The Retrial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

A terrorist attack from Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev on April 15th,
2013, during the Boston Marathon, resulted in three lives lost and wounded
more than 260 people. On December 19th, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will go to a
three-judge federal appellate panel to state that he didn’t get a fair trial back
in 2015. He is currently on death row, but his lawyers are arguing that Judge
O’Toole was not fair and the jury was not bias-free. Along with this, they are
stating that the trial was in Boston, while most trials like this try to do it in
a different place in the US. Two people who were part of the jury were on
twitter, where their friends were encouraging them to “send Tsarnaev to jail
where he will be taken care of.” Lawyers are stating that since the people on
the jury didn’t mention any of this, they weren’t being truthful, and had a
clear bias. They will also question the fairness of O’Toole, Gertner says,
"Instead of asking the specific question about what people knew about the
case [O’Toole] asked the most general: 'Have you heard about this case?' kind
of question." O’Toole also encouraged that the trial be in Boston. Overall,
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is hoping that this evidence will be
enough to get rid of his death penalty.

Do you think the death penalty should be inacted on anyone?

Do you agree with Judge O’Toole’s decisions? Why or why not?

Do you think there should be another trial?

Do you think another trial would result in a different outcome?

https://www.npr.org/2019/12/12/786685166/attorneys-for-boston-marathon-bomber-to-appeals-judges-trial-was-not-fair

Massachusetts Hand-Free Driving Legislation

            Governor Charlie Baker has made a public announcement that in the Spring of 2020, there will be a new law implemented. Currently Massachusetts has a no texting while driving law but still permits holding your phone to talk. It is a secondary offense to be caught texting when driving, meaning you need to have committed another offense to get a ticket. When the legislation is launched, texting and driving will become a primary offense, which means you can get a ticket for just that. This new law is designed to keep the hands of drivers off their electronics, and instead on their steering wheel. “When a driver on an electronic device hits something or someone, that’s not an accident,” Governor Baker states during a signing ceremony in November 2019, “It’s a crash that was avoidable”. Governor Baker is trying to make the point that all of these fatal car accidents that have happened, was simply because of the driver’s lack of self-awareness. The only devices that may be used in these cars, are “hand-free” modes - such as Bluetooth. Although it is very restrictive, under this law, drivers will only be able to use their phones when stationary. This means that drivers can look down at their phones when parked, or at a red light. Fines start at $100 the first time, a second pullover results in a $250 penalty, and $500 dollars is billed for any offenses that follow. However, the legislation doesn’t take full effect until February 23 of 2020, and from there, police officers will only issue warnings for violation until March 31. Fines start being dealt on April 1. Studies show that the amount of people that get pulled over varies based on their race, age, and gender. There is controversy over this because it is possible that this difference in statistics ties in with racism, sexism, and ageism. This law could forever change the safety of drivers and pedestrians in Massachusetts and hopefully, all over America.

Discussion Questions:

1)    Do you agree with Governor Baker’s initiative of installing this ban? Why or why not?

2)    Do your parents look at their phones when driving? If so, do you ever tell them to put their phones down?

3)    Should this legislation be implemented in other states? Why or why not?

4)    How will drivers who are used to texting when driving, react to this law? Why?

https://www.boston.com/cars/car-news/2019/11/25/massachusetts-hands-free-driving-law-charlie-baker

Hong Kong Protests

Around 20 years ago, Hong Kong was a British Colony, and then in 1997, the city was returned to China with two conditions. It was a policy known as one country, two systems, where Hong Kong became a part of China, with some exceptions. There are many more rights for the citizens than on the mainland, and Hong Kong also has its own government. Citizens of Hong Kong are allowed freedom of speech, freedom of the internet, and freedom of assembly, privileges the Chinese mainlanders do not have. China promised these laws would stay in place until at least 2047, but already some Hong Kong citizens feel as though their freedom is slipping away. 

Throughout June this year, there have been many peaceful protests on the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong citizens. The protests were started out of anger with the government and Hong Kong citizens are trying to preserve their diminishing freedom. 

Some protests are working, such as ones on June 9th: The government was going to pass a bill that would have allowed Hong Kong criminals to be sent to the mainland, but they withdrew it after protests on June 9th. However, in the months leading up to today, some protests have begun to turn violent as the government is stubborn to bend to the will of the protesters. Some protesters believe violence is the only way the government will listen to them, and their actions have been followed with severe police brutality, including one man who was set on fire.  

Neither the protesters nor the government seem to be willing to back down, even with thousands of arrests, and most do not know how this will end. 

Read this article to answer these questions:

1. Should the United States get involved with this issue? If so, who should they defend?
2. Why do you think the Chinese government wants to take away the rights of Hong Kong citizens?
3. Imagine if Boston was part of the United States but had more freedom and different rights that the rest of the country. How would you feel about that?
4. Would you participate in the protests if you lived in Hong Kong, even with all the violence from other protesters and the police?

“Why Are People Protesting in Hong Kong?” The New York Times, 13 Nov. 2019, www.nytimes. 

com/2019/11/13/world/asia/hong-kong-protests.html?searchResultPosition=2. Accessed  14 Nov. 2019.

Are Military Dogs Training and Treatment Humane?

          On October 28th, 2019, one of the most successful U.S. military raids in history went down. A military dog, Newsweek is calling Conan (has not been officially released), chased the leader of Isis, 

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, into a tunnel where Mr. al-Baghdadi ended up killing himself. Here is a link about his death The President himself, took great pride in Conan's actions and tweeted a picture of the dog and captioned: "We have declassified a picture of the wonderful dog (name not declassified) that did such a GREAT JOB in capturing and killing the Leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi!” This dog's actions, although courageous, can be interpreted as cruel. This event brings up the question of whether dogs should be trained to detain someone. Conan did not return unscathed from Mr. al-Baghdadi's bomb vest suicide. Fortunately, Conan was tended to and is currently fine.   

          Standard military dog training starts when the dogs are just puppies. The pups begin in boot camp and are raised to be obedient towards authority, and scarily aggressive towards enemies. They are also trained to sniff through doors for any sort of suspect, bomb, or dangerous machine or substance. San Antonio Lackland, Texas, is home to the 341st U.S. Airbase. f San Antonio Lackland also has a dog training facility where about 300 dogs are raised per year. After they graduate the training, dogs serve 6-8 years in the military. To put it in perspective, the average life expectancy for a dog is 10-13 years, meaning their military service takes up half of their life minimum. Whereas humans who only serve have to serve for 4 years have an average life span of 80 years, which is about 5% of a human lifetime.

          These dogs take human type risks, like jumping off a plane with a parachute.  “To me, they’re the first line of defense,” said Ron Aiello, president of the United States War Dogs Association. He is referring to the fact that dogs (and handlers) lead the way to sniff out landmines, snipers, any sort of trap, which makes them like test dummies. 
          Military dogs are not like other dogs. Their strict training makes it hard for them to adjust after retirement. They are territorial and aggressive. After retirement, they need to learn how to be a dog again, which should never happen.

         
1. How do you feel about military dogs being trained to take down or even kill someone?
2. Are military dogs necessary in the military with all the new technology available to the U.S?
3. Do big dogs off-leash scare you and why?
4. What would you do if your dog had been trained to attack anyone who you did not welcome (If you do not have one... IMAGINE)?

“Trump Shares Photo of ‘Wonderful’ Dog in ISIS Raid, but Not a Name.” The New York Times, 28 Oct. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/politics/trump-baghdadi-dog-conan.html. Accessed 1 Nov. 2019

Ward, Alex. “The US Military Dog That Helped Take down ISIS Leader Baghdadi.” Vox, Vox, 28 Oct. 2019, www.vox.com/world/2019/10/28/20937045/isis-baghdadi-dog-trump-twitter. Accessed 1 Nov. 2019.

Texas, in. “They Look Adorable but Are Trained in Texas for Dangerous Situations.”  

ABC13 Houston, 30 Oct. 2019, abc13.com/they-look-adorable-but-are-trained-for-

dangerous-situations/5658848/. Accessed 1 Nov. 2019.

‌

Why isn’t the LGBTQ+ community protected through job security?

Tuesday October 8th, the Supreme Court questioned the protection of gay and transgender discrimination in the workplace. There is no law preventing the LGBTQ+ community from being fired based on their identity. The justices heard two hours of testimonies and arguments for three cases in which two gay workers and one transgender worker were fired by their employers. The three workers sued, claiming the action was an act of unlawful discrimination.
The court’s liberal justices agreed with the arguments that gay and transgender workers are protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law bans employers from discrimination against their employees in the instance of sex, race, color, nationality, and religion. Some justices appeared skeptical while others sympathized with the plaintiffs’ claims.
Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch implied that one’s sex sometimes contributes to the factor of firing someone of a certain sexual orientation. Gorsuch says, “in what linguistic formulation would one say that sex - biological gender - has nothing to do with what happened in this case?” In turn, he later suggested that the court might be overstepping its boundaries and should just leave it to Congress to legislate on the subject; saying it would cause a “massive social upheaval.”
The Trump Administration argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include sexual orientation or gender identity. A legal fight back in 2015, focused on the meaning of “sex” in Title VII. Plaintiffs argued that consequently, discrimination against workers who are gay or transgender is illegal. Liberal justices seemed to appear skeptical of the arguments made by the Trump Administration’s lawyer. Supporters of LGBTQ+ rights, protested outside the courthouse while, a smaller group of opposing members, stood there too. Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would give gay and transgender workers better protection and a ruling against them would mean that those workers would not be protected and still be subject to the discriminatory treatment of their employers.
Read this article and answer the following questions.

1)  on the evidence given in the article, do you believe the justices will rule in favor of the plaintiffs or not? Explain.
2) Which justice’s argument do you agree with the most and why?
3) Has there ever been an instance when you have been treated unfairly? When and why do you think it happened to you?
4) If the law is upheld then how do you think it will affect our community in the long run? And if it isn’t?

Charlie Baker Vaping Ban, Was It A Good Idea?

Last Tuesday, Governor Charlie Baker took action ordering a 4-month ban on the sale of all vaping products in Massachusetts. Charlie’s decisions comes after a public health emergency, which brings concern to the risk and injury of smoking (vaping). The ban will end on January 25th and the governor could decide to extend it if needed. Even of the sell from online stores is prohibited. This ban will give time for the medical community and federal officials time to investigate the nine deaths caused by vaping. Dr. Alicia Casey, a pediatric at the Boston Children Hospital says teens could suffer permanent lung damage after vaping and an FDA spokeswoman said that they were “working tirelessly” to investigate the vaping-related lung illnesses. Geoffrey Yalenezian, chief operating officer of Brennan’s Smoke Shop a local smokeshop says “My chin hit the floor” after all of his eight smoke shops were shut down due to the inability to make a profit. Many other local shops could be crushed by this ban and wouldn't be able to afford for themselves and their families. Although there are many health risks of vaping its people's jobs to sell them for a living. State lawmakers are already pushing separate bills that would permanently ban all flavors and types of e-cigarettes. This is a small step for banning vaping everywhere around the world. Read (This Article) Boston Globe and then post a thoughtful comment that answers the following questions.

1.     Do you agree with Gov. Baker's 4 month ban and why or why not?

2.     If you were a small vape shop owner, what would do in this case - wait it out or close permanently and find something new?

3.     Have you ever been near someone that was vaping and try and hold your breath? If so, why did you do this?

4.     What do you think the future of vaping will be like? Is it good or bad?

“Baker Declares Public Health Emergency, Orders 4-Month Ban on All Vaping Products - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.Com, 2019, www.bostonglobe.com/news/marijuana/2019/09/24/governor-baker-make-vaping-announcement-amid-spate-lung-illnesses/o8sO6mf3GOmX4mOpLLtcEL/story.html. Accessed 2 Oct. 2019.