Why There's a Modern Measles Epidemic

Article Link

Measles is a disease which, until recently, was considered totally extinct as of the year 2000. But recent waves of measles outbreaks has changed that. In 2019, measles has experienced a resurgence of impressive proportions, with more than 700 cases being reported in 22 states, and growing. This is the highest national presence of measles in 25 years. The culprit for this resurgence is no mystery: in recent years, anti-vaccination sentiment has become increasingly prominent among parents, causing tens thousands of the new generation to avoid inoculation. The sheer quantity of unvaccinated children has permitted measles to propagate to its previous levels, causing a nationwide epidemic. States have historically required inoculation as a condition for matriculation, but recently, vaccination laws and their respective enforcing parties have become embarrassingly lackadaisical. The new measles epidemic will cause the states and federal government millions of dollars to contain, a heavy price to pay for "more freedom." Few states have reformed their inoculation laws. Currently, the federal government has not established any national codes with respect to vaccination, opting for a controversial federalist attitude towards the problem.

Discussion questions:

1. Should states tighten up their vaccination requirements/enforcement?
2. Should the US government develop laws to make vaccination mandatory at the Federal level?
3. What might be the sociopolitical implications/repercussions of enforcing inoculation

New York Times Criticized for Publishing Anti-Semitic Cartoon

Caption: The anti-Semitic cartoon that appeared in The New York Times International paper last Thursday.

Last Thursday, the international print edition of The New York Times included an anti-Semitic cartoon of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu playing a dog on a leash held by a blind President Donald Trump. While there was no accompanying article, the cartoon was meant to criticize President Trump's approach to Israel. However, with Prime Minister Netanyahu being dehumanized into a dog, the cartoon clearly held anti-Semitic tones.

In response, The New York Times issued a statement apologizing for its publication of the cartoon. The newspaper explained that the cartoon ran through with an okay after being approved by a single editor. However, many have deemed the statement as inadequate. The American Jewish Committee was one of the critics, saying in a tweet, "Apology not accepted...What does this say about your processes or your decision makers? How are you fixing it?"

This is not the first time that The New York Times has been under fire for anti-Semitic print. Last December, the paper's Sunday Book Review included an interview of writer Alice Walker - author of 'The Color Purple" - that included controversial books. When asked about the books on her nightstand, Walker mentioned "And the Truth Shall Set You Free", a notoriously anti-Semitic book that endorses "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and encourages the questioning of the occurrence of the Holocaust in schools. The paper similarly was criticized by its readers, arguing that the book should have been flagged as an anti-Semitic book. The New York Times responded saying that it was not their job to censor what was said in an interview. Most alarming was the book review editors' explanation: "We never question people on their choices. The people's answers are a reflection of their opinions, taste and judgement."

Frankly, I am appalled by The New York Times' inclusion of such a cartoon. It is upsetting to see that anti-Semitic views continue and seem to be on the rise with synagogues often being attacked. This truly brings to light how Post-Holocaust prejudice against Jews still remains, and how it is yet another example of the many religious and racial tensions in America right now. It also leaves room for questions on whether the public's view on how America should approach the Israel conflict will change; will Trump's back out approach be approved by the general public or not in the rest of his term and in the upcoming presidential election?

Questions:

1. Do you think Anti-Semitic views are on the rise?

2. Should there be universal guidelines on what cartoons are allowed to be published in news outlets? If so, what are they?

3. Do you think self-described non-partisan news outlets should include content from those with controversial beliefs? Does the inclusion of content such as the mention of "And the Truth Shall Set You Free" count as endorsement and approval from the news source?

News Links:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/anti-semitism-is-not-just-another-opinion-the-new-york-times-should-know-better/2018/12/24/7531887a-07b9-11e9-a3f0-71c95106d96a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7645030f8698

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/28/media/ny-times-anti-semitic-cartoon/index.html

Leaked recording reveals Michael Cohen reneging on some guilty pleas

Link

Michael Cohen, former attorney for President Donald Trump went back on his admissions for some of his alleged crimes. This could indicate that he only plead guilty to avoid putting his wife through the long legal battle. The Wall Street Journal obtained the audio of a phone call between Cohen and his close friend Tom Arnold. "Although Cohen reportedly stood by his plea on campaign finance violations, which implicated the president over his alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels, he appeared to reverse admissions related to tax evasion and a charge related to a home equity line of credit" (HELOC)." Cohen portrayed himself as a victim during the phone call, specifically saying: "There is no tax evasion... and the HELOC? I have an 18 percent loan-to-value on my home. How could there be a HELOC issue?" It would be interesting to know if he knew that he was being monitored during this phone call. I believe he did because the things he said supported him and portrayed him in a better light. At one point he says: "I needed to get the truth out there,and (it's) very hard when you spend 10 years taking care of somebody and their family..." As he plays the victim card, it allows people to empathize for him and hopefully lessen his sentence, if not it could be to at least, just slightly, protect his name.


Questions:
1. Do you think Cohen knew he was being recorded when he said this?
2. Do you believe the claims he is making in these phone calls?
3. Do you think it's true that he pleaded guilty out of respect for his wife?

Kim Jong-un to meet with Vladimir Putin

Kim Jong-un to meet with Vladimir Putin

North Korean and Russian leaders Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin
are scheduled to meet on April 25th for the Vladivostok summit.
Russia aims to regulate nuclear weapon usage near the North Korean
Peninsula while North Korea intends to seek support. This meeting was
scheduled soon after discussions with the United States earlier this year
failed to reach a conclusion surrounding North Korea's nuclear weapons
program. North Korea and Russia had maintained relations as allies
during the Cold War. However, Russia, along with the United States and
China, is uncomfortable with North Korea becoming a nuclear state.

Questions:

1. What are your expectations for this meeting?

2. How will this meeting effect how the United States will approach the
next summit with North Korea?

3. What will countries surrounding North Korea, such as China and South
Korea expect from this meeting, and how will they interact with North Korea depending on the outcome?

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48047279

200+ Killed in Nine Bombings Across Sri Lanka

This Easter Sunday, nine churches were subject to acts of terrorism all across Sri Lanka. More than 200 were killer and 450 others were harmed. It is being described by the Sri Lankan defense ministry as a "coordinated act of religious extremism." At 8:45 am in Sri Lanka, attacks began in the cities of Colombo, Negombo, and Batticaloa. Churches were the main target of the attack, but Christian-owned hotels were also targeted. Several foreigners, including US nationals, were casualties in the attacks. While the government begins investigations, (in which 13 suspects have already been aprehended, although it is thought that the attacks were mainly carried out by suicide bombers) many social media sites have been temporarily blocked in order to stop misinformation.

It is no mistake that the attacks were executed on Easter Sunday while targeting churches and Christian-run, American associated businesses. Sri Lanka suffered through a long civil war until 2009, and it has been theorized that these attacks are the actions of the disgruntled minority who lost the civil war to the incumbent, American-supported majority. Many witnesses to the attacks called them reminiscent of the civil war, and fear that this will signal the resurgence of conflicts across Sri Lanka.


Questions:

1. What action should the Sri Lankan government take? What action should the greater world take?
2. What does it take to change culturally ingrained political dissatisfaction?
3. What other current world events does this remind you of?


https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/sri-lanka-bombings-explosions-easter-sunday-colombo-churches-hotels-2019-04-21-live-updates/

Think the Fed is truly independent? Wrong. Think it’s a lackey? Wrong again.

With spots open on the Federal Reserve Board, President Trump has selected Stephen Moore and Herman Cain. Although it is uncertain whether Moore and Cain will be confirmed by the Senate, this situation demonstrates that the Fed is neither “truly independent” nor “simply a political lackey of the president or Congress.” The article then gives historical examples from the presidencies of Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Obama, showing how the Fed is “an elastic concept, meaning different things at different times for different reasons,” and that its independence largely comes from its “ambiguity and flexibility.” I believe that having a solid and nonpartisan Board is crucial so that the nation’s monetary policy ensures economic stability and success. The Fed’s job is highly technical, requiring careful consideration of various factors (interest rates, inflation, credit conditions, etc), and having a group of competent Board members is necessary to maintain the US’s reputation and credibility as a world leader.

Questions:

1. Do President Trump’s selections for the Federal Reserve Board signal a shift towards more White House control over the Fed?

2. Do Stephen Moore and Herman Cain have the necessary background to serve responsibly on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, or do their histories as a businessman and a conservative public-policy advocate, respectively, show otherwise?

3. Although Moore and Cain would be more loyal to Trump than to the Fed, would this be harmful to the Fed and the economy? Do you think they would influence the Fed to make decisions based on presidential and/or Congressional politics, or would their conservative opinions help the Fed operate as a nonpartisan body?

Link:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/can-the-fed-stay-independent/2019/04/21/edd4e54e-63b5-11e9-bfad-36a7eb36cb60_story.html?utm_term=.6aa246e29538

North Korea Has Demanded the Removal of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from Nuclear Talks

During a sub committee hearing last week, Mike Pompeo was asked if he agreed with descriptions of Kim Jong-Un as a "tyrant", to which he then responded, "Sure, I'm sure I've said that." This prompted a senior foreign ministry official, named Kwon Jong-gun, to said that Mr Pompeo "spouted reckless remarks, hurting the dignity of our supreme leadership... to unveil his mean character" and that further talks would be "lousy" if Pompeo were to be present, asking that he be replaced by someone "more careful." He also attributes the abrupt ending of the summit in Hanoi to Pompeo, which was followed by North Korea testing a new "tactical guided weapon."

So where does this leave the nuclear talks? As of today, not much has changed since the summit at Hanoi which ended in no agreement. In Kim Jong-Un's most recent comments, he urged President Trump to pursue a deal that was "mutually acceptable" but then later spoke of his excellent ties with the Trump. This led to Trump responding on twitter, giving praise of Kim Jong-Un while also welcoming the idea of another summit.


1. Do you think Mike Pompeo's comments went too far when referring to the leader of another country? Why or why not?

2. Do you think North Korea's response was justified?

3. How should the US approach the next summit in regards to deal with is and moving towards a solution?

Source:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47971164

Mueller report unable to conclude 'no criminal conduct occurred' on obstruction

After nearly two years of Mueller's Grand Jury, the report was finally released to the public today, reaching the conclusion that they were unable to determine whether or not the president had obstructed justice. One of the main points of the investigation was to explore why Trump's Campaign took such an interest in the hack DNC emails released by the Russians. Overall, they were able to determine that the Russians did conspire to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, but they did not find that Trump or his associates were involved in the scheme. In addition, Mueller was unable to say that Trump obstructed justice when he fired James Comey, the FBI Director appointed by Obama, over the investigation. In the past week, Trump has declared this a victory for himself and has claimed full exoneration from all of the charges brought upon him. "This should've never happened ... I say this in front of my friends, this should never happen to another president again. This hoax -- it should never happen again. Thank you." Although no collusion was found by the special counsel, he made it clear that Congress could still investigate Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/mueller-report-release/index.html

Questions:
1. Has Trump earned total exoneration as he so claims?
2. Is it worth Congress's time to continue investigating Trump on their own time?
3. If Congress were to continue investigations, what should they focus on?

Notre Dame Cathedral Fire

In Paris, France at the 850-year-old church, a fire alarm rang out, interrupting mass at 6:20 p.m. local time on Monday, April 15. The cathedral was in the midst of undergoing a major restoration and part of the roof was covered in scaffolding. Around 400 firefighters were deployed to the scene but were delayed slightly by rush hour traffic. By the time the Paris Fire Department’s chaplain made his way inside of Notre-Dame, flames had already consumed most of the cathedral’s roof and its spire had smashed onto the nave. The cause of the blaze remains unclear, but officials do not suspect terrorism or arson. The full restoration of Notre Dame Cathedral will take between “10 to 15 years," according to Frédéric Létoffé, the head of the group of companies for the Restoration of Historic Monuments. So far, about a billion dollars have been pledged to help restore the landmark. 

As of April 17, French president Emanuel Macron set a controversial five-year deadline to get the work done. Macron is holding a special Cabinet meeting Wednesday dedicated to the Notre Dame disaster, which investigators believe was an accident possibly linked to renovation work. As of Wednesday, 880 million euros (USD $995 million) has been raised in just a day and a half since the fire. Some criticism has already surfaced among those in France who say the money could be better spent elsewhere, such as on smaller struggling churches or workers. Macron's 5-year deadline happens to coincide with the 2024 Paris Olympics, which the government wants to make a major showcase.

1. Is it irresponsible for Macron to set a 5-year deadline for restoration given many experts predict a longer timeline?

2. Should it be up to the French government solely to fund the restoration, or is it for the public to provide donations?

3. Are the concerns about the use of the billion dollar budget valid?

Source - 1

Source - 2

Suspect with "Infatuation" of Columbine Shooting Found Dead After Large Manhunt and Shutting Down Several Colorado Schools

With the 20th anniversary of the Columbine High School shooting approaching on April 20th, an 18 year old girl who held an ‘infatuation’ with the shooting threatened to to shoot students in Colorado schools. This caused over 20 schools in Denver and surrounding areas to be shut down to protect the lives of their students. Her threats to “commit an act of violence in the Denver metropolitan area” caused for a massive manhunt from the FBI and other police agencies. Fear built as she flew from her Florida home to Colorado and purchased a pump-action shotgun and ammunition after landing in the state. She had made verbal threats (though not yet released to the public) that caused concern to the police and many believe that she suffered from a mental illness. Recent sources have released that she has been found dead and locked-down districts in Colorado are no longer in direct danger. However, with the anniversary of such an event happening, officials all over are staying weary of possible copycats and those interested in the actions of the two students who killed 13 people 20 years ago.

Questions:

1. What can authorities do to prevent such infatuations and acting on wanting to be like the killers of Columbine?
2. Has the dramatically publicized stories and names of the original Columbine shooters caused more interest and desire for copycats?
3. What other factors besides mental illness could have lead to her interest in the tragedy?
4. Why are anniversaries of tragedies the most dangerous time for potential copycats?
5. Should reporters refrain from releasing the names and stories of the people who commit such acts of violence? Why or why not?

Source: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fbi-seeks-woman-infatuated-with-columbine-in-colorado-schools-threat-columbine_n_5cb68f96e4b0ffefe3b8bf41

Julian Assange Arrested in London as U.S. Unseals Hacking Conspiracy Indictment

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/11/world/europe/julian-assange-wikileaks-ecuador-embassy.html

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, was arrested in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London on Thursday 4/11. He is set to face a charge in the US of conspiring to commit unlawful computer intrusion based on allegations that, in 2010, he agreed to help former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning break an encoded part of a password that would allow her to access a classified military network under another user’s identity. At a court hearing, he was found guilty of jumping bail, and he was detained in part because of the extradition warrant issued by the US. Assange had been living in the Ecuadorian Embassy since 2012, but on Thursday, Ecuador decided to withdraw his asylum after becoming increasingly frustrated with his actions -- they claim he interfered with other states’ internal affairs. Assange plans to fight the extradition.

This issue calls to attention debates over First Amendment press freedoms. Although, in this situation, prosecutors seem to be avoiding using the First Amendment in their case, even though traditional journalism does not extend to helping people gain illicit access to classified networks. The charges were for conspiracy in Pentagon computer network hacking, rather than violations of the Espionage Act.

Questions

1. What kinds of limitations do you believe should be placed on journalists, if any at all?
2. What consequences do Assange/s published archives of secret documents / information on WikiLeaks have on the country? Do you believe his actions are / should be legal?
3. Although this issue will not be resolved quickly, what do you think will happen in the long run?

The first picture of a black hole opens a new era of astrophysics

Article Link

Black holes are known for being very hard to find because of how nothing, even light, can escape it. Despite this,  scientists have managed to capture the very fist picture of a black hole that is more than 50 million light years away. The reasoning for being able to capture the image of this black hole is due to a system of telescopes and the black hole gravitating gas from space around it. The findings of this black hole are huge as it confirms Einstein's theory of General Relativity. With the confirmation of theories such as that, it also forms new theories and research surrounding physics and quantum physics. Astrophysics and other space sciences are arguably important, but the government has been debating the funding of programs and research since the Obama administration.

Questions:
1.  Do you agree with the past and current administration that funding should be cut for programs such as NASA?
2. Federal funding spent towards science programs is less than 1%, do you think that there should be more funding for science programs?
3. Do you think that this finding could be potential for programs such as NASA to receive more federal funding? 

Lori Lightfoot elected Chicago mayor, will be 1st black woman and 1st openly gay person to hold post

Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/lori-lightfoot-elected-chicago-mayor-will-be-1st-black-woman-n990266

On April 2nd, Lori Lightfoot won a historic election for mayor of Chicago. Lightfoot will become the city's first black woman and first openly gay person to win the mayor's office. She defeated Toni Preckwinkle, another black woman competing for the position. Lightfoot faces a daunting challenge, however: she will inherit many issues that Rahm Emanuel, the current mayor, is struggling to deal with, including police brutality, gun violence, and financial issues. Lightfoot's campaign centered around change, with Lightfoot promising to "break the back" of Chicago's political machine and repair Chicago citizens' relationship with the police. 

Questions:

1) Lightfoot brings new perspectives to her position as mayor, some of which haven't been seen in the office before. How will Lightfoot's backgrounds and identities influence her method of tackling the problems Chicago faces, if at all? How will she differ from the current mayor, Rahm Emanuel?

2) Chicago's problems are deeply rooted, with issues such as police brutality and the political machine stretching for decades. How do you think Lightfoot will begin to take down the status quo in Chicago? Where will she even start?

Other sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/chicago-voters-set-to-make-history-with-mayoral-runoff-election/2019/04/01/af90f7f0-5230-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html?utm_term=.1164f7f4e5a3

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709420282/chicago-mayor-elect-lori-lightfoot-says-city-has-fractured-relationship-with-pol

Britain Proposes Broad New Powers to Regulate Internet Content

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/business/britain-internet-regulations.html

On April 7th, British regulators, backed by Prime Minister Theresa May, unveiled a
new plan to regulate web content including, but not limited to, child exploitation, false
news, terrorist activity and extreme violence. Under this plan, the government will name
regulators to issue fines and block websites and will hold executives legally liable for
harmful content spread on their platforms with the intent to target Facebook, Google,
and other large internet platforms. This legislation is largely in response to the mosque
shootings in New Zealand in March. Other countries are also considering censoring the
public from information on the internet. Mark Zuckerberg is supportive of such legislation
because it would set more clearly defined boundaries so companies don’t have to guess
about whether they need to regulate the content or not. In my opinion, although the
intentions are good, I do not think we need to regulate internet content any more. I think it
infringes upon the right to free speech, which is protected in the U.S., but not necessarily
everywhere else. Regulating internet content could lead to more government regulation
over time and could get out of control. I don’t think violence and terrorism will necessarily
decrease with internet regulation. Additionally, large companies such as Facebook and
Google have many legal resources to keep them in check and prospering, but smaller
startups can be severely hurt by such legislation. Furthermore, it isn’t fair to the British
public that American citizens have access to more information and content than they do.
What are your
opinions?

1: Do you agree that we need to regulate internet content to protect against child exploitation,
false news, terrorist activity and extreme violence?

2: What kind of economic impact does this government regulation have?

3: The U.K. Digital Secretary Jeremy Wright said, “The era of self-regulation for online
companies is over." Do you agree with this statement?

4: Who should be held responsible for explicit content on the internet? Should individual
executives of social media companies be held responsible as this legislation proposes or
should someone else?