3 views | +0 today
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Benjamin Dischinger!

BY 4/16 -- Do Students Still Have Free Speech in School?

BY 4/16 -- Do Students Still Have Free Speech in School? | BHS GOPO |
Social media has eroded young people's privacy—and advocates are trying to win it back.
Benjamin Dischinger's insight:

This particular article is very hard to take a side on because both sides of the argument have their downsides. Someone who sides with 'free speech should not be violated' will then be indirectly saying that it's okay to create a fake social media profile which would lead to a resignation in the end because by taking that side, there is no way around it. By taking the side of 'free speech should be regulated', you have no choice but to give up any privacy to people who devote their time specifically to snooping around to make certain there are no threats being brought about. Each side of the argument comes with a price and in the age of social media that price is now a lot larger than it used to be.

Connor Carter's curator insight, April 16, 2014 2:05 AM

I believe that students still have freedom of speech, and there are only instances that may impact one's freedom of speech in cases where school officials/administrators are impacted. When student's protest their right to speech and also try to receive discipline and instruction from teachers and parents, it is difficult to pair the two. Kids should not be able to say anything they want, therefore I think it is the school's responsibility to censor some occurrences of harsh behavior as part of their role to teach children to be respectable. It is a difficult case nonetheless. 

Andy Nguyen's curator insight, April 16, 2014 4:26 AM

With students becoming more active nowadays on social media, the school administration obviously cannot control what they can't or can post online. While I agree that students should be able to freely express themselves online, I also believe that students cannot post comments that could be considered bullying of people especially teachers and students. But the question still remains: who should regulate these comments? This puts us in an awful predicament. We must find a middle ground in order for this technology age to successfully propagate.. 

Weiyi Wang's curator insight, April 16, 2014 11:57 PM

I think students should be able to say whatever they want as long as it's within reasonable bounds. This is what the first amendment says after all. No one has the right to limit or take away this privilege. The internet has extended free speech far beyond anything that can be controlled anyways. Imagine how much manpower and money would go into censoring the billions of student online interactions. It is up to the students to determine how to properly and safely exercise their first amendment rights.

Scooped by Benjamin Dischinger!

BY 4/3 -- Ruling on limits means campaign contributions could soar (great graphic)

BY 4/3 -- Ruling on limits means campaign contributions could soar (great graphic) | BHS GOPO |
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned an additional limit on the aggregate amount that an individual could give to candidates, party committees and PACs. Here's what it changes.
Connor Carter's curator insight, April 2, 2014 8:07 PM

I believe that with this new piece of legislation, the wealthy will have more control over the election process, therefore making the powerful more powerful and denying the poor a voice in political decision-making.

Laurence Zhang's curator insight, April 4, 2014 12:40 AM

US Supreme Court's new ruling allows for individuals to donate to as many candidates as they want. I disagree with their ruling. This will only lead to money playing a larger role in politics.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:47 AM

The ability for someone to pay for multiple candidates gives particular parties more power over others. I believe this will disproportionately support the Republican party as I would tend to lean towards the assumption that Republicans are typically the "Top 10%" and would thus be more likely to donate more money to have a politician support their point of view. 

Rescooped by Benjamin Dischinger from AP Government & Politics!

BY 4/3 -- 5 celebs who sold Obamacare best

BY 4/3 -- 5 celebs who sold Obamacare best | BHS GOPO |
The White House has recruited more than 40 celebrities, and some of their moms, to encourage Americans to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. These celebs sold it best.

Via Teresa Herrin
Benjamin Dischinger's insight:

Of all the celebrities that were taken on to help push the ACA, I feel that the President did it the best. In his interviews with Ellen Degeneres and Zach Galifinakis, the President went along with what was going on and played it cool while at the same time, emphasizing the message of signing up for the ACA.

Colin Shi's curator insight, April 5, 2014 4:23 PM

These five celebrities have successfully promoted the Affordable Care Act. While effective, these means are often frowned upon because they seem more like doing a commercial for a piece of government legislation, and should be counted as propaganda. You should be going for the product, not the celebrity name.

Mel Mountain Du's curator insight, April 6, 2014 6:53 PM

This is a very intelligent and effective way for the President to endorse and the Affordable Care Act, as well as gain the public's admiration. This reaches out to the young demographic, especially.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:53 AM

President Obama's attempt to gain support for the ACA by having famous celebrities like Ellen and Jennifer Hudson support it, help the ACA reach its goal. As the younger generation would be the population that would pay the most in the system for the proportion that they take out, then President Obama aiming to have the younger generation join with the support of celebrities is very strategic.

Scooped by Benjamin Dischinger!

BY 4/3 -- Obama's Tuesday's Address about ACA Enrollments (NBC News Video)

BY 4/3 -- Obama's Tuesday's Address about ACA Enrollments (NBC News Video) | BHS GOPO |
Watch the latest news videos and episodes of the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. - NBC News
Benjamin Dischinger's insight:

I feel like this speech was inspired by the 'heat of the moment' because of the overall tone that was conveyed through that short clip. The President has all the right to be happy for himself and his administration because of what they've done, however, bashing the Republican Party in the process may not have been the best decision. In a divided government, the goal is to make less enemies and more friends, this may have done the opposite. Other than that, I believe that the ACA will be hugely successful in the future based on its recent success in the recent past. 

Colin Shi's curator insight, April 4, 2014 11:34 PM

At this moment, president Obama is extremely pleased about the progress in the Affordability Care Act since last October. More than 7 million have signed up, and many problems, both technical and logistical, have been diagnosed since the launch. Obama sees this progress positively and accuses Republicans for obstructing progress, that history only remembers those who promote progress. Obama, like any politician, but remain confident in his own agenda, even though he may know the program is overly complicated, and has a huge potential for chaos in the coming years.

Mel Mountain Du's curator insight, April 6, 2014 6:56 PM

With 7.1 million sign-ups at, it appears that Obama is recovering from his disastrous opening. It is still unclear if enough young, healthy people have signed up, in order to balance the healthcare budget. What he really needs now, though, is Democratic support.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:32 AM

Healthcare is a basic human right guaranteed by the United Nation's Deceleration of Human Rights. At the point that the United States is one of the only developed nations in the world that doesn't have a universal healthcare system, the 3 million people that got Medicare through Obamacare allows the US to reach this goal.

Rescooped by Benjamin Dischinger from AP Government & Politics!

DUE BY 3/13 @ 11:59 pm -- Edward Snowden looms over Pulitzer Prizes

DUE BY 3/13 @ 11:59 pm -- Edward Snowden looms over Pulitzer Prizes | BHS GOPO |
Next month, the trustees who oversee America’s most distinguished journalistic award could face their toughest decision in at least four decades. The issue before the Pulitzer Prize Board: Does it honor reporting by The Washington Post and The Guardian based on stolen government documents that are arguably detrimental to the national security...

Via Teresa Herrin
Benjamin Dischinger's insight:

Snowden was a former employee of the National Security Agency and of the Central Intelligence Agency. He is known for his stealing and leaking of thousands of classified documents to a large number of media outlets. The documents were pertaining to global surveillance conducted by the United States and various other surveillance programs being conducted in several different countries. That is the source of uproar in his nomination for the Pulitzer Prize. Some believe he is a thief for taking classified information that belonged to the United States and publishing it for everyone to see while others believe that he is deserving of the Pulitzer Prize for his 'second to none' journalism. 

Laura Ojinnaka's curator insight, March 18, 2014 9:59 PM

Edward Snowden is a government contractor that worked at an NSA center. He was a three-month employee of a government consulting firm, Booz Allen Hamilton. His controversy was that he leaked information regarding top-secret government surveillance programs. He leaked National Security Agency (NSA) documents to The Guardian and The Washington Post regarding top-secret government surveillance programs.

carly johnson's curator insight, March 21, 2014 5:04 PM

Snowden revealed many of the NSA's documents to the media and other countries. He was charged with stealing government property and basically treason, because he revealed information to other countries. He was in another country when he was found out and has been in Russia on a one year asylum. Many americans view him as a traitor while others view him as a hero. Some think that the people had a right to know what he has disclosed and the government shouldn't of hid it. 

Tiffany Sabbaghi's curator insight, March 23, 2014 3:29 PM

(Absent on 3/13 and 3/14)

Edward Snowden is known for being an American computer specialist and the former employee of the CIA, as well as a former contractor for the NSA. He became "famous" for disclosing extremely classified documents to other media outlets. The documents he leaked revealed classified details of global surveillance programs run by the NSA. The controversy surrounding Edward Snowden concerns whether what he did was right or wrong and whether the issue of national security vs. information privacy is taken into account and if he should get punished, even though he has been charged. 

Rescooped by Benjamin Dischinger from AP Government & Politics!

Young Guns gear up for next fight

Young Guns gear up for next fight | BHS GOPO |
The Republican “Young Guns” are ready to rule, if they get the chance. Since they first got the name seven years ago, allies and enemies of Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy are now beginning to jockey to prepare for potential changes at the top of the Republican power structure in the House. Though publicly Speaker John Boehner...

Via Teresa Herrin
Benjamin Dischinger's insight:

Upon reading the title of the article, 'Young Guns gear up for next fight', I immediately thought of Paul Ryan, thinking that he was in his early 30's, but when I read the article in depth, I saw that he along with McCarthy and Cantor are all in their 40's and 50's. I guess reading it from an age standpoint, they seem old, but from a political experience standpoint they are just getting started. The GOP has some strong people in the House and unless the Democrats can step up and run with them, the GOP will be retaining their grasp on the House.

Colin Shi's curator insight, March 10, 2014 2:58 AM

Speaker John Boehner and his other Republican leaders of the House, dubbed the "Young Guns", plan to revamp the party power structure. Eric Cantor, the Majority Leader, is from Virginia, and he is the next most powerful man in the House. The right respects him as he's taken serious action on fiscal matters, yet has garnered criticism from the party as well. Meanwhile, McCarthy, the Majority whip, is an affable leader, able to unite a divided GOP, and is confident that the party is headed to a more effective future. The last of the three, Paul Ryan, has risen the fastest, planning to either lead the Ways and Means Committee or run for the presidency in 2016. He's young, motivated, and well known, which should give him a strong support base against opponents. These "Young Guns" pledge loyalty to Boehner, and are willing to serve as long as Boehner remains speaker.

Matt Philipps's curator insight, March 10, 2014 11:30 AM

The article talks about the future of these 3 promising republicans who are referred to as the Young Guns. Gives insight to the future of the 3 and what the possibilities of their next move  may be . If Boehner leaves office, Contor is a shoe in for the Speaker spot. Kevin McCarthy may become majority leader and Paul Ryan may take the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee or take a run for president. This article gives a great look at their current positions in the ranks of the GOP and gives an excellent and accurate look of what the future for these young men holds.

Ashley O.'s comment, March 11, 2014 11:00 PM
Oops... I didnt realize this till now but two of them are currrently ymajority leaders. That picture quiz helped me realize that.
Scooped by Benjamin Dischinger!

BY 4/3 -- Everything you need to know about McCutcheon v. FEC

BY 4/3 -- Everything you need to know about McCutcheon v. FEC | BHS GOPO |
A giant campaign finance case gets decided.
Benjamin Dischinger's insight:

If the Supreme Court abolishes limits set on campaign contributions, essentially everyone who has the funds to do so will be part of a giant Super-PAC. That PAC being themselves alone because they can donate as much as they want to whomever they want, thus making Super-PAC's obsolete and making more candidates happy. 

Liang Xiao's curator insight, April 4, 2014 12:12 AM

The case is about the Campaign donation limitation. People can only donate limit amount of money for certain candidate right now, which around $2500. McCutcheon, a business man stated that the limitation of campaign donation was violation to the first Amendment, which about the free expression. He said that donation was part of people's right of expressing. For my own opnions, I don't support the idea which take out the limitation of donation. It will increase the power of rich, which they can be more influential than weak. I think it break the balance between people.

Mel Mountain Du's curator insight, April 6, 2014 7:09 PM

McCutcheon says laws setting donation limits are a violation of the First Amendment: Free Speech and Expression. Backed by the Republican National Committee, he opposes the notion the FEC argues, that the laws are there to protect against corruption. This may very well be the next Citizens United.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:28 AM

After having a debate topic on the implications of Citizens United v FCC last January on the impacts of political process, a similar court case intrigues me. While I feel like the implications of Citizens United v FCC gave more ground and power in regards to the wealthy having power.

Scooped by Benjamin Dischinger!

BY 4/3 -- Supreme Court strikes down limits on campaign donations

BY 4/3 -- Supreme Court strikes down limits on campaign donations | BHS GOPO |
A split Supreme Court Wednesday strikes down limits on the total amount of money an individual may spend on political candidates, parties and political action committees but keeps limits per candidate and per committee.
Benjamin Dischinger's insight:

I feel that there should not be any limits set on the amount of money one person can give because when it comes down to it, money plays an important part in the game of politics, but in the end it's not the money that wins elections. What wins elections is the drive of the candidates to make a better place for their constituents and their non-constituents alike. 

Max Lau's curator insight, April 2, 2014 3:34 PM

I would agree with McCutcheon that corporations shouldn't be limited in donating money to candidates. While it was nice that the Supreme Court removed the limit for the number of candidates allowed to donate to, I believe they should have also removed the limit cap for the amount of money each candidate can receive from a single corporation. The limiting of money prevents the corporations and people from giving their full support toward their wanted candidates, thus limiting their freedom to express their opinions, which violates the first amendment.

Henry's comment, April 2, 2014 5:01 PM
I would agree with McCutcheon because an individual should have the right to donate as much money as they want to candidates that they support and shouldn't be limited to it. Limiting them to a certain amount of donation violates the first amendment of freedom of speech and I totally hella against that.
Colin Shi's curator insight, April 2, 2014 7:26 PM

I agree with McCutcheon's decision to donate as much as he wants because this is a completely legitimate way to show support for a candidate. The donation amounts are all public information, so it's not like this is illegal activity. The amount you give is proportional to the amount of support you have, although there could be given limitations of financial resources for some candidates. 

Rescooped by Benjamin Dischinger from AP Government & Politics!

BY 4/3 -- At 49 Percent Support, Obamacare Hits a High (Includes PDF with full poll results, charts and tables)

BY 4/3 -- At 49 Percent Support, Obamacare Hits a High (Includes PDF with full poll results, charts and tables) | BHS GOPO |
Public support for the Affordable Care Act narrowly notched a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, while criticism of Barack Obama’s handling of the law’s rollout – although still substantial – has eased from its peak last fall. Views hardly are enthusiastic: With the year’s sign-up deadline upon us, Americans split on Obamacare, 49 percent in support, 48 percent opposed. But that compares with a 40-57 percent negative rating after the initial failure of the federal enrollment website last November. See PDF with full results, charts and tables here. While still shy of a majority, 49 percent…

Via Teresa Herrin
Benjamin Dischinger's insight:

I find it fairly surprising that a substantial percentage of the Republican Party stand by the law issued by the President. I also feel that if the Republican party tries to roll out a similar law, that support for the ACA will not change as drastically as they think it will. If it took this much poking and prodding to get people to sign up once, what makes them think that people will do it all again?


Kevin Suazo's curator insight, April 4, 2014 12:51 AM

1. 49% of Americans are in support of Obamacare while 48% remained opposed to it make this rating the highest one to date. Obama continues to receive criticism for the laws implementation.Views on the law have shifted disproportionately among conservatives.

2.The shift within the conservatives is very surprising to me especially the 10 points among strong conservatives and the  8 points among conservative Republicans. I think this shift is a definite plus for Obama and that he's making decent progress. 

Mel Mountain Du's curator insight, April 6, 2014 7:13 PM
Recovering from a low of 40% following the failure, the Affordable Care Act has reached a new high of 49%, just above the 48% opposed. Even Republicans and Conservatives have decreased their opposition. However, with a sample of only 1000, and an error of 3.5 points, I would question the accuracy of this poll.
Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 10:23 AM

President Obama is making a very good move in trying to create more support for the "Affordable Care Act" by trying to gain young support. By going to shows like "Between Two Ferns" President Obama gained the support he would need to reach the 7 million Americans he would need. 

Scooped by Benjamin Dischinger!

BY 4/3 -- READ SCOOP INSTRUCTIONS BELOW -- Death of the White House Press Corps

BY 4/3 -- READ SCOOP INSTRUCTIONS BELOW -- Death of the White House Press Corps | BHS GOPO |
With a Twitter-savvy president and their own ailing media companies, Lloyd Grove finds the boys in the briefing room more depressed than ever.
Benjamin Dischinger's insight:

1. 4/03/10

2. Press corps are news correspondents sent to cover what goes on inside and outside of the White House for official news purposes.

3. The information that can be accessed about the President and the White House alike is no longer strictly 'official' information thanks to the internet.

4. Twitter: 1.7 Million.  Facebook: 500,000.

5. Grove is concerned that the information that we receive about the White House and the President is no longer as official as it used to be. With the innovation of Twitter and Facebook, people can post anything be it true or not. In the age of technology we live in, posts about something that are said to be official and look as official as any other one could be some random guy in his basement posting something instead of the post coming directly from the official source.

6. On the scale from 1 to 5 provided, I would rate my concern with a 2. I know that it is quite possible to make things up and say that they came from somewhere else, but we live in an evolving world and with the technological resources and money at the disposal of the federal government, it is highly unlikely that this will be a big problem. Looking at the date on this article and seeing that it is from 4 years ago also provides me with some hope. In 4 years, hackers have definitely advanced with new technology and more skill, but then at the same time, so has the security at the White House. It's all about adapting and if you can't adapt, you don't have any reason to get caught up with any of this. 

Colin Shi's curator insight, April 4, 2014 11:09 PM

1. April 3, 2010

2. The white house press corps is the group in charge of media coverage of the president, that interprets and presents the president's image to the public.

3. The president can directly present himself to the public without a middleman that filters and interprets the information.

4. 42.4 million followers on Twitter, 39 million likes on facebook

5. The author is concerned that the job of the white house press corps is going obsolete. This trend may have significant consequences because the president will likely present himself with a personal bias, sometimes even called a "hagiography". Not having press conferences also presents a problem because it will no longer give the public a clear picture of the president.

6. I am pretty concerned about an age in which the president is able to present himself freely to the public. I feel that the president's use of social media outlets to communicate often gives us an attitude of insincerity. With this lack of professionalism, traditional values unravel, and the general public loses trust in the president. One may argue that the media filter distorts his message, but provided that they have reliable expertise, they should still be able to do the job better than the president himself. Although bias is prevalent regardless of who presents the president in the media, having an outside source should mitigate bias to some extent. Score: 3.

Mel Mountain Du's curator insight, April 6, 2014 6:44 PM

1. 4/3/14

2. Media correspondents and journalists deployed in the White House who's job is to cover events and announcements by the POTUS.

3. A filterless Presidency is when the Whitehouse can directly communicate with the public without a 3rd party in media.

4. Obama currently has 42.3 million Twitter followers, and 39 Million Facebook Followers.

5.The Author's concern is that the Press Corp's niche is dissapearing due to social Media such as Twitter and Facebook. This means that the President can dictate the direction of the conversation, instead of being asked questions by the media. The author fears that this will lead to the President becoming too favorably viewed and unquestioned.

6. I am a (2), only somewhat concerned. A very large part of Obama's appeal is his charisma. The Press Corp will be the most upset about it, and that is fine by me. I believe this will at least be positive in the sense that the President will have a more personal dialogue with the American Public. This is an adaptation of the Obama Administration to keep up with the times.

Nathan Hiransomboon's curator insight, April 7, 2014 11:10 AM

1. 04.03.10

2. Members of President Obama's staff that would typically cover his actions and deal with public relations

3. A Presidency where there is an unprecedented level of transparency

4. Facebook: 39,767,002

Twitter: 42.4M

5. President Obama is a unique President in how he addressed social media. Not only does he want to a lot of PR himself, but this puts his Press Corps  in danger. He strays away from the norm of other presidents.

6. (1) President Obama was elected for his first term for his connection that he made with the youth. Not only was he able to have the youth come out and vote, although they typically wouldn't, but he also gained the support of African Americans to vote as well. This is extremely strategic in how he was first elected. This trait if being personable is a trait that wouldn't necessarily be something needed by other Presidents, thus the need for the Press Corps to exist. However just because they roles and jobs may be in danger doesn't mean that any concern should exist. 

Rescooped by Benjamin Dischinger from AP Government & Politics!

Feinstein Is Right. The CIA’s Out of Control.

Feinstein Is Right. The CIA’s Out of Control. | BHS GOPO |
Five years of frustration boiled over when Sen. Dianne Feinstein flayed the CIA on the Senate floor Tuesday. She accused the agency of lying, cheating and stealing to block a 6,300-page report on the CIA’s secret prisons and torture from seeing the light of day. In essence, she said, the CIA was spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s...

Via Teresa Herrin
Benjamin Dischinger's insight:

1. Senator Feinstein is a California Senator and Chairman of the  United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. After the 2013 mass surveillance disclosure involving the National Security Agency she took measures to keep the program going.  

2.She accused the CIA of lying and cheating to cover up a 6,300 page report on secret prisons and torture.

3.The secret prisons and torture that has come to light was supposedly 'banned' by President Obama in 2009, but evidently are still being used in the 'Intelligence Toolbox'. 

4.I think it was the right thing to do on Feinstein's part. We the people are supposed to be able to trust in our government and although people don't usually dabble in the affairs of the CIA, it is our right as citizens to know what is going on. It is like Senator Feinstein sees America as her constituents and she's doing us a service by bringing the CIA's 'slip-ups' to light.

Laura Ojinnaka's curator insight, March 18, 2014 10:13 PM

Senator Feinstein is a democratic senator from California and the head of the intelligence committee. She is accusing the CIA of criminal activity in improperly searching a computer network set up for lawmakers investigating allegations that the agency used torture in terror investigations.

This is newsworthy because the CIA is over stepping their boundaries, and engaging in illegal behavior.

I agree with the senator and believe that Senate committee should have access to the CIA's files, if they are indeed committing crimes, and should be monitored. 

carly johnson's curator insight, March 22, 2014 10:47 PM

Feinstein is a senator to California and has led the intelligence committee for 5 years. She claims that CIA agents have been spying on hearings and going through their files. She believes they are using this to cover up things that they have done. Accusing the CIA of this is a big accusation, so the media is widely covering this. This could cause a big investigation, and regulations to be changed. I think when the government starts spying on itself to cover things up that the deceit and spying has gone too far. The CIA should be investigated and be held accountable.

Tiffany Sabbaghi's curator insight, March 23, 2014 3:47 PM

(Absent on 3/13 and 3/14)

Senator Feinstein is the senior United States Senator from California and member of the democratic party, she is also head of the intelligence committee. 

She has accused the CIA of lying, cheating, and also stealing to block 6300 page report on the CIA's secret prisons and torture. She has said that the agency is guilty of spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee's staff in order to cover it's own misdeeds.

This information is newsworthy because of the fact that President Barack Obama banned the prisons due to the torture. According to her, they are essentially breaking the law and working on their own agenda.

I think that Senator Feinstein is doing the right thing by exploiting the actions of the CIA, since their tactics of getting information has always been controversial due to all the senseless torturing and spying. I think she is doing her part in trying to protect her constituents. 

Rescooped by Benjamin Dischinger from AP Government & Politics!

9 questions about Ukraine you were too embarrassed to ask

9 questions about Ukraine you were too embarrassed to ask | BHS GOPO |
Yes, the first question is "What is Ukraine?"

Via Teresa Herrin
Benjamin Dischinger's insight:

It seems like Ukraine and Russia are on the brink of civil war as it is. With fine divisions between two peoples in one country it seems like Ukraine is two separate countries already. When I read the article and look at the maps, it makes me think of a sibling rivalry in that two siblings will get along together most of the time, but sometimes there are those days when you're at each other's throats about something. In this particular case, one sibling wants something and the other wants something else, and when they both in unison say, "MOM", they get a bias mother siding with one of the two siblings. Perhaps an outer source may be able to bring some peace to the crisis, but in the volatile state of the country, perhaps the issue-solving should be kept within the family. 

Max Lau's curator insight, March 10, 2014 1:05 AM

I believe that the US should try to keep a neutral stance in the situation and continue to act as a mediator. A strong interference by pushing for one side or by using military force could easily sway public opinion against the US and leave them with enemies. This might also result in a severe case of public disorder in Ukraine or might incite Russia to outright invade. By continuing to stay neutral, the US will avoid a major crisis.

Weiyi Wang's curator insight, March 10, 2014 1:27 AM

Based on the strict cultural and political divide of the eastern and western portions of Ukraine, conflicts like these are to be expected. Foreign meddling is what caused the conflict in the first place, so it probably won't be the solution. US intervention would put even greater strain on the US-Russia relationship, and will probably be unnecessary seeing how the Yanukovych has not used military force against the protesters as of yet. Since the deal with the EU was so important both economically and politically, the unrest was inevitable, but will probably play out without instigating a civil war.

Colin Shi's curator insight, March 10, 2014 2:35 AM

This article has shed light on the historical and cultural context that served as the backdrop of this current conflict. The US has been put in a rather difficult situation: to either intervene on the West's behalf to protect its own interests while risking sour foreign relations and perhaps outright conflict with Russia, or to watch Russia attempt to regain its fallen empire, as Russia would gain valuable natural resources and a strategic coastline along the Black Sea. Thus, I believe that to best preserve US intentions, the US must not immediately deploy troops into this hotly-contested nation, nor should it merely watch the situation unfold. Through the UN, NATO, or other global and western alliances, the US should hope to limit Russian encroachment through sanctions, compromises, or treaties. Seeing the obvious dichotomy of the nation, I don't mind seeing Ukraine split, an action that would reduce tensions in either half. Military force should be used only as a last resort in case the established agreements are violated.