What happened to Carly Fiorina?

As the Iowa caucuses draw closer, Americans seem to have lost view of one particular GOP candidate. Carly Fiorina, who in September was in second place in the race for the GOP nomination, has dropped back in the polls to around 3-4%, not nearly enough to make her a viable candidate. What has happened? She doesn't seem to have made any obvious mistakes in front of an audience, and yet she falls further back. Republican strategist Susan Del Percio says that she believes a lack of funding has brought on the decrease in attention, but what other forces could be at play here? The GOP still has so many candidates that is it just about time that some of them begin to fall out of focus? What could this mean (if anything) for the other lesser known candidates in both parties? Is it still possible to Fiorina to pull ahead and, if not win the nomination, at least make a dent in the GOP vote?

Paris attacks bring about an increase in patriotism and mobilize French youth

The French people have rallied around the attacks earlier this month. Military enlistments have nearly quintupled and Air Force enlistments have quadrupled as the young people in France rush to join in the defense of their country, but these are not the only changes that are occurring in the French mindset. Citizens are also hurrying to buy and display le tricolore, the French flag., and La Marseilles has been breaking out spontaneously in the streets. The article even makes a reference to "un-French" behavior, a term that, as we discussed in class, has not really been heard before. All of these responses are very similar to the American response after the attacks on 9/11. How do you predict that these attacks will change the French mindset for the long term? Is this surge in patriotism temporary or here to stay? Could "un-French" become a term with a similar meaning to "un-American"? Or will French traditions of cosmopolitanism return once the initial response to the attacks has worn off?

Debating the Link between Climate Change and Syrian Instability

Debating the Link between Climate Change and Syrian Instability

Senator Bernie Sanders has taken some heat for his claim in recent debates that climate change needs to be addressed because it directly contributes to terrorism.  He pointed out that even the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency and Department of Defense have recently expressed concerns that the harsh conditions imposed by climate change will foment instability and conflict within and among many countries of the world.  He also cited a National Academy of Sciences report that analyzed the severity of droughts between 2007-2010 in Syria, which occurred just before the Syrian uprising.  Fact-checking found that these reports and analyses were correct, and scientists have associated the record droughts in the region with climate change.  However, the science is still evolving regarding the links between climate change and the veracity and frequency of individual storm, drought, and flood events.  Moreover, the link between any single climate event and social instability is difficult to prove. Fact-checkers have therefore concluded that while Sen. Sanders was largely correct in his sentiments, he should have probably stopped short of saying that the climate-terrorism connection is “direct” since there are many other factors to also consider.  Do you agree with the Department of Defense, which considers climate change to be a “threat multiplier” for worldwide conflicts?  Taking it a step further, do you think that climate stressors can contribute to individual acts of terrorism? 

Police Withhold Videos of Minnesota Shooting

Police Withhold Videos of Minnesota Shooting

Protesters in Minneapolis are requesting that videos be released that might shed light on the circumstances surrounding the death of a 24 year old black man, Jamar ONeal Clark.  The man was fatally shot early Sunday morning by police during a scuffle. According to police, the incident occurred after they had responded to a report of an assault. While paramedics were attending to the assault victim, they were interfered with by a second man who was then shot by police who intervened.  Some bystanders reported that the man had already been handcuffed when he was shot. Protesters in Minneapolis are asking for the release of partial videos that are reportedly available from bystanders, a public housing camera, an ambulance, a mobile police camera, and an Elks Club across the street. With national attention still focused on racial tensions and events in Ferguson, Baltimore, and elsewhere, should video evidence involving apprehensions by law enforcement be made available to the public?  Or would this promote more tensions between proponents of the Black Lives Matter movement and law enforcement, possibly contributing to unsafe conditions?

Trump says US will 'have no choice' but to shut some mosques down

Bush Flip-Flops on Refugee Question

Buying Power

Buying Power 
There are an estimated 120 million families living in the United States. Of these, 158 families have contributed over half of the campaign money that has gone towards the candidates in the upcoming presidential election. These ultra-rich, mostly self made, politically active billionaires have put forth small fortunes to back the candidates and the issues they support. Mostly they are right wing (138 of the families have contributed to republican campaigns while only 20 have contributed to democratic campaigns.) Through the utilization of super-PACs, every single one of these families has contributed over $250,000 to their respective presidential candidate or party compared to the average American household that donates about $21.17. These hyper wealthy individuals convert their monetary worth into political clout effectively by pumping funds into policies they agree with. Is this vast imbalance in funding ethical? Also, should super PACs be utilized if they allow extremely wealthy individuals to donate more than they should be legally allowed?

ISIS in Syria: No easy solution

ISIS in Syria: No easy solution As a result of the recent tragedies in Paris, there has been an outcry to put a stop to ISIS. Many call for complete neutralization of this radical group so that they can no longer commit these atrocities. However, neutralizing this group is unfortunately easier said than done. There is a major deficiency in opposition to ISIS in Syria. The only reliable defense forces against this nihilistic organization in its home nation are undermanned, underequipped, and underfunded. Neighboring Turkey is only adding fuel to the fire by largely disregarding the radicals that flood into Syria and instead focusing their military power on the Kurds that inhabit the surrounding nations. This influx of radicals has given given the flame that is ISIS a metaphorical can of lighter fluid by allowing it to grow and become more potentially dangerous. Also, even though the United States military is the mightiest in the world, our  strategy for handling this situation is tired and inefficient. The combination of sending military personnel to train the existing opposition forces and air strikes isn't effective if there aren't enough people to train. The situation seems dire at this point. What do you think about our chances of effectively neutralizing ISIS influence. Also do you think there is a more efficient way to go about this than the military strategy already put in place?

Republicans Don't Like Dynasties. Or maybe they just don't like Jeb Bush.

54% of Americans think electing another Clinton or Bush president would be bad for the country. More than six of ten Republicans say electing Clinton or Bush would be bad for the country while 42% of Democrats believe the same. More Republicans appear to be against Jeb Bush because of his last name than Democrats against Hilary Clinton. Why do you think the parties act so differently towards dynasties? Bush's campaign might also be suffering because the 2016 presidential election is viewed as a supportive "outsider" election while Bush is very much a political insider. Do you think it is the candidates' family name or the distaste of dynasties in general that is hurting Bush's campaign? Do you think Jeb Bush still has a chance at the GOP nomination? Does his family's name hurt his campaign or is fundamentally Jeb's bad performance that causes his drop in polls?

Paul Ryan Calls For Halt To Syrian Refugee Program

Image from Newsweek.

After the terrorist attacks that happened in Paris on Friday night and resulted in at least 129 casualties and over 300 wounded, France and many other countries are revitalizing their attacks and positions on the Syrian War. Obama has pledged to accept Syrian refugees to come to the United States, yet not everyone in the United States is on board with this costly endeavor. 25 out of 50 governors have already opposed to accept these refugees as there is fierce opposition, complaints, and concerns about safety among US citizens. Today Speaker of the House Paul Ryan called for a suspension of the Syrian refugee program until the Obama administration comes up with a definitive and clearer strategy towards the Islamic State and a stricter way of vetting refugees before allowing them to resettle in the US.

To quote Paul Ryan: “Our nation has always been welcoming,” Mr. Ryan said at a news conference. “But we cannot allow terrorists to take advantage of our compassion. This is a moment where it is better to be safe than to be sorry. So we think the prudent, the responsible thing is to take a pause in this particular aspect of this refugee program in order to verify that terrorists are not trying to infiltrate the refugee population.”

Do you agree with Paul Ryan's decision? Do you think we should allow Syrian refugees into the US? Could we potentially be endangering ourselves? Should we appeal to our humanitarianism or national security?

UK leader: 'More likely than not' bomb brought down Russian plane

This article is about the recent downing of Metrojet Flight 9286, a Russian commercial jet heading from Sharm el-Sheikh to St. Petersburg, Russia. The plane crashed Saturday, October 31st in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. Of the 224 people on board, 219 were Russian, four were Ukrainian, and one person was Belarusian, all of whom died. British Prime Minister David Cameron has now come out and said that it was most likely brought down by a bomb. As a result of this news, many British citizens have avoided flying back from Sharm el-Sheikh, a popular tourist destination, until the airport beefs up security. US officials have their opinions on the issue, stating that intelligence suggests that someone at the airport helped to get the bomb onto the plane. US intelligence also suggests that ISIS planted planted a bomb on the plane. On Wednesday, an audio message was posted on online from ISIS' Sinai Branch, claiming responsibility for the attack. Both Egypt and Russia have denied the claims, saying there's no evidence to support such an attack. Do you think that this is something ISIS would do? Also, do you think this is something the United States should be involved in, or should we stay out of it?

Red Tape Slows U.S. Help for Children Fleeing Central America

This article talks about the recent failure of the new Central American Minors program, which allows refugee children from other countries to apply for refuge here in the United States. To date, not a single child has entered the United States through this program. Of the 5,400 children that have applied to the program, only 90 have been interviewed to be considered and no one has been actually chosen. The program was created last December to help counter the large number of children illegally entering the country, often in very dangerous conditions. Over 40,000 unaccompanied children from Central America illegally came to the United States last year. Administrative officials argue that the delay is justified because if any mistakes are made about who is allowed entrance, it could give political adversaries motive to have the program shut down. But activists from international refugee organizations disagree, saying that children in these areas are still in dangerous situations, and don't have time to wait. Do you think the program is a waste of taxpayer's money, seeing that it has not legally permitted any children into the country, as proposed? Or do you think the program is a good idea but needs to be executed faster? Also, do you think that the wellbeing of these endangered children trumps "bureaucratic concerns"?

Enemies due to beliefs or titles?

Politics are turning into a two-sided battle between Republicans and Democrats, instead of conservative ideas versus those of liberals. GOP members' "views of Deomcrats have soured", and vice versa. There used to exist two sides even within each party, but political parties are now more often than not strictly title against title. The Washington Post explains the height of each party's dislike for the other- a left-sided Republican may have the same beliefs as a conservative Democrat, but the two will never agree to that. This has led to voters casting their ballots because he or she is completely against the Republican candidate, rather than because they support their Democratic runner. A posed question in this article is "whether polarization among politicians or among the public is the more important factor". What do you believe? Is it better (or worse) to have political polarization within the government itself or those who elect our government?

UVA Sexual Assault Scandal

UVA Waged Intense Fight to Influence Federal Sexual Assault Investigation

This article talks about the University of Virginia and its history with sexual assault, along with the legalities. UVA has had "21 instances of alleged sexual assault from 2008 to 2012", which is a staggering number to many. The publicly-released allegations resulted in a blow to the University's reputation. The OCR, or US Education Department's 
Office of Civil Rights had composed a 39 page document to be released, but first had to share it with UVA, who claimed it was "riddled with inaccuracies". "The university was enormously displeased with what our (the OCRs) findings were and very much hoped we would change them”. The OCR shortened this document of accusations to 26 pages, which was made public. This copy didn't list every event of assault, and made the time span of these assaults seem much shorter, indicating that sexual assault at the University hasn't been as ongoing of a problem as it truly is.  Gov. Terry McAuliffe is the one who said that UVA was in danger of losing their rights to due process, and that they should be able to review the allegations before they went public. Do you think the University of Virginia should've been able to review the claims, seeing that the severity/number of occurrences of sexual assault was lightened so much? Additionally, the school was called a "hostile environment". Do you think that since UVA is taking hold of the offenses that the school can still be considered a "hostile" place?

The largest religious group among Democrats? 'None.'

In a recent study by the Pew Research Center on religion, it was found that the largest religious affiliation among Democrats is actually no religious affiliation at all. This number has increased by 10% since Pew conducted the same study a few years ago. The most common affiliation among Republicans is evangelical Protestants, and that number has only increased by 1% since the last study was conducted. The main reason why these trends are occurring is because the younger generation tends not to affiliate themselves with a religion and tends to be Democratic. As we read in the article about Red and Blue America, this article also mentions the distinct differences between the two. Do you think they are accurate? Does it make sense that people who do not associate with a religion are most often Democrats? Why do you think religion has such a large influence on whether someone is a Democrat or a Republican?

Paul Ryan doubtful about defunding Planned Parenthood

In a recent interview, new House Speaker Paul Ryan said that Planned Parenthood should not receive any money from taxpayers. He claimed that he has always thought this, "even before these disgusting videos came out." Ryan currently has a team investigating Planned Parenthood. Yet when asked if he would defund Planned Parenthood, he replied that, in order to be effective, his party needs to be realistic about what is and what is not achievable, but they still need to push for things they believe should be changed. Should Paul Ryan be investigating Planned Parenthood? Although he is doubtful that Planned Parenthood will actually be defunded, would you agree with those who want to defund it? Do you believe that Planned Parenthood should get taxpayers' money?

Charles Koch Speaks Out in Defense of His Large Campagin Donations

Charles Koch, someone who normally prefers to avoid the media, has recently been very exposed due to the release of his new book. In a recent interview, he also spoke out in defense for his large contribution to politicians campaigns. Koch blatantly states that he wants something back from his donations, but implies that his donations are justified through his intentions, which are, in his eyes, good. Is does Koch's defense truly justify his actions? Furthermore, is it right, even so, for someone to buy legislation they want passed? Finally, which is a more pressing freedom, the freedom for people to be able to use what they have however they want, or the freedom for everyone to have their own political needs fairly represented through government (this being in situations where they directly interfere with one another, such as this one)?

New Ruling Allows The F.B.I. To Ignore A Citizen's Rights, Simlpy Because It Occurred Overseas

In 2007, Amir Mohamed Meshal, a U.S. citizen from New Jersey, travelled to Egypt to visit family. After that, he decided to provide humanitarian relief for rebel groups in Somalia, where, during that work, he along with many others were forced out of Somalia and into Kenya (and in Meshal's case, eventually Ethiopia) to be interrogated by many people, including F.B.I officials. According to Meshal, while he was interrogated he was denied both Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights and was also told by the officials that he would "disappear" if he did not cooperate. Eventually, Mr. Meshal was released and returned to the U.S., where he appealed for monetary compensation for the way he was treated. However, the court ruled in favor of the F.B.I., saying that it was overseas, and also pertained to a matter of national security. This ties in almost directly with our reading from the Cigler book not too long ago. Does the U.S. have the right to treat people as Meshal was treated in order to "preserve national security", or does it vary from situation to situation? If you think that latter, what draws the line to determine if it is justified? Furthermore, does the U.S.'s right to act this way change whether it is physically in the U.S. or another country? If so, how? Finally, should we be willing to still provide monetary compensation for mistakes made in the war on terrorism, or should we not have to because the breaches of their rights were "justified"?