Let's Bomb Agrabah!

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2015/12/trump-leads-grows-nationally-41-of-his-voters-want-to-bomb-country-from-aladdin-clinton-maintains-bi.html

Summary:
In a new poll performed by Public Policy Polling, a fair percentage of Republican voters were in favor of bombing the country of Agrabah. Agrabah is a fictional land seen in the classic Disney film Aladdin. It features magic caves, genies, and flying carpets, yet 30% of Republican voters stated that they supported a bombing campaign targeted at the seemingly Islamic country. Trump's supporters were particularly dedicated to this new focus for the war against terror, with 41% supporting the imaginary campaign. Democratic voters sided against the it with 36% percent aiming to remain peaceful while 19% supported the bombing.

Questions:
What mistakes could have disrupted the results of these polls? What do these polls show us about voter knowledge regarding Middle Eastern countries? What do these polls tell us about general public opinion? Why do supporters of Donald Trump tend to favor the bombing campaign?

Trump's 'Ban' On Muslims

Article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/donald-trumps-call-to-ban-muslim-immigrants/419298/

Summary:
After the recent unfortunate Paris attack where 130 people were left dead, Donald Trump, the republican frontrunner, called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on".
Trump cited a controversial six-month-old survey from the Center for Security Policy, finding that 1/4th of U.S. Muslim respondents said violence against Americans was 'justified' as a part of global jihad. He also cited that a slim majority of this population "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah".
Currently, Trump is calling for all Muslims to be ID'd and is playing on the fears Americans have after the attack on Paris. Furthermore, without evidence of truth, Trump claimed that "thousands" of Muslims were cheering the 9/11 attacks on rooftops in New Jersey. Again, there was no evidence of this and he is making false claims.



http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2015/12/18/137591

Questions:
What do you think of Trump's stance on this issue? Is he doing the right thing by wanting to ID all Muslims? What does his 'call to action' remind you of? What would you do to aid the current turmoil and widespread fear in the U.S. after the current attacks in Paris and San Bernardino if you were in the running to be president?

U.S. Senate Votes to Replace ‘No Child Left Behind’ Law

Summary:
On December 9th, the US Senate voted 85-12 to replace the No Child Left Behind law enacted during Bush's presidency, replacing it with the Every Student Succeeds Act. Instead of having a national standard, states now have the power to determine how poorly performing schools can be improved. Obama signed a new legislation that would give about $26 billion annually to the states, leaving the states to determine how to use the funds to improve their education systems. Under the new bill, states will still be required to test students yearly in grades three through eight and once in high school, but states will be held accountable for improving school quality. The bill also bars the federal government from giving the states incentives to use any specific learning standards, removing some federal oversight.



Questions:
Critics claim that without pressure from the federal government, the states will feel little need to make significant changes to the school systems; do you agree? Why or why not?
Most 2016 presidential candidates either voted against the bill or chose not to vote; what do you think it says about the bill and Obama's decision to implement it shortly before the end of his term?

Article:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-senate-votes-to-replace-no-child-left-behind-law-1449678245

Koch Brothers Get Each Other Same Election For Christmas

Summary: As they opened presents after a Christmas meal, the Koch brothers realized they had both gotten each other something truly special; in fact, the exact same thing! Both had bought each other the same election, that of Lee Zeldin in New York's 1st Congressional District. After the precedent set by the right-to-work law passed in Wisconsin this time last year, they decided they had to go big. Notwithstanding, this was only a small part of their efforts for 2016, however after the defeat of their preferred candidate Scott Walker, they decided to start from the ground up, much like 2010 and 2014.

All jokes aside, campaign spending in this presidential election thus far has been unprecedented. Huge donors each have their pet candidates, such as Ted Cruz receiving $15 million just from two billionaire brothers alone. In addition, Super PACs like Right to Rise supporting Jeb Bush has over $100 million in funds to spend on the campaign. It is impossible to ignore the effects of this wave of cash flowing through our political process, making corruption and buying elections a distinct possibility. We are at a crossroads, either regulations are passed to limit this, or it must be embraced as just another quirk of the American political system.

Questions:

What are your thoughts on the Citizens United Ruling in 2010? Do you believe that unlimited campaign spending is a corrupting influence or enables more free speech? How do you feel about multimillionaires and billionaires having such a great influence on elections?

Article: http://www.theonion.com/article/koch-brothers-get-each-other-same-election-christm-52012 

Obama admin weighs in on legalized marijuana at the Supreme Court

Summary: Last spring the Supreme Court asked for the administration's view on legal marijuana in the state of Colorado. The administration advised against involvement in disputes, because although the administration is committed against major traffickers of illegal substances,"federal resources should not be focused on individuals who were in "unambiguous compliance with existing state laws" and not involved in large-scale industrial marijuana cultivation centers." Recently, a case from Nebraska and Oklahoma against Colorado has been filled due to uncontrollable increases of marijuana across Colorado state borders into neighboring states. If Nebraska and Oklahoma were to win the case, pot would still be legal within Colorado, but its regulation on the market(how the substance is distributed and controlled) would have to change. 


Questions: Solicitor General, Donald B. Verrilli argues that SCOTUS should not have accepted the case because it poses a "substantial and unwarranted expansion of this court's jurisdiction." What do you think he means by that? And do you agree with him? 
Hypothetically, if Nebraska and Oklahoma were to win, what are possible solutions to the regulation problems? 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/supreme-court-marijuana-colorado-obama/index.html

GOP Debate: Still Too Many?

Summary: The Republican party has had far to many horses in the race and as we approach 2016 it is time for some of them to step out so that the party will have some semblance of organization. Four of the candidates in the debate should not have gotten as far as they have and they are only taking up space. Two candidates that were thought of as real contenders, Fiorina and Carson, looked like they were being shown the door as well. Their limited speaking time throughout the night showed the parties general disinterest, and the ways which they used the time that they did have, moments of silence and arguing with the moderators, did not help them look any better. The indomitable Trump seemed to be loosing his insanity as he began to take some of the attacks thrown at him and was tongue-tied when it came to his repartee. Jeb Bushed seemed to have gained some confidence and took Trump on to show that he wouldn't back down from a fight, and people seemed to be with him except for Ted Cruz who is trying to make nice with Trump and is expected to become his running mate. Marco Rubio dug into Cruz about nukes, and came out on top with far superior knowledge.

Trump makes faces as Jeb Bush points out his lunacy

Questions: Do you think that the list of candidates will eventually shorten to a reasonable number? Do you think that Trump's support will fade as people come to their senses? Do you think that a strong front runner will emerge? If not, who will be the top two or three?

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/16/time-to-pit-some-of-the-gop-out-to-pasture-commentary.html

Obama's "Strategy" to Stomp Out ISIS

Summary: The President, Barack Obama, feels that the military mission on ISIS is a long-term effort through local forces and a stable government. Obama pointed to the more than 5,000 airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq, Syria and new regions like North Africa, and the efforts of an impelled Iraqi government in the wake of the demolishing of Ramadi, as signs of increased effort against them. Currently, he has no plans to send more troops across to the region. He finds that security forces will be the biggest threat against ISIS. The President said success against ISIS depends on "Muslim communities, including scholars and clerics, rejecting warped interpretations of Islam and protecting their sons and daughters from recruitment.” He doesn’t think we should do everything ourselves because it won’t make terms better. Obama feels that his strategy will be best at stomping out ISIS.

Questions: Do you agree with Obama’s strategy? Is the success really dependent on the Muslim communities? Does Obama even have a strategy? What should he do differently (if anything)?

Article: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/06/politics/obama-isis-pentagon/

More than half the nation's governors say Syrian refugees not welcome

Article
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/world/paris-attacks-syrian-refugees-backlash/index.html

Summary

       Since the Paris terrorist attacks, the United States have been on high alert for terrorists trying to enter the country. After the announcement that one of the terrorists might have been a Syrian refugee entering France,  Thirty-one governors announced that they will oppose letting Syrian refugees into their states. Among the thirty-one are Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Michigan, Illinois, Maine, and New Hampshire. All but one of these governors are Republican. Most of the opposing governors reason that the security of the American people is more important than letting refugees into the country. On the flip side, governors who agree to accept refugees say that the refugees are trying to flee from the terrorists and that we should give them a new home.
       Although the decision ultimately rests with the federal government, the states can make the process much more difficult. According to a law professor, the "states have no authority to do anything because the question of who should be allowed in this country is one that the Constitution commits to the federal government...but it can refuse to cooperate, which makes things much more difficult."

Questions
If you were the governor of California would you let Syrian refugees enter your state? Why? Do you think the federal government is ultimately going to let Syrian refugees in?

Paris Hostility on the rise

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/nov/16/paris-attacks-isis-strategy-chaos/

Summary:

As the attacks on Paris comes to an end, we see parallels of the actions of ISIS and the actions of Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization that was responsible for 9/11 and bringing us to war in the middle east. When interviewing youth in Europe, most described ISIS’s acts as acts of “terrorism”, which does not truly capture what ISIS is trying to do. In fact, ISIS is trying to infiltrate into western societies and “cultivate support” through social media and underground connections. They are trying to gain the attention of youth who would be attracted to the rebellious opportunities ISIS is offering to them.

Furthermore, ISIS is trying to attack the US indirectly by showing the flaws in our centralized power system. In times of crisis, the people always look to the government for support and instruction. During the attack on Paris, ISIS exposed that the US government is hesitant to act on foreign affairs so the question remains how should the US respond to the Paris attacks

Questions:

Should the US take a more active role in containing ISIS in Europe, or work to prevent ISIS from infiltrating into the US? What actions could be taken to prevent the western youth from being influenced by ISIS?

ISIS Tactics in Social Media

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-iraq-twitter-social-media-strategy/372856/

Summary: 

The war front of the 21st century has transformed, moving from just the battlefield to social media. ISIS has become increasingly involved in social media to raise funds, recruit, and even just to manipulate how people on social media view certain topics. However, their increasing social media support may not be as intimidating as it seems. Although ISIS does have substantial supporters on social media, many of the online "supporters" may not be as fervent as they seem. 

     

One of these strategies includes a Twitter app called The Dawn of Glad Tidings. Upon first inspection, people assume that it's just a way to keep up with new information on ISIS. It asks for a decent amount of personal information, but it also posts tweets to your account. They have posted up to 40,000 tweets a day. The tweet themes range from violence to simple support messages for ISIS.  Twitter can't detect it through its spam detection because it posts these images, videos, and messages sporadically. The app also organizes hashtag trends to persuade people to support their group. It is able to both "project strength and promote engagement online", allowing discussion and involvement from all around the world.  

Question: 

Does the illusion of support on social media really impact how leaders form their foreign policy? Is social media a reliable source of people's opinion? Should it be?

     

Racism and Unrest in Universities

 

Over the past few weeks, black students in the University of Missouri have been protesting against racial discrimination within the campus. Several incidents, including a swastika being drawn with human feces on a residential dorm, have exemplified the increasing racial tension within the university. University President Timothy Wolfe's lackadaisical response to these controversies and failure to address them have outraged many students, and some have been pressuring the university's administration to force Wolfe to step down as president. After several days of protests in the form of walkouts and hunger strikes, the issue caught national attention after the University of Missouri football team decided to join the movement and refused to play or practice as long as Wolfe remained president. As the protests gain more attention, students from many other universities have expressed their support towards the black students at the University of Missouri.

Questions:  What effect do you think the media had on these protests? Do you think the protesting students are going about the situation in the right way? Why or why not? What do you think the US government could or should do in response to the controversies occurring in universities?

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/university-of-missouri-system-president-resigns.html?_r=0 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/world/europe/obama-says-paris-attacks-have-stiffened-resolve-to-crush-isis.html?_r=0

Summary:

President Obama insists that his tactical airstrike offense is the “strategy that will ultimately work”. Obama is continually taking heat for his timid response to the barbaric attacks of ISIS even though he believes that he is taking the right course of action. According to Obama the airstrike approach has been effective in taking out key members of the terror groups leadership, and that putting more “boots on the ground” would be a mistake.  

Question: Should Obama fold under the pressure to generate a more aggressive response towards the ISIS attacks, or maintain his position that the airstrikes will be more effective in the long run? 

Cell Phone Scandal Escalates

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/23/grassley-steps-up-clinton-email-probe-blocks-key-nominees.html

Summary:
Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's cell phone scandal continues to escalate as Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley puts a hold on State Department appointments. Grassley continues the email probe by seeking answers from a former aide of Hillary in order to help determine which of the incriminating emails should be made public. By blocking nominations for Thomas Shannon as the secretary of political affairs, and David Robinson for assistant secretary for conflict and stabilization operations and coordinator for reconstruction, Grassley has put Hillary and her representatives in a difficult position. Hillary's cell phone scandal is continuing to way down her campaign and some believe it has become a "politically motivated attempt to undermine the Democratic presidential candidate's campaign for the White House.

Question: Should Hillary and her staff continue to wage war against the army of lawyers holding her campaign back in the name of "protection of privacy", or simply give into their requests for sensitive information and stay focused on her quest for presidency?

Syrian Refugee Crisis

Article

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/22/opinions/reyes-syria-refugees/index.html

Summary

On Thursday, the House passed a bill that would suspend the president's plan on granting asylum to thousands of Syrian refugees next year. In addition to retaining the current system of multiple departments and agencies investigating refugees for two years before deciding whether or not to admit them, the bill also would require the heads of the nation's various security agencies to sign off on every single refugee's case before they'd be allowed to enter the U.S.. President Obama, of course, has promised to veto this bill.

The Republican-controlled House's action on the issue of refugee admission connects to the recent statements by thirty-one state governors who have vowed to not let refugees enter their states, as well as various Republican presidential candidates opposing letting in more Syrians (despite policies regarding immigration is under federal authority). The Republicans as a whole seem to believe that the massive influx of refugees could be taken advantage of by terrorists and used as a "trojan horse" into the U.S..

The Democrats, on the other hand, find that barring refugees from settling in America is contradictory to the country's values. Many do not see the refugees as being a significant potential threat, using the argument that terrorists could theoretically enter the country through easier means than as a refugee. In addition, Democrats believe that granting asylum to refugees would help the U.S. in its cause against ISIS, while not letting them in would only help the Islamic State, which tries to make Muslims believe that they are outcasts from the West.

Question

How do you see the issue with the bill playing out within the near future (e.g. possible legislative branch overriding veto, states filing lawsuits, Supreme Court intervention, etc.)? What are your opinions on the issue of immigration in terms of federal and state power? In what way will the executive branch's bureaucracy's activities and effectiveness be influenced should the bill end up getting passed, and furthermore, how do you predict the U.S.'s position on Syrian refugees to further affect its stance on foreign policy and combating terrorism?

Black Lives Matter

Summary: Black Lives Matter is a collection of organizations that came to light in the recent year.  The organization was created after the series of incidents of officers and private gun owners. Now, the situation has become so apparent that Black Lives Matter is a political action committee ( a group that is formed to give money to political campaigns).  The PAC, like may others, plan to raise money from the public and use the money to help campaign candidates that share the same policies. The emergence of Black Lives Matter as a PAC was particularly surprising because it has been operating under the idea of not endorsing any specific campaign or candidate. The organizations heads are saying that they are interested in specific policy changes and want to push every lawmaker they can to make these changes; the PAC is just another way to do so.

Question: Do you think that Black Lives Matter will be able to get more done, politically speaking, as a political action committee? Why or why not? Is there a better way to achieve policy change than an action committee? If so, what?

Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/27/black-lives-matter-goes-official-with-a-political-action-committee-but-its-not-an-easy-fit/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-cnbc-actually-messed-up-wednesdays-gop-debate/2015/10/29/b21203bc-7e52-11e5-afce-2afd1d3eb896_story.html

Summary: On wednesday October 28th, the CNBC hosted the republican debate for the presidential candidates. Throughout the debate, the candidates were asked controversial questions that seemed to be biased and more of a harassment rather than an interest in their beliefs. The debate was mostly and argument between the candidates and the moderators who did not do much moderating and instead sparked argument. The goal of the debate was to acquire equal talking time for each candidate so that they could express to America their goals for their presidency, but the goal was not completed. Certain candidates were excluded and did not get much talking time. The moderators were more liberal, which was wrong because having the opposite party moderate a debate for the other party is asking for a fight. Both the moderators, Becky Quick and Carl Quintanilla received criticism on how they ran the debate. After this debate, the RNC cancelled their agreement and scheduled debate with the CNBC for later in the year. The RNC believes the moderators did not do their job and were unfair to the candidates. They are very disappointed in how the debate was run.

Should debates be ran by the opposite party? Did the RNC make the right decision to cancel the upcoming debate since the first one was not successful with the CNBC? Would you make the same decision as the RNC and did their decision have validity?

$20 Trillion Debt

Link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/1/obama-presidency-to-end-with-20-trillion-national-/

Summary: President Obama and Congress had created an agreement that enables the president to borrow money unlimitedly until March 2017. This Boehner-Obama plan is said to be fully funded by cuts elsewhere, however Boehner himself left Congress last week. He understood that the situation was getting complicated and knew it was time to leave. The plan would enable somewhere around $154 billion increases to spending. Although the agreement promised to cover $112 billion, in reality only $78 billion is paid for in honesty. The remaining $56 billion which is mostly war spending and interest cost is never paid for. According to Obama, the agreement is meant to strengthen the middle class and invest in education, job training, basic research, national security, avoid Medicare and Social Security cuts, and it locks in two years of funding and break the cycle of shutdowns and manufactured crises which harm the economy. Before Obama was president, the national debt was $10.6 trillion and was an enormous issue. Currently the national debt is $18.15 trillion and will most likely reach $20 trillion when Obama leaves office, which nearly doubles the debt prior to his two terms.

Question: Do you believe the added debt cost is justified? Why or why not? Is there a solution to decreasing the national debt? If so, then how?

Halloween Banned in Public Schools

 

Link: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/12/connecticut-school-bans-halloween-to-avoid-offending-people/

Date: 10/12/2015 

Summary: A few weeks ago, the public school system in Milford Connecticut banned Halloween-related festivities to avoid offending children who didn’t feel comfortable partaking in the events. The parents and students received a letter saying that there would be no Halloween parade (a community tradition), and students would not be allowed to wear their costumes to school because of the “numerous incidents of children being excluded from activities due to religion, cultural beliefs, etc.” Some people claim that Halloween celebrations are considered religious observances, and when celebrations are held in a public schools, they violate the free establishment clause of the First Amendment. Jim Richetelli, chief operations officer for Milford schools, said, “The goal is for all children to feel comfortable and definitely not alienated when they come to school,” however, many parents claim that this ban is absurd, and should not be set in place. Residents of Milford even started a petition against this decision.

Questions: Do you believe that Halloween-related events violate the First amendment? Do you agree with this ban? How would you react to this situation?

Planned Parenthood Defunded

As of September 29th 2015, the house passed a pro-life bill that allowed states to defund planned parenthood. The House voted 236-193 for the bill, with all Republicans voting for it except 9 members and all Democrats opposing the pro-life measure except for two Democrats. Planned Parenthood faces severe scrutiny after an anti-abortion group released a series of videos it says shows that the nonprofit group is making money off of the sale of fetal tissue, a practice the which the company denies. Five states have revoked taxpayer's funding for Planned Parenthood’s abortion business including Utah, Arkansas, Alabama, New Hampshire and Louisiana. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said during the debate, “Under this Administration, Washington’s appetite for power is unlimited. We’ve seen this as President Obama and Congressional Democrats want to force the taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood despite national objections to the sickening videos that have been released. But we can also see it in the way the federal government tries to force states to spend money on organizations they don’t support.” The house is using the information and videos about  harvesting fetus tissue to use as evidence in the controversy and this allowed congress to pass the bill. 

Do you think that States should pay for the Planned Parenthood misconduct of supposedly selling aborted fetus body parts? Was it right for the non-profit organization to sell any parts of the aborted fetus if the aborted fetus isn't really alive? Should the evidence be considered if its not technically not verified as true? 

Today in Congress

http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/07/27/84-of-republicans-dont-believe-current-congress-represents-their-views-scary-what-are-they-looking-for/

Congress is a mess, and it’s been a mess for quite a long time. A large percentage of Americans today are completely dissatisfied with Congress, as shown by the disturbingly low rating of sixteen percent. Even the parties have found themselves divided when it comes to Congress, as “eighty-four percent of Republicans don’t believe Congress represents their views”. As one can imagine, this is extremely frustrating for everyone. And it seems that some people are taking advantage of this frustration for their own purposes. The current Republican candidate that everyone is talking about is Donald Trump, and despite the fact his proposals and ideas are not well thought out, “Trump leads the polls at eighteen percent”. And while this number is not huge, it does show how voters are thinking. Trump is loud and angry, and it seems that with the current frustration with how congress is working, many conservative voters seem to be of the same mind as Trump, and seem to be invested with his extreme point of view.

Questions: What do you think of congress? Do you feel satisfied with Congress? If not, what would you do to change it? Who do you think is the candidate most likely to win the primaries for the Republicans? For the Democrats?

Immigration Today

Link: http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-immigration-debate/p11149

Summary: Immigration has been an issue for many years in the US government and continues to be moving forward. Many issues have moved up from state and local levels into the executive and legislative branches of government in hopes of finding a solution to the overwhelming numbers of immigrants, (mostly immigrating illegally from Latin American countries).
Although immigration is controlled at the federal level, states and cities vary widely on their stance on immigration reform. States such as California have a very liberal stance and allow undocumented immigrants to apply for a drivers license and are allowed to pay in-state tuition to universities. However many states are not  as liberal as California. In Arizona, immigrants are required to carry around their ID's and any person 'suspected' of being an illegal immigrant can be interrogated on the spot.
The Obama administration has attempted to level-out the un-equal immigration reforms from each state by protecting removal for almost half of the 11.5 million un-authorized immigrants living in the US today. This protection however doesn't guarantee their stay in the US, nor does it solve the problems the other half of the un-documented immigrants face as they try to live under the radar for fear of being deported. The Obama Administration has also deported more than 2 million illegal immigrants which is more than the Bush Administration in 2004. Despite these actions however, Obama has tried to improve the lives of illegal immigrants by passing bills such as the DACA or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Child which gives immigrants a renewable two-year deportation referral. They also passed the DAPA or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans which defers illegal immigrant's deportation and allows them to work legally for three years.

Questions: Do you agree with what the Obama Administration has done with Immigration Policy? If so, why? Do you think the US should increase boarder control and deport more citizens, or do you think it is our responsibility to save them them from their drug infested and war-torn countries?

Who should know about your use of contraceptive?

photo: https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/when-a-liberal-says-birth-control-is-not-my-bosss-business-show-them-this

article: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2015/09/22/birth-control-should-be-none-of-your-boss-business

Summary: In today's society, women face many different struggles. But, one of them should not be taking care of their own body and obtaining birth control. For a women to receive a pack of birth control pills not only does she and the pharmacist have to know, but her employer, her doctor, and a health insurance worker have to know. 

Not only is this causing problems for the women receiving birth control due to her employers health care, but it is also causing problems for the people who find receiving birth control is against their morals. Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of nuns, is currently petitioning to be exempt from the current Affordable Care Act's requirement for topnotch birth control. People who do not need birth control or do not want control should not be subjected to the cost of it. 

No matter the changes of health care, employees are still going to seek out health care from their employers. It is more affordable and there are tax break. Yet the requirement for businesses to provide health care or pay a lofty find is ridiculous. Businesses should have the choice to provide health care, birth control included or not. 

Birth control, in fact, would be cheaper if we just make it an over-the-counter drug instead. Making it an over-the-counter drug will increase competition between birth control businesses, forcing them to reduce their prices in order to stay "in the game" and continue to make a profit and in turn make it more affordable to the masses. It also cuts out the middle man and makes obtaining birth control easier.

Questions: Should birth control continue to be a necessary part of Obamacare? Why or why not? If you believe that it should not be a part of health insurance, should it become an over-the-counter drug? Why or why not? And if you do believe that it should continue to be a part of health insurance, do you believe it should also be available to receive it without going through the hassle of getting a prescription?

High School Football and the Injury's that Come With

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/us/high-school-football-player-dies/index.html

Date: 10/18/15

Summary: This Friday night, we lost another high school football player, the 6 death from U.S. high school football this year.  His name was Cam'ron Matthews and he was described to be, "a great kid, athlete, strong in his faith & a friend to many." Matthews at one point said to his teammates that he felt dissy just before halftime and then he collapsed on the field due to a seizure.  Now, as we look at the big picture we see that in 2014 there were 5 deaths out of the 1.1 million high school students that played football in the U.S., died due to the sport and the other six died due to other causes non-related, such as heart problems etc.  In 2013, there were eight U.S. high school football death directly related to the sport.  We wonder why all these deaths and injury are happening in the sport and we realized there are multiple reason why many young adults and kids get hurt playing this sport.  One of the reasons is that the skill level of the players allows them to be more susceptible to  injury.  Also,  "...nearly 70% of high school athletes with concussions played despite their symptoms, and 40% reported that their coaches didn't know of the injury, according to a 2014 study in the American Journal of Sports Medicine,".  And finally we see that a big reason that all these injury's keep happening is the lack of full-time trainers in high schools, due to the cost.  People say that high school sports are getting safer and that they are trying to limit the amount of full contact practices coaches can have so hopefully in the future these numbers will go down and we can just play football.  

Questions: Do you think the amount of these injury's will ever go down? If so, how do you think we can change the game so it is safer?  Finally, would you let you child play high school football?