

Additionally, I believe that Bernie Sanders will have a hard time breaking up these banks if he is elected President.  He thinks that the Dodd-Frank Act passed by President Obama in 2010 will allow him to break up these banks.  However, it is the Federal Reserve that has the power to break up these banks under the Dodd-Frank Act, not the President of the United States.  The current board members for the Federal Reserve were appointed by President Obama serve 14 year terms and the five members terms don’t expire until between 2020 and 2026.  The chair and vice-chairs of the board will remain in their positions until 2018, meaning that Bernie Sanders will not have the opportunity to change any of the board members during his first year in office, if elected.  It is very far fetched to believe that the current board will break up these banks simply because Bernie Sanders tells them to.  

Bernie Sanders has constantly tried to speak out against Wall Street and the “billionaire class” but many of his plans are either not plausible or logical.  Do you believe that breaking up the big banks makes sense for the American economy?  If elected will Bernie Sanders actually be able to break up the banks within his first year?  Lastly, how do you think this will impact Bernie’s results in the upcoming polls and primaries?

http://qz.com/586884/bernie-sanders-says-he-can-break-up-the-banks-in-a-year-is-that-even-possible/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/04/in-wall-street-speech-sanders-will-pledge-to-break-up-big-banks-within-first-year-in-office/

Paris Shooting

As many of us know today marks the deadly Charlie Hebdo shootings, and the anniversary was commemorated with more bloodshed.

Police shot and killed a man today at 11:30, the exact time the Charlie Hebdo shootings occured, who is a possible terrorist. He was wielding a knife and had a piece of paper on him with the ISIS flag on him along with a hand written not in Arabic claiming responsibility for the ensuing attack. He also was wearing a fake explosives vest, with strings/wires coming out of his sleeves.

He was shot three times as he attempted to enter the police station, holding the butchers knife and yelling "Allahu Akbar." The man was 20 years old and from the South of France.

Although this has not been confirmed as a terrorist attack, it looks like it will be classified as such. Once again, Paris was plunged into fear. Schools were closed, people left work, and people once again feared for their lives.

However, as of now, it seems that he was working alone, and therefore officials do not believe that there is any imminent danger.

Paris has certainly had a terrible year when it comes to terrorist attacks. There has been so much blood shed, and the French President declared that France is at war with ISIS and will do this by strengthening international affairs.

This event will only inspire more internal issues in France, they are already so divided and there is so much anti muslim sentiment that will only increase with this attack.

How do you all think this will affect France? And how will it affect the rest of the world? Will it increase internal divides or bring people together?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/07/europe/paris-gunfire-charlie-hebdo-anniversary/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/01/11/paris-terror-attacks-what-we-know/21590435/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30717580

Affluenza Teen Ethan Couch Arrested after fleeing to Mexico

Affluenza Teen Ethan Couch Arrested in Mexico

     In 2013, 16 year old Ethan Couch was put on probation after he was involved in a drunk driving incident that left 4 people dead.  When in court During Couch's sentencing in the drunk driving trial, a psychologist hired by the defense testified that the teen was a product of "Affluenza" which was used to described his irresponsible lifestyle associated with his affluent upbringing.  He blamed bad parenting for his actions even though his blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit at the site of the crash.  He was put on probation but was not incarcerated.

     While on probation he was seen partying with friends and decided to flee with his mother.  They changed their appearances, ditched their identifications and drove deep into Mexico, while law enforcement agencies in two countries searched for them across 1,200 miles.  The search ended Monday night with the arrest in Puerto Vallarta of Tonya Couch, 48, and her son, Ethan, 18.  But even after violating his probation and fleeing, and spending weeks as a fugitive and an object of an international manhunt, Mr. Couch still does not face nearly as stiff a penalty, because the probation was imposed and supervised by a juvenile court, officials said.  His mother however could face up to 10 years in prison on a charge of hindering apprehension. 

     This crazy situation is a perfect example of terrible people taking advantage of a terrible judicial system.  Our jails are filled with drug dealers while murders are left on the streets because they haven't grown up yet.

     

Is the judicial system to blame for letting Ethan off with such a soft punishment?  How we change this in the future?

If Ethan could use made up words like Affluenza to take advantage of the courts, how can this lead to further problems in the future?

Are the parents scapegoats in this situation or should the child be held with more accountability?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/affluenza-teens-mom-lands-texas-extradition/story?id=36144465

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/30/us/affluenza-ethan-couch-mexico.html?_r=0

  

     

State Encourages Citizens to "Fight Back" Against Mass Shootings

It is common knowledge that in the past year there have been far too many mass shootings. Programs have been started and preparations in regards to shootings have been encouraged in schools and places of employment. That being said, many people still feel that this is not enough. Many believe that gun-laws are still too weak and that shootings are not preventable or handled properly. American's everywhere, specifically in Douglasville, Georgia, do not feel safe and are being encouraged to take matters into their own hands.

A town hall seminar, conducted by the Douglasville Police Department, showed a video titled "Active Shooter: A Citizen's Guide to Planning for Survival" and encouraged the public to be ready to take matters into their own hands in dangerous situations. The seminar taught the basic self defense principals and taught the citizens how to recognize an "active shooter". There are three options in the event of a shooting; to run, hide, or fight. Lockdowns and hiding has been protocol throughout the nation, but now towns like Douglasville are embracing the idea of fighting back. The police chief told a middle school teacher who asked what more could be done besides a lockdown, to "Jab the guy in the eyeball with a pencil" and that the students could "kick the attacker with a hundred little feets".

We have reached a point where children are being encouraged to react physically in a situation of a shooting, which I think proves more than anything else that something needs to be done about our country's current state. Do you believe that citizens should respond with violence in mass shootings? Should it be the job of local and federal police to make sure the citizens feel safe enough to not take these drastic measures? What can be done in order to make people feel safe and not make them resort to these extremes?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/georgia-town-teaches-fight-back-as-option-in-mass-shootings.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

North Korea Claims to Have Successfully Developed a Hydrogen Bomb

Just this morning, North Korea announced that they had successfully developed and detonated a hydrogen bomb. The North Korean Government has been pushing for nuclear capabilities for years, and now it claims to have finally reached its goal.

The underground detonation, occurring at 10 a.m. North Korean time, seemed to have caused seismic event with a 5.1 magnitude. According to Nosar, a group based in Norway that monitors nuclear events estimated that a blast of such a seismic reading would be less than that of the A-bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This detonation, according to the North Korean government, was "a measure for self defense... to protect the sovereignty of the country". In a letter signed by Kim Jong Un himself said that he wanted to "Make the world ... look up to our strong nuclear country and labor party by opening the year with exciting noise of the first hydrogen bomb!"

According to Martin Navias, a military expert at King's College London, the legitimacy of North Korea's claims will remain uncertain for the next few days or weeks. Martin himself doesn't believe that they have created an H-bomb saying "one would have expected it to be greater if it was an H-bomb."

The United Nations have placed multiple sanctions on North Korea in attempts to stop their development of nuclear weapons. Hopefully those sanctions did their job and these claims made by North Korea are not legit.

What do you guys think? If these claims to turn out to be true, what could be the fallout of North Korea's new capabilities? What would be Kim Jong Un's next move? What would be the UN's next move? Should we be worried? 

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/asia/north-korea-hydrogen-bomb-test/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/world/asia/north-korea-hydrogen-bomb-q-a.html