West Point Cadets Let Loose With One Pillow Fight You Don't Want to Have

The United States Military Academy is one of the most prestigious colleges in the world, producing the U.S. Army with some of its top leaders since 1802. But when an annual pillow fight that marks the end of Plebe Summer (summer training for incoming freshmen) turns to a bloody brawl, one can only ask: "what kind of people are we letting run our military?"
This annual pillow fight has been a tradition for years, designed to build a sense of brotherhood amongst the Plebes (freshmen cadets), organized by the Plebes and overseen by upperclassmen. To ensure no risk of injury upperclassmen saw that the Plebes wore protective gear, such as helmets.
But security footage shows that the helmets that were intended as a means of protection became a means of injury as some of the Plebes began to stuff their helmets into their pillow cases, thus an innocent pillow fight became a lethal battle zone, knocking some cadets unconscious and leaving others with broken bones, dislocated shoulders, and concussions.
"West Point applauds the cadets' desire to build spirit and regrets the injuries to our cadets," Lt. Colonel Christopher Kasker, a spokesman for the Academy, reassuring that the injuries will be further investigated and appropriate measures will be taken to prevent such a thing from happening again. But so far no resolve has been shown to punish any cadets nor repeal the pillow-fighting tradition at the Academy. "While these spirit events do occur, we never condone any activity that results in intentional harm to a teammate" said Lt. General Robert L. Caslen Jr., superintendent of West Point, stating that 30 cadets required medical attention and 24 ended up with concussions.
The Military Academy it a very rigorous college and it almost seems necessary to blow off some steam. But it was under very poor leadership that these cadets were allowed to assault each other with malice and it is necessary for precautions to be made to ensure that something as bad at this will never happen again.
Under poor leadership, weather it is minor or major, harm can come to the people under that leadership. How do you guys think this could relate to the people of Syria and Bashar Al-Assad?

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/us/at-west-point-annual-pillow-fight-becomes-weaponized.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/us/west-point-pillow-fight/

President Obama and Vlad Putin Continue to Contradict Each Other in Plans of Handling Syria

Yesterday the United Nations convened to discuss how to go forth with handling both military involvement in the Syrian Civil War and unifying nations to put a stop to the Islamic State and other radical terrorist organizations. President Obama and Vladimir Putin of Russia, being the two front runners of involvement in Syria, continue to show opposing views on the specifics of how to approach the Syrian Civil War, but two things has been made clear by both sides: the conflict must come to an end, and the Islamic State must be put to an end.
President Putin has time after time expressed his support for the dictator of Syria, Bashar Al-Assad, and has confirmed that he has made preparations to provide Al-Assad military support. Putin, contradictory to President Obama's views, believes that Al-Assad will be a strong component in the fight against ISIS (the Islamic State). But in order for such a thing to happen, Assad needs to regain control over his people so he can put his resources toward the fight against ISIS.
President Obama has for a long time been stressing that Assad needs to step down from power for peace to truly be restored in Syria. "While military power is necessary, it is not sufficient to solve the problem in Syria," Obama stated yesterday in front of the UN, adding that he is "willing to work with any nation -- including Russia and Iran -- to resolve the conflict." Obama again stresses that Al-Assad must be removed from power and the Syrian people must find a way to live together peacefully in order to truly end the conflict.
Obama and Putin have been playing a game of political chicken: each waiting for the other to side with him on how to handle Syria. Obama is still holding his ground, realizing that if Putin decided to put his resources into solving the problem in Syria, the cost will eventually become too high to support Assad and Putin will eventually have to find a way to withdraw his support for him. Assuming that works, the tensions between the US and Russia will come to an end as the two nations devise a new approach towards Syria.
What do you guys think could be a possible outcome if the US and Russia never come to terms regarding involvement in Syria?
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/world/middleeast/obama-and-putin-clash-at-un-over-syria-crisis.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/100000003943065/obama-addresses-un-general-assembly.html?playlistId=100000003133407

U.S. Government Reveals the Severity of Data Hack: 4 Times Greater than Previous Claim

In the past year, the U.S. government has been ridiculed for hacking into citizen phone calls and private data. This greatly violates the privacy of citizens and has caused an uproar in regards to governmental actions. Not only has our own government been listening in and reading upon our conversations, but other countries have supposedly also hacked into our own government data. According to CNN, an estimated 18 million federal employees at the Office of Personnel Management had their data hacked by an unknown outside source. The government had acknowledged only 4.2 million employees had been hacked, however as further investigation continues the number is expected to grow. Investigators have been quick to point fingers at China for this incident, however they deny all accusations. Others believe that the OPM hack last April was never been fully fixed. Therefore security systems were never improved and this has caused an even greater hack to occur. A contracting company by the name of KeyPoint Government Solutions was supposed to take action in improving the flaws in the governmental security system however they were never actually fixed. Investigators believe that KeyPoint may have created their own access to the OPM system and are behind the data intrusion. This event has caused serious frustration among government employees and lawmakers because Obama's administration has seemed to lessen the severity of this issue. This data hack is a problem that concerns the protection of all citizens and their privacy and it is currently being violated which raises an even greater problem  Now the greatest question arises: Can Washington keep the United States data secure?

• Are American citizens subject to data hacking at any given moment?
• How should the federal government take action in this invasion of privacy?
• How does this violate our rights as citizens of the U.S.?
• Why do you think the United States is quick to accuse China of the data hack?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/22/politics/opm-hack-18-milliion/index.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/01/us-usa-cybersecurity-opm-idUSKCN0R14UX20150901

Trump Tax cut plan

Trump Tax Plan a Triumph of Showmanship Or Common Sense

Donald Trumps proposal to overload the tax code does fit the bill.  However, it would hardly raise the revenue needed to fund the nations balance.  Trump is trying to give the people what they want contrary to the peoples expectations.  Trump believes that his words will pay the dues of his plan.

Trump revealed his new tax plan with a bang. Mixed with sleight of hand, exaggerating on the negative impact on the rich.  In actuality, the plan would significantly reduce taxes on many business owners, lawyers, and bankers, and other wealthy professionals.  The plan will reduce almost everyone's taxes, with the exception of a few investment fund managers who might receive a slight increase in their taxes.

Trumps new plan would exclude 75 million households from paying income tax, also including low income families and couples.  Trumps plan would lower the top income tax rate from 39.6% to 25% and lower the corporate tax rate from 35% percent to 15%.  Trump's new list of plans to raise enough revenue to cover the costs of his tax cuts, would be completely ineffective.  Trump would help pay for the rate cuts with a one time 10% foreign revenue payment.  

Trump's new broad tax cut plan, promises a lot and will definitely come at a high cost $$.  In addition, his plan is vulnerable to loopholes which can be exploited and could derail the plan from coming forth into society.

• Do you agree with the authors position on Trumps new plan?
• If the plan were to be put into effect, would it be successful? why, or why not?
• What was Trump's intent when presenting his new tax cut plan to the public?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/business/dealbook/trump-tax-plan-a-triumph-of-showmanship-over-common-sense.html?_r=0

Boehner's Resignation Signals Growing Rifts in Republican Party

On Friday, September 25, John Boehner announced that he would retire his position as Speaker of the House amidst growing tensions in Congress. The declaration that he would formally resign came a day after the pope visited the United States' capital and addressed Washington politicians. Though this announcement is quite recent, there is already growing speculation that a likely candidate for the next Speaker of the House will be Representative Kevin McCarthy of California.




Boehner's resignation serves as a representation of the numerous divisions that are becoming ever more apparent in the Republican Party. Conservatives all over the nation have been voicing their dissatisfaction with "establishment" Republicans, growing tired of their willingness to bend to the demands of Democrats (thus abandoning their conservative principles) and their lack of loyalty to their constituents. The demands of this branch of voters are being echoed by candidates like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who actively criticize the state of politics in Washington and advocate for a new wave of Republicans that will stand by conservatism. In addition, the growing dissatisfaction with moderate Republican politicians has led to surges in the popularity of anti-establishment presidential candidates like Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Ben Carson, who, like Cruz and Rubio, are tired of Washington Republicans being "pushovers."  Not only this, but this new wave of voters demanding a return to conservative politics poses a threat to moderate candidates like Jeb Bush and John Kasich, who are not as vehemently devoted to conservatism as some of their counterparts.

The extent of this dissatisfaction has been reignited with the recent debate over whether or not to perpetuate funding for Planned Parenthood in the upcoming federal budget bill. Conservative voters and politicians have voiced their unwillingness to appropriate funds for the women's health organization, but moderate Republicans like Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell understand that compromise is necessary to avoid a government shutdown. As a result, the Republican party is in a very difficult position at the moment; If it continues to fund Planned Parenthood, it will alienate conservative voters, who have begun to comprise a growing portion of the Republican electorate. On the other hand, if Washington Republicans attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, the proposed budget bill will not make it past President Obama and Senate Democrats, resulting in a government shutdown. If that were to occur, the poor leadership of the Republican Party would once again be made apparent to Americans.

The remediation of factional disputes in the Republican Party will be far from resolved even after this budget bill controversy passes. Regarding the upcoming presidential primaries, it is absolutely essential that a candidate appealing to all sides of the Republican political spectrum is elected if the party hopes to get its candidate in the White House. Though there is a growing number of voters who want politicians devoted to conservative ideas, many Republicans continue to understand that more moderate candidates are necessary to avoiding Congressional deadlock. Thus, the fight for the Republican nomination will continue to drag on as people hope to find a candidate that appeals to all factions of the Republican Party.

What do you think? Will the "Conservative Revival" among Republican voters lead to the election of an anti-establishment, right-leaning presidential nominee? If so, is this the right move for the Republican Party, or would it be better off with a more moderate candidate? Amidst all these factional disputes and divisions, what seems to be the Republican Party's future?

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/politics/john-boehner-resignation-jeb-bush-2016-presidential-campaign/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/25/politics/why-john-boehner-quit/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/26/us/john-boehner-to-resign-from-congress.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Carly Fiorina: Real Condender or Republican Pawn?

In last week's Republican debate, Carly Fiorina made a strong showing for herself, "cutting Trump’s balls off with the precision of a surgeon” (Kaufman). However, many supporters of the up-and-coming candidate should be warned, say Republican experts.

Last week, Fiorina made her first appearance in the main debate, coming from the undercard positino in the last debate. She came out seemingly confident, and she was able to deflect Trumps attacks for the most part. As a result, Fiorina was met with good reception from Republicans following the debate. The Washington Times, however, groups Fiorina as a sort of sprinter who will quickly run out of energy: “This remarkable nomination battle has been shaped by these three outsiders,” the authors wrote in their analysis. “While we think that they are unlikely to end up on the November 2016 ballot, each one has influenced what the eventual standard-bearer will do and say — for better or worse” (McLaughlin). The three candidates in this category, Trump, Carson, and Fiorina, all are political novices who many experts do not think will be able to stand up to the "long distance runners" of Bush, Kasich, and Cruz.

Right now, Fiorina is the darling of the Republican part; she controls 15% of the primary vote, second to only Trump, and the Heritage Action for American forum in Greenville, South Carolina, and the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference on Mackinac Island, Michigan, praised her this past weekend. Unfortunately, the benefits of being a frontrunner come with consequences; her background, experience, and character will come under an increasing amount of fire as the media crawls into her life. Controversy over her management of HP and her failed senate run may spell Fiorina's early end. It is likely, says Slate.com author Jamelle Bouie, that Fiorina will be relegated to a cabinet position or even a place as VP. 

• Do you think Carly has a chance to win the nomination?
• Do you think she can overcome the controversy of her past?
• Is Carly better suited for a cabinet or VP position?

Sources: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/carly_fiorina_rises_in_the_polls_the_new_republican_star_will_now_likely.html 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/carly_fiorina_rises_in_the_polls_the_new_republican_star_will_now_likely.html

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/24/carly_fiorina_cut_trumps_balls_off_with_the_precision_of_a_surgeon_national_reviews_rich_lowry_doesnt_mince_words_on_the_kelly_files/

Congressional Republican Leaders Advocate Compromise in Budget Bill

A recent budget bill that would have kept the federal government running until December 11 was filibustered and defeated by Senate Democrats on September 24, due to the fact that the bill also intended to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. This opens up an issue for Congress because if a spending bill is not passed by the beginning of October, a government shutdown will occur. Thus, though Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was aware that the bill would not pass through the Senate, this was simply part of an attempt by more moderate Congressional Republicans to prevent a government shutdown from occurring. This would be particularly harmful to the reputation of these politicians, seeing as they were already largely responsible for a government shutdown back in 2013.

Mitch McConnell's failed vote was essentially a method of demonstrating that a provision to defund Planned Parenthood would simply not be approved by Senate Democrats and their ability to filibuster (meaning that 60 votes total are needed to pass the bill, rather than just a majority). As a result, he and other leading Republican figures are pushing for a vote on a new spending bill that does not cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, hoping that House Republicans will approve of it. In addition, Speaker of the House John Boehner is in favor of this compromise, though he plans on later introducing something called a "Reconciliation Bill" to defund the organization, which is immune to the Democrats' filibuster power.

Obviously, the central-right Republicans in Congress are more concerned with preventing a government shutdown than making a foolhardy attempt to stop Planned Parenthood funding.

Nonetheless, the views of more moderate Republicans are not shared by conservative politicians. A leader among Congressional Republicans demanding a provision that strips Planned Parenthood of funding, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas remains committed to passing a bill that takes away federal cash-flow to the non-profit organization. Though a number of far-right politicians are siding with him, many Congressional Republicans realize that the risk associated with trying to pass an anti-Planned Parenthood bill is not worth a potential government shutdown. In addition, Planned Parenthood has already received its funding for the year, and so it would only stop receiving a flow of federal money in April 2016.

Thus, as a result of all these factors, it is unlikely that the upcoming spending bill will contain a provision to defund Planned Parenthood, and the more moderate Congressional Republicans will most likely prevail in their pragmatic attempt to keep the government running and preserve their reputation. Debates over the fate of Planned Parenthood will resume later in the fall, though Senate Democrats and President Obama will likely do everything in their power to prevent Planned Parenthood from losing funding.

Personally, I agree with the Senate Democrats in this situation because Planned Parenthood provides essential healthcare services to low-income women and men (not just endless abortions, contrary to popular conservative belief). This NPO is a critical to women who need mammograms, STD Tests, and access to contraceptives, especially when they cannot afford these services under normal conditions. In addition, the federal government is not allowed to provide funds for abortion, and so defunding Planned Parenthood is an impulsive decision by conservative Republicans.

I applaud Senate Republicans like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner for realizing the importance of reaching a compromise in the budget bill. Doing so enables the smooth functioning of government and prevents right-wing conservatives from having their way in the midst of more important matters.

What do you think? Should Congressional Republicans continue to push for an anti-Planned Parenthood provision, or should they make the pragmatic choice and just agree on a bipartisan spending bill?

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/24/politics/planned-parenthood-vote-pope-francis/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/us/politics/abortion-limits-bill-senate.html