What’s all this talk about a “nuclear option,” you ask?

Is it the Russians? The Iranians? Is the Cold War back with a vengeance?

No, it’s probably just the media trying its hardest to make a story about parliamentary procedure sound interesting.

Yes, there has been intense media sensationalism surrounding the change in the Senate Filibuster rule.

This change will require only a majority of votes for executive and non-Supreme-Court judicial nominations (in contrast to the 60% required now).

Majority doesn’t seem so bad, right?  Some are not so sure… the rule change is likely to cause major changes in the way the Senate does business, during this Congress and those elected in the future.

For one, many long-standing vacancies on federal courts and agencies will now be filled. Hopefully, this will allow the government and the court system to run more efficiently.

But many political analysts believe the rule change will have broader more precarious consequences.

According to Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, the filibuster for legislation might be on the way out as well:

The filibuster now exists in what you might call an unstable equilibrium. It theoretically forces a 60-vote threshold on important legislation. But it can — and now, in part, has —been undone with 51 votes. Its only protection was the perceived norm against using the 51-vote option. Democrats just blew that norm apart. The moment one party or the other filibusters a consequential and popular bill, that’s likely the end of the filibuster, permanently.

Is this really “the end of the filibuster?”

Should pure majority rule come to the Senate, as it exists in the House?

Will Congress be more or less dysfunctional post-nuke?

Let us know what you think in the comments section below.

Nestled in a small valley, the Bosnian town of Zenica is pretty grim.

Chimney smoke bellowing from a steel plant pollutes the air, and the number of cancer patients doubled between 2002 and 2011.

Couldn’t get worse than that, right?

Imagine you are in a prison in this town.

This past week, Vice Magazine took a look inside the largest incarceration facility in Bosnia, which is located in Zenica. With the enormous pollution problem and a low prison-maintenance budget, you can imagine how terrible life is for the inmates.

Check out some of these scary stories:

• An inmate who was diagnosed with several psychological disorders swallowed a rusty spoon that ripped through the muscles in his stomach to receive medical attention for the tumor on his abdomen. After his request wasn’t granted, the inmate swallowed another spoon.
• Many of the inmates have nicknames based on the objects they’ve used to harm themselves, such as razorblades, scissors and needles.
• An inmate spent a freezing cold night in a tree while his fellow prisoner’s cheered him on below. 
• One inmate, who was jailed for stealing food for his orphaned siblings, was promised a stack of cigars in exchange for sex. He sought legal counsel after he was raped instead. Even though the inmate didn’t receive the cigars, the legal officials “concluded that the sexual act couldn’t qualify as rape because it was part of an agreed transaction of goods.”

Furthermore, the prison guards seem to view escape attempts as “acts of attention seeking.”  Here’s a description from the reporter who visited the prison:

The officers tend to have a pretty shallow understanding of prisoners’ behavior; they receive a minimal amount of training and any instructional sessions they get while on the job are organized sporadically by NGOs. There are also rumors that—as with many other professions in Bosnia’s public sector—you can buy a position as a prison guard. I don’t expect every guard to be an empathetic superhuman with a psychology degree, but clearly this isn’t a situation that attracts the best candidates for the job.

We are aware that prisons are not meant to be 4 star hotels. But how bad is too bad when it comes to a prison’s living conditions? Is this a rightful punishment, or is this a violation of human rights?

Since the 1970s, China has been defined by its one-child policy.

Since last Friday, the Chinese government is now allowing parents to have a second child if one of the parents is themselves a single-child.

The new ruling was released by the Communist Party Central Committee and dubbed by the Wall Street Journal “the most dramatic policy change out of leaders’ recent party conclave”.

 Don’t expect a huge spike yet. Wang Pei’an, deputy director of the National Health and Family Planning Commission (NHFPC), noted that the new policy will not apply to a huge portion of the population.

Currently, the population 60 years and older makes up 14.3% of the population. In 2050, over one third of the Chinese population is expected to be over 60.

With this growing age group, labor shortages are inevitable. The loosened one-child policy may be a response to this looming crisis.

If anything, we can guarantee at least one thing- Chinese family reunions might now need a little extra food.

Picture courtesy of the Canada Free Press

Once again, the United States and Russia are competing for influence in the Middle East.

In a Cold War-like dynamic, Russia has swooped into Egypt, filling the void that the U.S. has left.

Marking the highest level visit to Egypt by a Russian delegation in years, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigui began talks with Egyptian officials in mid-November over possible arms deals and defense cooperation – which are rumored to be worth as much as $2 billion. 

In October, the U.S. cut military and economic aid to Egypt in response to the crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood.  Now, Russia is brokering a weapons deal with Egyptian defense officials.

Coincidence? We think not. 

Don’t let the headlines fool you, however.  The U.S. didn’t cut all aid to Egypt – rather, a relatively small portion of the $1.55 billion it gives to Egypt annually – by withholding  tanks, fighter aircraft, and missiles, as well as $260 million in economic cash aid. 

(Here is a breakdown of the aid the United States gives to Egypt.)

The U.S. has been criticized for sending a mixed message. The small cuts in aid were largely symbolic – by no means did the cuts constitute a crippling sanction intended to force a peaceful, democratic process, nor was the warning serious enough to take Egyptian officials aback. 

Egypt has remained a vital interest for the United States because of its peace treaty with Israel and access to the Suez Canal – both of which the U.S. has risked by cutting aid. 

As with Syria, Russian officials have expressed that they do not believe in intervening in Egyptian Affairs.  Here lies their advantage: it’s just business. 

Should the U.S. proceed with “hands off” to keep its influence?

1. Read and write, no matter how hard it gets.
2. Get to know your professors.
3. Figure out how to get some of Dr. Bryan’s rhybarb pie.