A college football coach was suspended after saying he'd like leadership tips from Hitler

Link to original article

As explained by the title, Morris Berger, a college football coach at Grand Valley State University in Michigan, was recently suspended over his comments about Hitler being a great leader. When asked in an interview which historical figures he'd like to have dinner with, Berger responded, "'This is probably not going to get a good review, but I'm going to say Adolf Hitler. It was obviously very sad and he had bad motives, but the way he was able to lead was second-to-none. How he rallied a group and a following, I want to know how he did that. Bad intentions of course, but you can't deny he wasn't a great leader.'" It is clear that Berger is aware of the malicious intent that Hitler had and the atrocious acts that he committed. I don't think Berger meant "great" as in how many atrocious acts Hitler committed, but instead how he was able to garner such a loyal following, as Berger mentioned in the interview. However, despite it being clear that Berger had no intent in offending anyone and that he was not some crazed neo-Nazi, he was still suspended from his job and is currently under an ongoing investigation. Although Berger may have had no negative intent, I believe that what Berger said wasn't appropriate in a school environment and that the college took appropriate action to ensure that students are in a safe learning environment. I also believe that this situation has bigger implications related to the First Amendment's right to free speech and what or what can't be said in schools.

Questions:
1. Do you agree with how the college handled this issue? Why or why not?
2. To what extent can schools determine what can or can't be said in schools? 

Secrtary of State accuses NPR Reporter of Lying

Kelly (Left) and Pompeo (Right)

On Saturday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly for lying 
about whether a conversation he initiated with her was deemed as off the record (cannot be reported in any way). NPR has denied his accusations.
Kelly had recently interviewed Pompeo for the NPR program All Things Considered. The interview focused on the US's policy in Iran, and at the end, Kelly asked Pompeo whether he owes Marie Yovanovitch, former US ambassador to Ukraine, an "apology" for not defending her when President Trump ordered her fired last spring. Pompeo was unhappy with this question, claiming that Kelly only agreed to interview him about Iran. Kelly responded, saying had confirmed beforehand with his staff that she was going to be discussing Iran and Ukraine with him.
After the interview was complete, an aide asked Kelly to follow her into Pompeo's private living room at the State Department, not saying that the conversation would be off the record. According to Kelly:

"I was taken to the secretary's private living room where he was waiting and where he shouted at me for about the same amount of time the interview itself had lasted. He was not happy to have been questioned about Ukraine. He asked, do you think Americans care about Ukraine? He used the F-word in that sentence and many others. He asked if I could find Ukraine on any map; I said yes. He called out for his aide to bring him a map of the world with no writing, no countries marked. I pointed to Ukraine. He put the map away. He said, people will hear about this."

In his statement released on Saturday, Pompeo accused Kelly for lying to him twice: about what their interview was about, and for not keeping their post-interview conversation off the record. He does not deny lashing out at Kelly. NPR stood behind Kelly's report. Emails between Kelly and Pompeo's press aide have shown that there was no agreement that Kelly would keep her questions limited to the development of Iran, contrary to what Pompeo's statement implied. Since Pompeo's statement, a letter released by five Democratic lawmakers have criticized Pompeo's statement for being "irresponsible."

Sources:

• Transcript of Kelly and Pompeo's interview and recount of post-interview conversation.
• Washington Post Articles: 1 | 2 | 3 

Questions:

1.  How does this reflects the relationship between the US government and the press? 
2. Is this conflict between the government and the press a stand-alone case between Kelly and Pompeo, a dynamic specific to the Trump administration, or is it indicative of the overall tensions between the two.
3. Do you believe this will impact Trump's reelection campaign in any capacity?

Mother of ‘Success Kid’ Demands Steve King Stop Using His Meme

A screenshot of the Congressman's Facebook post

Link

Steve King, not to be confused with famous writer Stephen King, is a Congressman that represents Iowa's district 4. He recently released this image, starring the classic "success kid" meme. The image is seemingly harmless, sporting a cringeworthy caption, an outdated meme, and a message from a man 50 years too old to use emojis. His post is absolutely perfect for Facebook. Yet the mother of "success kid," Laney Griner, will sue the Congressman if the post is not removed, taking the case to a federal court for copyright infringement.

Congressman King has a history of being an adamant defender of white supremacy, and his racist remarks have led to him being stripped of all his House committee seats. Ms. Griner does not want her son's face associated with King's image, hence the lawsuit.

This story is just another part of the bigger picture of copyright laws. We saw in the EU's "meme ban" an interpretation of memes that judges continue to use: Just because it is popular does not make it an exception to copyright laws. However, people continue to make memes from the same recycled trash every day for a few intangible internet points. 

Questions: 

1. To what extent do people own the rights to their own image (or their children's) if it has spread on the internet like the plague?

2. The Obama administration used the same image of "success kid" in 2013 to support immigration reform, with the permission of Ms. Griner. Does she have the right to pick and choose who uses the image based on political values?

3. Should copyright laws for memes even exist if there is virtually no efficient way to enforce them?

The U.S. might ratify the ERA. What would change?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/23/us-might-ratify-era-what-would-change/

Earlier this month, Virginia became the latest state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Being the 38th state to ratify the ERA and completing the three-fourths requirement necessary to ratify the amendment, many are calling for the ERA to finally be ratified, but there are various complications regarding the initial ratification deadline. However, the more relevant angle in this analysis is what ratifying the ERA would really do. In many Supreme Court cases and such, it seems that the ratification of the ERA would not have made a significant historical difference in these decisions. In our current civil rights unit, the ratification of the ERA is very significant, but how significant is it in practice?

Do you think the ERA would have had a significant impact in prior cases has it been ratified in 1982 or before?

Do you think the ERA will have a large impact if it is ratified now? If so, what do you think this impact would be?

Trump's plan to attend March for Life sends clear signal to evangelicals

https://news.yahoo.com/trumps-plan-to-attend-march-for-life-sends-clear-signal-to-evangelicals-222754802.html
Wednesday was the anniversary of the famous Roe v. Wade case. While some are celebrating safe contraception, the March for Life Education and Defense Fund is preparing for its annual March for Life, protesting Roe v. Wade and the legality of abortions. 
Recently, Donald Trump announced his projected presence for the March for Life on Friday, tweeting "See you on Friday... Big Crowd!" in response to a tweet from the official March for Life account. 
Trump, who once said he was "very pro-choice," has done quite a lot for the pro-life movement, including allowing the defunding of Planned Parenthood or passing the Protect Life Rule. However, his presence at the march is what led many conservatives to hail him as a "pro-life hero," being the first president ever to speak at the annual pro-life gathering. 
Among the praise has been voices of concern from the Evangelicals, such as Alan Cross, who tweeted that the movement is strongest when it "speaks clearly to all about sanctity of human life from faith, moral, ethical, & science perspectives" and the"long-term result of Trump becoming spokesman for ProLife Mvmnt could be its weakening.”

1. Will having Trump become a spokesperson for the pro-life movement hurt or help their cause?
2. Will taking such a controversial stance on a big issue like this hurt or help Trump's campaign in the future?
3. Will future presidents now have to follow the new precedent to speak at this gathering?

Trump states that Democrats have a "bogus" Ukraine Theory

Trump’s Impeachment trial has been going on for a week now. As of today we are on the third day of the hearings and as you may know the democrats are trying to convince some republicans to get their needed two thirds majority vote in the senate. Today trump states that the Democrats have a “completely bogus” Ukraine theory, pushed by attorney Rudy Giuliani, that led to his abuse of presidential power and then impeachment. The democrats have solid information about their reason to impeach trump. They state that instead of Trump gaining votes from Russia, it was in fact Ukraine aiding the president. The Democrats were supporting this theory and have brought up what they thought would be questions asked by the opposition in the latter days of the trial. Currently their case seems to be very compelling. Even the top Senate Democrat, Chuck Schumer states otherwise. He stated that the republicans can help but be “glued” to Democractic Senator Schiff’s testimony. They feel that the Republicans are finally listening to them. There is constantly new information on Trump’s abuse of power with Ukraine and it further supports the Democrats. Although the house was basically divided on partisan lines, the Democrats think they could possibly win this.

Questions:
1. Do you think the Democrats can get that ⅔ majority they need?
2. Do you think the Democrats are able to continue putting up a valid argument?
3. How do you think Republicans can counter these arguments that the Democrats are putting up?

Coronavirus Appears in China

Article

Earlier this month, a new mysterious coronavirus was discovered in the Chinese city of Wuhan and it is believed to have originated from the city’s Huanan Seafood Market which sold live poultry and exotic animal meats until it was closed down and disinfected following the outbreak of the virus. At first, it was thought that the virus was only capable of spreading from animals to humans, but health officials now know that human transmission is possible which raises concerns about public health. The number of reported cases has risen to over 200 with isolated cases appearing in Thailand, Japan, and Korea (all of these people originated from Wuhan), and while twenty-five people have recovered from this coronavirus, the death toll is up to three. Given the escalation of this issue, some are concerned that China might try to cover up the severity or the extent of the virus like they did with the deadly SARS outbreak in the early 2000s that infected over 8000 people (some of whom resided in the US) and killed over 700 people, although it seems like China is being pretty transparent about the developments of this outbreak.

Discussion Questions
1. If the number of people infected by this coronavirus continues to grow how do you think that would affect China’s trade relations with other countries and/or Asia’s tourism?

2. Should more be done to try to get countries to eliminate markets such as the Huanan Seafood Market where there are higher risks of humans contracting harmful viruses?

3. What do you think the US can do to ensure that infectious diseases don’t spread to the US from other countries?

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Have a Public Fight Over a Private Remark

Article

In 2018, during a private meeting with Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren claims that he remarked that a woman could not win the presidency. The claim was the culmination of a simmering feud between both of the progressive liberal presidential candidates as the presidential race has become more heated. The two candidates have very similar policy goals, which led to them fighting over the same voters in the polls. The clash was on full display following the recent Iowa debate, in which Warren refused to shake Sanders's hand. The clash between the two candidates will have severe implications, as whoever comes on top will likely compete with frontrunner Joe Biden for the nomination.

In the wake of Hillary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump in 2016, electability has become a bigger concern for democratic voters. Though Sanders has denied the accusations himself, the question of whether a woman can win the presidency should not be completely dismissed.

1. How will this rift between the progressive candidates set the tone for the rest of the race?
2. How much should democratic voters weigh electability when voting in the primaries?
3.  Is today's America willing to elect a female president?

Schumer says he believes Iran war powers resolution will pass Senate

Article Link

After Trump unilaterally made the decision to launch a drone strike that killed Major General Qassem Suleimani, Congress has been pursuing a war powers resolution. Despite the recent cooling down of tensions with Iran, Democrats still express worry over the strike and the justification behind it. The resolution will ensure that Trump cannot take military action against Iran without the approval of Congress. The House has already voted on a similar resolution, which passed by 224-194. In the Senate, there is bipartisan support for the resolution, with some Republicans crossing the aisle to support the resolution. With that addition, the Senate may be able to reach the required 51 votes needed to pass the resolution.  

Questions: 

1. Is a war powers resolution needed?

2. Is Congress's reaction justified?

3. How should Congress deal with similar situations in the future?

St. Louis' chief prosecutor has sued the city, alleging a racist conspiracy meant to force her from office

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/us/st-louis-prosecutor-kim-gardner-lawsuit/index.html

Kim Gardner, the first black circuit attorney in St. Louis, has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit that accuses the city, the city's police union and others of a coordinated and racist conspiracy aimed at forcing her out of office, according to a complaint. Gardner, the city's elected prosecutor, accuses "entrenched interests in St. Louis" of attempting to block her efforts at redressing the city's historical inequality "through a broad campaign of collusive conduct," the complaint alleges. The lawsuit, filed Monday in a district court in Missouri, claims the defendants' actions violate the Ku Klux Klan Act as well as the Fourth and 14th Amendments. 

Questions: 

1. What is your opinion on her alleged conspiracy do you believe she has a valid point, why or why not?

2. Do you believe there are people in any part of the judicial system in St. Louis that follow KKK beliefs or their family members/ close friends, and don't like this change for the prosecuting positions in Missouri?

A Not so Distant Issue

- Article Link -

Iran Offers Mixed Message After Backing Away From Conflict with U.S.

Article Link

Following Trump's announcement that the United States would back down given that Iran appears to be "standing down," (article here) Iran as a whole has been providing statements about vengeance as well as peace. The U.S. order of a drone strike on Iran killed Iranian leader Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, and Iran retaliated with a missile strike on two Iraqi military bases housing U.S. troops. However, it seemed to be more of an act of warning than one looking to kill, as no troops were killed and Iran admitted that the strike was not intended to kill anyone. However, more radical threats were delivered from the Revolutionary Guards Corps as well as much of the general public. However, the Iranian government still warns the United States against making any further mistakes, suggesting that they may be on their last straw. This period of high tension and mixed feelings about war is similar to the American situation in the 1950s and 1960s, where the public sentiment and government was trying to decide whether or not to take action. I think Iran made the right decision to limit the escalation of the situation, as the current situation is easier to handle than one where both parties are aggravated. Being placed in a position with strong opposing public opinion but keeping the general welfare of the public in consideration is one that I think deserves respect.

1) Do you think that Iran made the right decision with their retaliatory strike not killing any U.S. troops?

1) Do you think the missile strike on U.S. troops was a justified retaliatory attack in general? If not, what if the situation was reversed?

2) How do you think the public and Revolutionary Guards Corps will react given that their government has has partially rendered their threats as having no backing?

The Ukraine Plane Crash in Iran: Black Boxes and Other Questions

Article link

Source: Ebrahim Noroozi for AP

Just after 6am on Wednesday January 7th, Ukrainian International Airlines flight PS752 crashed shortly after takeoff from Iran. All 176 passengers aboard the aircraft, a Boeing 737-800 bound for Ukraine, were killed on impact. Ukraine and Iran both rushed to rule out terrorism as a cause, but Ukraine later retracted the statement, saying it was too early to make a call. Normally, plane crashes are not political events, but this one may very well turn out to be one as it involves an American company and the Iranian government at a time when tensions between the two countries are near the tipping point. For one, the head of Iran's Civil Aviation Agency has vowed not to hand over the black boxes to Boeing, which would deprive them of possibly crucial information.

Update: As this is an ongoing story, new speculations/developments have popped up since I first posted it. The New York Times has now published a video which appears to show the plane being shot down by an anti-aircraft missile. Iran is investigating the black boxes at this time, but refuses to admit any involvement of missiles.

Questions:
1. This event comes right after the assassination of Iran's top general, Qassem Soleimani, and Iran's retaliatory strikes, as Ryan posted about. What complications do you think American-Iranian tensions will bring to the investigation of the crash, if any? If missiles are actually involved, what consequences do you think will result?
2. Our Congresswoman, Jackie Speier, has called this unfortunate event "collateral damage" from the Soleimani killing, placing some blame on the Trump administration. Do you agree with that statement? Why or why not?
2. As you may know, Boeing has taken a big hit from the grounding of its 737-800 MAX model due to the tragic crashes of Lion Air 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 in the past two years. I know we won't be starting economics for a few weeks, but what effect do you think this will have on Boeing's performance in the short-term, especially in light of the 737-800 MAX's recent tragedies? How about in the long-term? This question is obsolete as it now appears Boeing has nothing to do with this tragedy.

Senate Democrats break with Pelosi over impeachment trial

Article Link

Several Senate democrats, among which include our very own Sen. Dianne Feinstein, pictured above, are beginning to urge Speaker Pelosi to allow Trump's impeachment trial to begin. While all of these Senators say they admire that Pelosi is trying to guarantee a fair trial, they argue that withholding the trial is pointless as McConnell isn't going to budge, and also places pressure on the Democratic Senators running for president with the primaries beginning soon. House Democrats are still firmly behind Pelosi's plan, but some are beginning to have their doubts. Democrats have also developed strategies in the Senate to hopefully make the trial more fair as well. Their focus lies on getting just four Republican Senators to break with McConnell, whose partisan plan is quite similar to the one Bill Clinton's 1999 trial was run on.

Questions:
1. Do you think Pelosi should pass on the articles to the Senate for trial? Why or why not?
2. Do you think this move by Democratic Senators will cause voters to label them as weak and unable to stand their ground? In other words, will letting the trial run its course benefit Democratic Senators during the primaries, or hurt them instead?

Iran attack: US troops targeted with ballistic missiles

Link to BBC post

Following the recent assassination of General Qasem Soleimani of Iran, in what appears to be retaliation for this US-backed attack US troops have been targeted with ballistic missiles in Iraq, where Iran has recently maintained a heavy military presence. As of the time of this post, no fatalities have been reported. Tensions surrounding this attack have been exacerbated by contradictory messages from President Trump and his administration, the former promising "disproportionate retribution" if Iran were to antagonize the US, potentially including attacks on Iranian cultural sites (a war crime), and the latter denying any intent to commit war crimes. Many have criticized Trump's apparent hotheadedness in geopolitics, as he is often incited to conflict or seemingly unaware of the consequences of his words; on the international stage, where a flippant remark may result in stock prices plummeting or vigilante retaliation, there is little room for impulse.

Questions/Discussion Topics:
1. Many in Iran and abroad have described General Soleimani as a "martyr"; the top general of the Revolutionary Guard, Iran's military, said "The martyr Qasem Soleimani is more powerful... now that he is dead." What do you think the ramifications of this idea will be in the coming weeks? How can someone be more powerful when dead?
2. There have been many reports of Iranian nationals and Iranian-Americans being detained on the border of the US and asked questions about their political allegiance. Is this a legally or morally justifiable practice? If conflict between Iran and the US were to escalate, could we see the level of scrutiny afforded to Iranian-Americans and Iranian nationals in the US increase? Consider historical connections, for instance the detainment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Letter to John Lewis

Article link

                                          Source: Damon Winter, NY Times

John Lewis, a civil rights leader and U.S. representative from Georgia, was recently diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He was chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and was a leader on the march across the Edmund Pettis bridge before having his skull cracked by an Alabama State Trooper on March 7, 1965 (Bloody Sunday) in Selma, AL. Prior to that he was a leader in the March on Washington in 1963 before going on to serve the people of the 5th district of Georgia in Congress for the past 33 years. In recent years, some of the issues he's fought for include gun control legislation, expanding health care coverage, and strengthening the Voting Rights Act.

Discussion Questions
1. How can we continue the fight for racial equality in the 2020's that John Lewis spent much of his career promoting?
2. Given that this is a key presidential election year, what can be done to protect people's right to vote?
3. John Lewis said "if you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you have a moral obligation to do something about it." How does that apply to our city/state/nation/world?