E.U. Ministers Approve Venezuela Arms Embargo


By KIRK SEMPLE and CLIFFORD KRAUSSNOV. 13, 2017


CARACAS, Venezuela — The foreign ministers of the European Union approved an arms embargo against Venezuela on Monday as part of what they called “restrictive measures” to pressure the administration of President Nicolás Maduro to strengthen the rule of law and democracy.

The ministers also established the legal framework for sanctions, including travel bans and the freezing of assets, against government officials, a step the Trump administration has taken against dozens of Venezuelan government officials, including Mr. Maduro.

But the ministers stopped short of naming any specific officials who might be subject to such penalties, saying they still hoped Venezuela could find a “peaceful negotiated way” out of its economic and political crises.

“The primary responsibility for ending the crisis in Venezuela lies in the country,” the ministers said in a statement. “The E.U. calls upon the government to urgently restore democratic legitimacy, including through free and fair elections, and on the opposition to continue engaging in a united manner towards a negotiated solution to the current tensions, in the interest of the country.”

Opposition leaders in Venezuela announced last week that they planned to resume stalled face-to-face negotiations with the Maduro administration this week in the Dominican Republic. The opposition said it was intent on establishing conditions for a fair and democratic presidential election next year.Continue reading the main story

The new European pressure on Venezuela comes as the country reels from an economic crisis that has caused near-quadruple-digit inflation, driven up poverty rates, ruined public services and depleted stocks in grocery stores and pharmacies, causing widespread hardship and compelling the emigration of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans.

Though Mr. Maduro is widely unpopular, he has used the judiciary and other divisions of government to tighten his hold on power, jail prominent critics and demoralize the opposition, which has suffered deep schisms following a dismal showing in regional elections last month in which the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela was able to buttress its dominance.

The European Union’s foreign ministers cited those elections, which were scarred by allegations of fraud and electoral trickery, as an impetus for its decision on Monday, and they called on the Maduro administration to allow “a comprehensive and independent audit” of the results.

“These developments have accentuated the political polarization in the country,” the group said.

In a statement, the Maduro administration called the new European restrictions “illegal, absurd and ineffective.”

Also on Monday, the government, seeking to ease Venezuela’s economic crisis and avoid a default, began talks in Caracas on renegotiating a crushing foreign debt that has drained its treasury of money to import food and medicine.

Though many major investors around the world balked at an invitation to the meeting, citing safety concerns amid the capital’s violence and the possibility they could run afoul of American sanctions, scores of bondholders or their representatives attended the hourlong gathering. It was held at a regal government building here known as the White Palace.

But government officials at the meeting presented no firm proposals to attendees, Reuters reported, and no future gatherings were scheduled. That left bondholders and analysts struggling to figure out whether the Maduro administration had any sort of strategy to resolve its debt problem.

“I don’t think they have a fully constructed plan,” said Diego Ferro, an executive at Greylock Capital, an investment house that holds Venezuelan bonds though its representatives did not attend the meeting. “To organize this meeting in Caracas at this moment seemed to be more of a political statement on their part than to have a really constructive dialogue. Nothing should really surprise.”

Mr. Maduro has said he hopes to restructure Venezuela’s $63 billion in bonds, most of them issued by the government and the state-run oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, known as Pdvsa. He has made payments on the country’s foreign debt a cornerstone of his economic policy, even at the expense of food, medicine and other critical imports for the country.

Over the weekend, Mr. Maduro reiterated that commitment, according to news services, declaring that Venezuela would “never” declare default.Photo

But many analysts both in Venezuela and abroad have questioned the sincerity of Mr. Maduro’s attempt to refinance the debt, saying that were he indeed serious, he would not have named Tareck El Aissami, his vice president, as head of the effort. The Trump administration imposed sanctions on Mr. El Aissami this year, barring American financial institutions from doing business with him.

All told, Venezuela owes more than $120 billion, including the bond debts, oil payments to Russia and China and outstanding claims by oil service companies.

Further complicating the economic picture for Venezuela, its crude production has dropped below two million barrels per day, to its lowest point in 28 years. Oil is the government’s main source of revenue.

The economic and political pressures on Venezuela were also underscored on Monday at the United Nations, where the Security Council held an informal meeting to discuss the deteriorating situation in Venezuela and its threat to regional stability.

Notably absent was Venezuela’s ambassador, Rafael Ramírez, who held a news conference in which he denounced the meeting as “a hostile act” by the United States and a violation of Venezuela’s sovereignty.

“We will resolve our issues on our own and in peace,” he declared in a Twitter post.

China and Russia, both Security Council members, refused to attend, suggesting that any push by the United States and others for Council action on Venezuela would probably meet strong resistance.

Separately in New York, a derivatives industry trade organization met to discuss Venezuela’s debt situation and whether late bond payments earlier this month from Petróleos de Venezuela constituted a so-called credit event. Such a determination by the group, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, might allow debt holders to collect on a kind of insurance against default known as credit default swaps.

The group postponed its decision until Tuesday.

My Opinion:

Audience:

The article would probably be targeting Americans who have a special connection to the Venezuelan crisis or are generally interested in South America or the European Union.

Bias:

This article seemed to pretty strongly support the EU's decision to put pressure on the Venezuelan government. They seemed to be especially supportive of the Venezuelan citizens and the hardships they were enduring. They also seemed to support the US in their attempted talks with Venezuelan.

Opinion:

Coming into this article I knew almost nothing about the problems in Venezuela but after reading it seemed that the Venezuelan government was really in the wrong. This seems to be an accurate depiction of the situation. This also makes me very sad for the people in Venezuela.

Russia-linked posts 'reached 126m Facebook users in US'

Facebook has said as many as 126 million American users may have seen content uploaded by Russia-based operatives over the past two years.

The social networking site said about 80,000 posts were produced before and after the 2016 presidential election.

Most of the posts focused on divisive social and political messages.

Facebook released the figures ahead of two Senate hearings where it - together with Twitter and Google - will detail Russia's impact on the popular sites.

Russia has repeatedly denied allegations that it attempted to influence the last US presidential election, in which Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton.

In a separate major development on Monday, an investigation by independent counsel Robert Mueller into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia produced its first charges against two former aides. It also emerged that a third former aide had pleaded guilty in early October to lying to the FBI.

President Trump has dismissed allegations of collusion with Moscow, and has repeatedly called on Mrs Clinton to be investigated.

What is Facebook saying?

Facebook says some 80,000 posts were published between June 2015 and August 2017 and were seen by about 29 million Americans directly, according to a draft of prepared remarks seen by US media ahead of Tuesday's Senate hearing.

These posts, which Facebook says were created by a Kremlin-linked company, were amplified through likes, shares and comments and spread to tens of millions more people.

The company also said it had deleted 170 Instagram accounts, which posted about 120,000 pieces of content.

"These actions run counter to Facebook's mission of building community and everything we stand for," wrote Facebook's general counsel Colin Stretch.

"And we are determined to do everything we can to address this new threat."

In a blog post from earlier this month, Facebook's Elliot Schrage said that many of the posts did not violate the company's content policies. They were removed, he said, because they were inauthentic - the Russians behind the posts did not identify themselves as such.
What about other social networking sites?

Google also revealed on Monday that Russian trolls had uploaded more than 1,000 political videos on YouTube on 18 different channels. The company said they had very low view counts and there was no evidence they had been targeting American viewers.

Meanwhile, Twitter found and suspended all 2,752 accounts that it had tracked to the Russia-based Internet Research Agency, Reuters quotes a source as saying.

These accounts, which have now been suspended, posted about 131,000 tweets between September 2016 and November 2016.

Key recent developments:

Nov 2016: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg says "the idea that fake news on Facebook influenced the (US) election in any way is a pretty crazy idea"

Aug 2017: Facebook says it will fight fake news by sending more suspected hoax stories to fact-checkers and publishing their findings online

Oct 2017: Google finds evidence that Russian agents spent tens of thousands of dollars on ads in a bid to sway the election, reports say

Oct 2017: Twitter bans Russia's RT and Sputnik media outlets from buying advertising amid fears they attempted to interfere in the election

Getting short shrift

Dave Lee, BBC technology reporter, San Francisco

It's quite staggering how this problem, dismissed just over a year ago by Mark Zuckerberg as "crazy" talk, has exploded into a crisis at the world's biggest social network.

Apparently not learning from that mistake, we understand that the thrust of Facebook's message to various government committees this week will be that just one in 23,000 or so messages shared on the network were from the Russians.

It should not surprise Facebook if such a statement - an engineer's defence, you might say - gets short shrift from a panel already unsatisfied with some of what it's heard from the companies so far.

You won't see Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey or Google's executives answering questions this week. That job will be left up to their lawyers.

You wonder how long tech's great and powerful can get away with not personally standing up for the companies they built.

What is happening with the Russia inquiry?

Meanwhile, the White House on Monday sought to downplay the arrest of President Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and aide Rick Gates on money-laundering charges unrelated to the 2016 campaign.

Another of Mr Trump's campaign advisers, George Papadopoulos, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI over his contacts with Russia in the first such indictments by Robert Mueller's special counsel investigating alleged links between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said Mr Papadopoulos had been working in a "volunteer position" and "no activity was done in an official capacity".

Analysts say Mr Papadopoulos's case has the potential to damage the US leader, and that he may have been helping Mr Mueller's inquiries since his arrest in July - which was not made public until Monday.

What are the charges in Mr Mueller's investigation?

- Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and business associate Rick Gates both deny 12 charges, including conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy against the US

-They are alleged to have hidden millions of dollars in earnings acquired from Ukrainian politician Viktor Yanukovych and his pro-Russia party

-Both Mr Manafort and Mr Gates are currently under house arrest, on bail of $10m and $5m respectively

-Former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about the timing of meetings with alleged go-betweens for Russia

-He admitted to falsely claiming he had met two figures, including a London-based professor who was offering "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, before joining the Trump campaign when in fact he met them afterwards

My Opinion:

Audience:

The audience of this article is probably targeted to younger generation Americans who have been following the Russia scandal closely. Therefore they are probably mostly liberals. It also has significance to people around the world because if the globe's leading nation for a democratic government cannot hold fair elections it changes the way countries may choose to run their government.

Author Bias:

There is obviously a bias against the Trump administration and their collusion with Russia in the election but also in this article there is strong language against the way Mark Zukerberg handled the situation. 

My Bias:

I share similar feelings as this author about the Trump administration and how the election was carried out. I also agree that Mark Zukerberg was strange to deny Russian use of Facebook to impact the elections and even now reluctant to say much when facts have come out saying that the Russians did in fact use Facebook. 

After Niger, ramping up U.S. ‘aggression’ in Africa is a really, really bad idea

By Karen Attiah October 23 at 1:46 PM

Some of us Africa-watchers were hoping that Donald Trump and his administration, laden with military generals, would not set its sights on Africa. Apart from a reference to the imaginary nation of “Nambia,” Trump rarely mentions the continent, much less outlines a clear policy towards it. Now, more than two weeks after four U.S. green berets were killed in a mysterious ambush in Niger, it appears that the U.S. counterterrorism machine may be ramping up in Africa.

According to reports late last week, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told senior lawmakers that the U.S. military would shift its counterterrorism efforts to focus more on Africa.

When asked about Niger, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) of the Senate Committee on Armed Services said, “the war is morphing. You’re going to see more actions in Africa, not less; you’re going to see more aggression by the United States toward our enemies, not less; you’re going to have decisions being made not in the White House but out in the field.”

The Niger ambush only began to make headlines because of Trump’s failure to mention the attacks for 12 days, his reckless handling of a condolence call to Sgt. La David Johnson’s widow, and his Twitter attacks on Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.). Many unanswered questions remain about the mission that the troops embarked on. We still aren’t sure which armed group was responsible for the attack, whether the American troops were adequately armed, or why Johnson’s body was left behind in the desert for two days.

In the absence of answers, and a lack of a clear and coherent Africa strategy to begin with, ramping up U.S. military aggression in Africa sounds like a really, really bad idea right now.

To be fair, the Trump administration inherited an overmilitarized Africa policy from the Obama administration, which oversaw the expansion of the Africom regional command and special operations forces. Africa hosts the second largest regional contingent of special operations forces after the Middle East. The percent of special forces deployed to Africa rose from 3 percent to 17 percent between 2010 and 2016.

The Sahel is a region with porous borders and weak governments. As Joe Penney noted for Defense One in August about threats in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad, “year after year, Western and West African nations pour resources into military response to the growing insecurity in the region, with little results.” Responding to the attack in Niger, Rudy Atallah, who was once considered for a national security council appointment for Africa under Trump, told the Atlantic that Niger is particularly difficult for U.S. forces, noting that “we don’t have very good intelligence information on what the threat looks like or how it’s growing and [U.S. troops] don’t have the support of local population.”


If the administration plans to scale up its aggression against terrorism in Africa, it needs to be clearer about how that initiative complements that of France. “The French are the most engaged outside power in the region, and the U.S.A. originally became involved in both Mali and Niger to support French anti-terror initiatives,” said Naunihal Singh, an assistant professor at the Naval War College. He said it should be clearer how U.S. drone bases in Niger mesh with French strategic aims, and how French efforts to train military forces in the region complement U.S. training efforts.

If the last nine months are anything to go by, the Trump administration seems to have no idea what the heck it is doing in Africa, even when it comes to basic diplomacy. It was just a few months ago that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson infuriated African diplomats when he snubbed Moussa Faki, the head of the African Union, by cancelling their first Washington meeting at the last minute. The Trump administration has not yet nominated an assistant secretary of state for Africa, and there is currently no National Security Council senior director for Africa. It damaged relations with Chad, one of its most capable counterterrorism allies, by slapping a nonsensical travel ban on the country, since revoked. As a result, Chad withdrew hundreds of forces from Niger, where it was helping to combat Boko Haram.

On Thursday, asked about why U.S. troops were in Africa, White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly said, “They’re there working with partners … teaching them how to be better soldiers; teaching them how to respect human rights …” However on Friday, the Post reported that the Pentagon was adopting a “status-based targeting” system for suspected terrorists, meaning troops will be able to use lethal force against a suspected member of a terrorist organization even if that person does not pose an immediate threat.”


This should make anyone who cares about human rights and effective counterterror strategy quite nervous. Already, a number of the nations that the United States relies on in the war against terror have pretty dismal records when it comes to abuses against civilians. So what will happen when the Trump administration begins allowing U.S. forces to eliminate suspected targets who don’t pose an immediate threat? What message will this send to the armies that the U.S. is tasked with training? It’s not inconceivable to think that such a policy will give African governments a pass to commit abuses against civilians with more impunity.

Africa matters for global security. But African nations and Western powers need to be asking the right questions and setting clear counterterrorism objectives before embroiling themselves in unwinnable shadow wars.

My Opinion:

The Audience:

It seems pretty clear from the first sentence that the author is mainly targeting Americans who have some connection to Africa that makes them monitor the political aspects of it more closely. This may be immigrants, African-Americans or globally minded people who monitor the political atmosphere. Most of these people are probably middle aged (18-40) and are likely more liberal thinkers.

Author Bias:

There is an overwhelming bias by the author in this article against the Trump Administration and their decisions in Africa. We can see this from the first paragraph where it is pretty direct that they do not agree with Trump's actions. That is the obvious bias but there is also an overall pretty negative bias. The author criticizes the Obama administration and the West African governments quite a bit.

My Bias:

Going into this article I did not have any previous knowledge of the situation including the Niger incident so I did not have a specific bias on this issue. However, I tend to be pretty negative about the US and especially Trump's interactions with Africa so going into this article I assumed that it was a bad decision. At the end I still agree but I am probably less bias because I can see that there may be parts of these actions that have much more reason behind them than we know. 

My Opinion:

With all that is going on in West Africa it does not seem to be a good time to ramp up the military action in the region. However, I do believe that there maybe more to the story because it seems extreme, even for the Trump administration, to make a decision so big with so little facts. 

Iraqi forces enter Kirkuk as Kurds flee


Iraqi government forces have entered central Kirkuk after taking key installations outside the disputed city from Kurdish fighters.

Thousands of people fled the city ahead of the Iraqi advance.

The Iraqi military moved into Kirkuk three weeks after the Kurdistan Region held a controversial independence referendum.

They are aiming to retake areas under Kurdish control since Islamic State militants swept through the region.

Residents of Kurdish-controlled areas, including Kirkuk, overwhelmingly backed secession from Iraq in a 25 September vote.

While Kirkuk is outside Iraqi Kurdistan, Kurdish voters in the city were allowed to take part.

Iraq's prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, had denounced the vote as unconstitutional. But the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) insisted it was legitimate.

US officials said they were "engaged with all parties in Iraq to de-escalate tension".

Mr Abadi said in a statement on Monday that the operation in Kirkuk was necessary to "protect the unity of the country, which was in danger of partition" because of the referendum.

"We call upon all citizens to co-operate with our heroic armed forces, which are committed to our strict directives to protect civilians in the first place, and to impose security and order, and to protect state installations and institutions," he added.

On Monday, the Iraqi military said its units had taken control of the K1 military base, the Baba Gurgur oil and gas field, and a state-owned oil company's offices.

The government in Baghdad said the Peshmerga had withdrawn "without fighting". However, clashes were reported to the south, and the sound of gunfire was caught by a BBC cameraman as a team filmed near a checkpoint.

By afternoon, as thousands of people fled the city fearing impending clashes between the two sides, Iraqi military vehicles were rolling into the heart of Kirkuk. A picture shared on social media appeared to show Iraqi forces sitting in the governor's office.

Forces pulled down the Kurdish flag which had been flying alongside the national flag, according to Reuters.

Mr Abadi had ordered the flag to fly over all disputed territories.

The speed with which Iraqi forces reached the centre of the city has led the two main armed Kurdish parties to accuse the other of "betrayal".

The Peshmerga General Command, which is led by President Massoud Barzani of the ruling Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), accused officials from Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) of aiding " the plot against the people of Kurdistan".

But the PUK have denied being part of ordering any withdrawal, saying dozens of their fighters had been killed and hurt, but noted "not even one KDP Peshmerga has been martyred as of yet in the fighting in Kirkuk".

Meanwhile Turkey, which fears Kurdish independence in Iraq could lead to similar calls from its own Kurdish minority, praised Baghdad, saying it was "ready for any form of co-operation with the Iraqi government in order to end the PKK presence in Iraqi territory".

The PKK - or Kurdistan Workers' Party - is a Turkish-Kurdish rebel group which has been fighting for autonomy since the 1980s. It is considered a terrorist group by Turkey as well as by the EU and US.

Why is Kirkuk at the heart of this Kurdish crisis?

Kirkuk is an oil-rich province claimed by both the Kurds and the central government. It is thought to have a Kurdish majority, but its provincial capital has large Arab and Turkmen populations.

Kurdish Peshmerga forces took control of much of the province in 2014, when Islamic State (IS) militants swept across northern Iraq and the Iraq army collapsed.

The Iraqi parliament asked Mr Abadi to deploy troops to Kirkuk and other disputed areas after the referendum result was announced, but he said last week that he would accept them being governed by a "joint administration" and that he did not want an armed confrontation.

On Sunday, his cabinet accused the KRG of deploying non-Peshmerga fighters in Kirkuk, including members of the PKK, which it said was tantamount to a "declaration of war". But KRG officials denied this.

My Response:

The intended audience for this article seems to be people from Turkey as they would be directly affected, the UK as it is the BBC and the United States because this also affects those living there. It is probably written to those between 18 and 60 because they would be more likely to be interested in this topic and concerned enough about the world to read it. Although the article is about Iraq, I do not think it was intended for Iraqi people as it was quite negative about both of the groups. It talked about the blame game of the Kurds and the somewhat selfish aspect of the current government. However, in this article the author did seem to have a slight bias towards the Iraq government and their hopes to keep the nation unified. We can see this in the fact that he was very critical of how the Kurdish leadership was acting and he inferred that the current president just wanted peace. In my opinion I think that the Kurds have every right to independence as they are a very large people group without their own nation. They have been oppressed for many years and that is a human rights issue more than it is political, therefore they have this right.

Fueled by Trump’s Tweets, Anthem Protests Grow to a Nationwide Rebuke


By KEN BELSON SEPT. 24, 2017


On three teams, nearly all the football players skipped the national anthem altogether. Dozens of others, from London to Los Angeles, knelt or locked arms on the sidelines, joined by several team owners in a league normally friendly to President Trump. Some of the sport’s biggest stars joined the kind of demonstration they have steadfastly avoided.

It was an unusual, sweeping wave of protest and defiance on the sidelines of the country’s most popular game, generated by Mr. Trump’s stream of calls to fire players who have declined to stand for the national anthem in order to raise awareness of police brutality and racial injustice.

What had been a modest round of anthem demonstrations this season led by a handful of African-American players mushroomed and morphed into a nationwide, diverse rebuke to Mr. Trump, with even some of his staunchest supporters in the N.F.L., including several owners, joining in or condemning Mr. Trump for divisiveness.

Julius Thomas, a Miami Dolphins tight end who had previously stood for the anthem, knelt for it on Sunday with several players.

“To have the president trying to intimidate people — I wanted to send a message that I don’t condone that,” Thomas said, echoing the opinion of most N.F.L. players. “I’m not O.K. with somebody trying to prevent someone from standing up for what they think is important.”Photo

But the acts of defiance received a far more mixed reception from fans, both in the stadiums and on social media, suggesting that what were promoted as acts of unity might have exacerbated a divide and dragged yet another of the country’s institutions into the turbulent cross currents of race and politics.

At Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia, videos posted on social media showed some Eagles fans yelling at anti-Trump protesters holding placards. At MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J., before the Jets played the Dolphins, many fans, a majority of them white, said they did not support the anthem protests but also did not agree with the president’s view that players should be fired because of them.

“I’m a Republican who voted for him, but I think this is a battle he doesn’t need to get into,” said Greg Zaccaria, 61, from White Plains, who said he had been a Jets season-ticket holder since 1978. Yet he objected to the anthem protests, saying, “I understand what they’re trying to get at, I just think there are better ways of expressing yourself.”

Mr. Trump, in a speech on Friday and a weekend-long series of tweets, had all but baited athletes and the league to respond by saying that those who do not stand for the anthem should be fired. He added that the league was in decline for tolerating the protests and for taking steps to reduce brain damage among players.

As the sideline demonstrations unfolded on Sunday, Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter: “Great solidarity for our national anthem and for our Country. Standing with locked arms is good, kneeling is not acceptable. Bad ratings!”

And before boarding Air Force One in the evening, Mr. Trump told reporters that his comments had “nothing to do with race or anything else — this has to do with respect for our country and respect for our flag.”

Still, players and team officials said they had made the gestures, including locking arms, in solidarity with players who had demonstrated during the anthem, not to support Mr. Trump.

There was a variety of protests on the sidelines Sunday. All but one player from the Pittsburgh Steelers, one of the league’s most celebrated teams, refused to go out for the anthem. The lone exception was Alejandro Villanueva, a veteran of the war in Afghanistan.

The Steelers, who were playing the Bears, were booed heavily by fans in Chicago when they ran onto the field after the anthem.

The Steelers, along with the Tennessee Titans and the Seattle Seahawks, who were playing each other and similarly skipped the anthem, broke a league rule requiring athletes to be present for the anthem, though a league executive said they would not be penalized.

“We will not stand for the injustice that has plagued people of color in this country,” Seahawks players said in a statement before the game. “Out of love for our country and in honor of the sacrifices made on our behalf, we unite to oppose those that would deny our most basic freedoms.”

Even stars who normally shy from controversy took a stand.

Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers posted a photograph of himself kneeling with three of his teammates during warm-ups before the game, and New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, a supporter of the president, “liked” Rodgers’s photo. Later, before the Patriots’ game against the Houston Texans in Foxborough, Mass., Brady locked arms with a teammate on the field and placed his hand over his heart during the anthem. Rodgers stood during the anthem, but three of his teammates sat on the bench.

A dozen or so Patriots knelt during the anthem, prompting some fans at Gillette Stadium to boo.

Still, one of the more surprising reactions came from the Patriots’ owner, Robert K. Kraft, a friend and campaign donor of the president who has invited Mr. Trump to sit with him at home games, as well as from other owners who were considered bedrock supporters of the president.

“I am deeply disappointed by the tone of the comments made by the President on Friday,” Kraft said in a statement hours before the New England game, adding that he supported players’ “right to peacefully affect social change and raise awareness in a manner that they feel is most impactful.”

E. Stanley Kroenke, the owner of the Los Angeles Rams, and Martha Firestone Ford, the owner of the Detroit Lions, both of whom lean to the right politically, also scolded the president.

Ford said “negative and disrespectful comments” were “contrary to the founding principles of our country, and we do not support those comments or opinions.”

She and the Atlanta Falcons’ owner, Arthur M. Blank, who donates to many Democratic causes, linked arms with players during the anthem before the Falcons-Lions game in Detroit. The singer Rico LaVelle went down on one knee as he finished singing the anthem.

The demonstrations intensified what was already a divisive debate that began last season when Colin Kaepernick, then a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, began kneeling during the playing of the national anthem, to highlight, he has said, police brutality and racial injustice.

He left the team after last season and has not played in the league since, inspiring questions over whether teams are punishing him, while many other players have knelt or made gestures in support of him or other social causes during the anthem.

Kaepernick has not commented, and his social media accounts were largely quiet on the president and the new round of protests.Photo

But the fallout from Mr. Trump’s remarks spilled over into other sports.

In a tweet Friday, Mr. Trump disinvited the Golden State Warriors, the N.B.A. champions, to any traditional White House visit, after members of the team, including its biggest star, Stephen Curry, were critical of him. But on Sunday, the N.H.L. champion Pittsburgh Penguins said they would go to the White House, and declared such visits to be free of politics.

Nascar team owners went a step further, saying they would not tolerate drivers who protested during the anthem.

To promote the idea of the N.F.L. as a unifying force, the league was planning to replay a television ad called “Inside These Lines” on NBC on Sunday night when the Oakland Raiders played the Washington Redskins outside the nation’s capital.

While none of the Jets’ players knelt during the playing of the anthem, they locked arms on the sideline and were joined by some of the team’s administrators. On the other side of the field, four Miami Dolphins players — Maurice Smith, Kenny Stills, Thomas and Laremy Tunsil — knelt, while the team’s owner, Stephen M. Ross, locked arms with two of his players.

Two years ago, Mr. Ross started a nonprofit organization to combat racism and discrimination.

Outside the stadium in East Rutherford, Julie and Vin Santomero, who brought their sons to the game, said they also did not want to see protests at a sporting event because they attended games to get away from politics. “It’s a football game,” Mrs. Santomero said. “They’re here to play the game.”

Jesse Melendez, 29, of Dix Hills, N.Y.; Je’anna Pulistar, 29, of Lindenhurst, N.Y.; Roger Guevara, 29, of Yonkers; and Genesis Pineda, 27, of Yonkers, took the opposing view by supporting the N.F.L. players’ right to protest during the anthem.

“People don’t get mad when people are shot or killed, but they’re getting mad because a football player is kneeling or raising a fist,” said Melendez, who is African-American. “The double standard is crazy.”


Bill Pennington contributed reporting from East Rutherford, N.J.

My Response:

This article is written for American's mainly as it is a pretty specific issue within the Nation. It doesn't really have much international connection. It is also probably written for people who are over the age of 18 and have a more liberal viewpoint. These are more likely to read the New York Times and would be concerned about the government and specifically Trump. Because of this audience the author is probably writing with a bias against Trump. He is also writing from someone who is very involved in sports as he is the NFL reporter for the New York Times. This probably means that he may be targeting specifically sports fans. Another way I believe that the author is bias is because he seemed to support those who protested more than those who were against it. When I read this article I had a bias which I supported the protesters because I generally don't like Trump and in this case it did seem to me that it was a racism issue.

 In my opinion I think that all of the players who protested were very brave. I also think that it is super encouraging that even some of Trumps biggest supporters in the NFL could see that what he said was wrong. I think that this gives hope that the nation will not just give into what Trump says. I also think that these players must have the right to protest because the USA claims to have freedom of speech and protest is part of those freedoms. I think that when you do not agree with the direction the nation is going you must have the right to express those feelings.

Myanmar Draws Scorn for Rohingya Crisis, but Few Urge Sanctions


By AUSTIN RAMZYSEPT. 18, 2017


HONG KONG — Despite international condemnation of Myanmar’s campaign of violence against the Rohingya people, there have been few calls for a return to the sort of sanctions that were long a part of the country’s relationship with the West.

After a Rohingya militant group attacked police outposts last month, Myanmar’s military, along with vigilante groups, launched a crackdown in the western state of Rakhine, triggering a refugee crisis that has sent more than 400,000 Rohingya fleeing to neighboring Bangladesh.

On Monday, Boris Johnson, Britain’s foreign secretary, led a private discussion of the Rohingya crisis among foreign ministers attending the United Nations General Assembly. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the de facto head of Myanmar’s government, last week decided not to attend the General Assembly, where she would probably have drawn a flood of criticism.

Mr. Johnson said nothing about whether the government of Myanmar could face sanctions. In a statement from his office, he called on Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi to take steps to halt the crisis.

Myanmar’s national security adviser participated in the session, which was closed to the press.

“I was encouraged by our discussion and by the participation of the senior Burmese representatives,” Mr. Johnson said in the statement, “but we now need to see action to stop the violence and open up immediate humanitarian access.”

While the United Nations Security Council has the power to impose economic sanctions on Myanmar, that prospect is considered unlikely for now. The Myanmar government has said it was working with Russia and China — veto-wielding members of the Security Council — to block any efforts to punish it over the crackdown in Rakhine.

The Security Council did condemn the violence last week, its first such unified statement on Myanmar in nine years. But China blocked an effort by Egypt to add language calling for Rohingya refugees to be guaranteed the right to return to Myanmar from Bangladesh, Agence France-Presse reported. The government of Myanmar, a majority-Buddhist country, does not recognize the Rohingya, most of whom are Muslim, as citizens.


With regional powers vying to gain influence in Myanmar, China’s government sees potential benefit in backing Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy, while she faces international criticism, said Yun Sun, a scholar at the Stimson Center in Washington.

“This is basically an opportunity for China and a vulnerability of Aung San Suu Kyi,” she said. “The Chinese government says the Rohingya issue doesn’t affect us and by supporting Aung San Suu Kyi we don’t lose anything.”

“Instead we gain the potential friendship” of the government, Ms. Sun said.

The state-run Myanmar News Agency quoted China’s ambassador to Myanmar last week as saying his country supported the crackdown in Rakhine.

“The stance of China regarding the terrorist attacks in Rakhine is clear, it is just an internal affair,” said the ambassador, Hong Liang. “The counterattacks of Myanmar security forces against extremist terrorists and the government’s undertakings to provide assistance to the people are strongly welcomed.”

In another sign that China is drawing closer to Myanmar, last week it opened an interim liaison office in Naypyidaw, the remote city that was inaugurated as Myanmar’s capital in 2005. Most foreign missions have stayed in Yangon, the country’s former capital.


China’s support for the military crackdown may be partly rooted in the recent opening of a Chinese-operated oil terminal at Kyaukpyu port, in southern Rakhine. While the military’s campaign is being carried out in the north of Rakhine, China would be concerned if the violence expanded and imperiled the terminal, Ms. Sun said.

On Monday, Human Rights Watch called for targeted sanctions against Myanmar’s military. It also called for new restrictions on the sale of arms to the country.

“Burmese security forces are committing ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya and disregarding the condemnation of world leaders,” John Sifton, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. “The time has come to impose tougher measures that Burma’s generals cannot ignore.”

For decades, Myanmar — or Burma, as it was formerly known — was one of the most isolated countries, with the United States and other Western countries enforcing sanctions against its military-led government. But as the military has gradually released some of its political control, the country’s interactions have grown dramatically.

The European Union and the United States pulled back broad sanctions after elections in 2012. Then last year, President Barack Obama dropped sanctions on aid from Washington to the government of Myanmar, as well as restrictions on several dozen people with ties to the former military government.

That move was made in recognition of the advancement of democracy in Myanmar. But human rights groups worried it would also reduce the leverage the United States had to try to curb abuses against the Rohingya.

Last week, Senator John McCain of Arizona said he would remove language from a defense-spending bill that would fund cooperation between the militaries of the United States and Myanmar. Mr. McCain has called on Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi to do more to help the Rohingya.

Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her long struggle against military rule, has many fans among lawmakers around the world, and that may insulate Myanmar from more serious censure from the United States and other governments.

The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said last week that “publicly condemning Aung San Suu Kyi, the best hope for democratic reform in Burma, is simply not constructive.” He noted that under Myanmar’s Constitution, she is barred from the presidency and her civilian government has no authority over the military. Her position is “an exceedingly difficult one,” he said.

Sean Turnell, an economic adviser to Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi’s office, said her civilian government needs international support, “not uninformed ostracism or irresponsible or calculated incitement.”

“The people who lead this government are the same people who faced down evil for decades,” he added. “They remain Myanmar’s best hope.”

My Response:

From my reading of this article I did not feel that there was much bias either way for the sanctions or against them. There was bias, however, in the fact that they agreed with most of the world that Myanmar's actions against the Rohingya are wrong. I agree with this and I agree that something needs to be done to stop these actions. I also think that it is very wrong that china would be possibly supporting them in this in order to gain influence and power. However, I also do not think that the sanctions are a good idea. I think that sanctions isolate a nation from the rest of the world and can easily make them hostile towards the outside as it has with North Korea. Obviously these issues are very different but I think that there needs to be a different solution to this problem. I think that the first step in this solution is diplomatic talks which have already started. These diplomatic talks need to convince Myanmar that it is in their best interest to stop with this ethnic cleansing otherwise the only other option is sanctions. I think that this needs to be done urgently before more people die or are forced to leave and it is the United Nations responsibility to deal with this.

Mexico offered to help Texas recover from Harvey. But it just took back the offer.

Reeling from a devastating earthquake and Hurricane Katia, Mexico says it can no longer offer aid to Texas.

by Sarah Wildman


On Monday morning, the Mexican foreign ministry issued a statement withdrawing the country’s offer of aid to Hurricane Harvey-ravaged Texas.

It was a surprising reversal for the government of Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, which had, just last week, hammered out a plan for a logistical support relief package for Texas.

As with so much else in the increasingly fraught relationship between the US and Mexico, one of America’s biggest trading partners, it may have come down to President Trump and the controversial things he says — or, in this case, declined to say.

That, combined with a stunning number of natural disasters piled one on top of one another.

On September 7, a massive earthquake tore through the Mexican states of Oaxaca, Chiapas, and Tabasco, taking 95 lives, inflicting hundreds of millions of dollars in material damage, and wounding hundreds. While local officials in the US offered a note of condolence, Trump didn’t tweet words of solidarity, or concern, about Mexico’s disaster.

The 8.2 magnitude Mexican earthquake hit Friday. On Saturday morning, Mexico was walloped by another natural disaster, Hurricane Katia:

In the wake of the destruction, Mexico said today, its own need is now too great. It simply is no longer in a position to offer the food, medical personnel, and material goods it had offered to those in Texas affected by the storm. All efforts would now, instead, be directed to helping the considerable number of victims across Mexico:


Given this circumstance, the Mexican government will channel all logistical support available to care for the families and communities affected in the national territory, so it has been reported to the government of Texas and the federal government of the United States that unfortunately in this it will not be possible to provide aid originally offered to Texas in the wake of Hurricane Harvey in late August.

The initial Mexican offer of aid for Texas may have raised hopes of a thaw between the Mexican government and the Trump administration, which have been battling over Trump’s promise to make Mexico pay for his proposed border wall. The lack of communication between the countries’ leaders seems likely to return things to their normal, chilly state.
Mexico was gracious when Harvey devastated Texas

When Hurricane Harvey submerged Houston the last week of August, Mexico quickly offered to help — proffering logistical aid for flood-damaged regions, including food and medical personnel — just as it had done when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005. It did so even though Trump had spent the Sunday of Harvey’s devastation tweeting about building the border wall and making Mexico pay for it.


Mexico dismissed that provocation, and simply offered help. The Mexican foreign ministry, for its part, wearily insisted again there would be no money for a border wall, just money to be a good neighbor. “On August 27, Chancellor Luis Videgaray held a telephone call with Texas Governor Greg Abbott to express our solidarity and identify specific supports,” the office of the foreign ministry explained today. “On August 28, a diplomatic note was sent to the United States Department of State detailing the Mexican offer of support personnel, technical equipment and supplies.”

On August 30, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson officially thanked his Mexican counterpart for the aid.

Diplomatic envoys ferried offers between the two countries. On September 6, Texas agreed to accept an aid package, with just logistical support. Separately, Mexican Red Cross workers were already on the ground.

And then the earthquake hit. But even in withdrawing the aid offer, Mexican officials noted that Harvey victims were well on their way to recovery and redirecting aid made sense. “This decision is made since the conditions of both countries have changed and based on the fact that aid needs in Texas have fortunately decreased,” the foreign service statement noted.

In its statement, Mexico added, “The Mexican government takes this opportunity to thank the Governor of Texas Greg Abbott for his message of solidarity to our country on the occasion of the September 7 earthquake.”

Abbott isn’t Trump, but it’s good to know that at least one prominent American politician thought to send a message of well-being to those suffering outside the borders of the US.

Citation: 

Wildman, Sarah. “Mexico Offered to Help Texas Recover from Harvey. But It Just Took Back the Offer.” Vox, Vox, 11 Sept. 2017, www.vox.com/world/2017/9/11/16290452/mexico-takes-back-offer-of-harvey-aid.

My Response:

This article is very interesting in that it has brought together both natural disasters and political controversy. In my opinion I think that Vox news may have stretched the facts a bit too far in order to include their anti-Trump bias. Although they may not be far from the truth with this inference that Mexico may have withdrawn their support partially because of Donald Trump. However, in a time like this where Mexico is really suffering it is tough to justify that. I think that if it had been at a different time I would have agreed much more with the author that Trump's actions caused them to withdraw. The other reason this doesn't seem to be the truth is that even when Trump continued on the day with his provocative tweets Mexico still offered their help. I believe that Mexico really just doesn't have the ability to help at this point in time. My slant is generally anti-Trump also so it would be nice to believe that Mexico pulled out because of him but this isn't really the truth.

North Korea's nuclear tests: How should Trump respond- Response

North Korea's nuclear tests: How should Trump respond?

By Dr John Nilsson-Wright-Chatham House & University of Cambridge

3 September 2017


North Korea's dramatic testing of a sixth nuclear device has once again raised fears of rising tensions in north-east Asia and the prospect of war breaking out on the Korean peninsula.

The size of the latest test - equivalent to a 6.3 magnitude earthquake - suggests a step-change in the destructive power of the North's nuclear assets.

It was five to six times larger than its last test in September 2016, and potentially seven times as large as the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima.

But it is too early to assess Pyongyang's boast to have successfully tested a hydrogen bomb. The North has made similar uncorroborated claims in the past, but irrespective of the precise nature of the explosion, there seems little doubt that the destructive capacity of Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal has increased substantially.
Why does North Korea want nuclear weapons?

The North's motives for testing remain unchanged. Pyongyang's desire to acquire nuclear weapons dates from at least the 1960s, and is rooted in a desire for political autonomy, national prestige and military strength.

Added to this is Kim Jong-un's desire to secure an unambiguous deterrent to safeguard against a potential US pre-emptive attack - a key element in explaining not only Kim's sharply accelerated missile testing programme, but also the latest photo boast apparently showing him inspecting a new entirely "homemade" nuclear warhead.

While analysts are divided on whether the North's progress in developing an intercontinental ballistic missile (following its two tests in July) has enabled it to strike the United States with nuclear weapons, in some ways the technical debate is moot.

The demonstration effect of repeated missile and nuclear weapons testing makes it extremely unlikely that an American president would contemplate a direct strike on the country, other than in retaliation against a North Korean attack - a move that North Korean officials know would be suicidal.

Kim Jong-un's behaviour since taking over as the North's leader in December 2011 suggests that he is a rational actor, albeit a particularly egotistical and brutal one given his willingness to execute and purge both close family members and senior elite North Korean officials.

His actions are those of a calculating risk-taker (more so than his father Kim Jong-il) intent on thumbing his nose at President Trump, while also bolstering his legitimacy in the eyes of his own people by realising his goal of military modernisation. This objective appears to be widely popular with many North Koreans, especially those living in Pyongyang.
How should the US respond?

While the North remains the primary source of regional insecurity, an additional, and perhaps more worrying element of instability is the temperament and thinking of Donald Trump.

The US president continues very conspicuously to hint at the possibility of pre-emptive US military action against the North - a course of action that would have catastrophic consequences for the citizens of Japan, South Korea and especially the 10 million or so residents of Seoul directly in range of the North's conventional and nuclear forces.

Ultimately, a US military response to the North Korean challenge would, therefore, represent a "doomsday" scenario for America's two key regional allies as well as jeopardising the lives of the 28,500 US servicemen and personnel based in South Korea.

It is, therefore, easy to understand why both US Defence Secretary James Mattis and National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster are reportedly firmly opposed to the military option except as a last defensive resort.

President Trump's bellicose sabre-rattling may be a negotiating ploy, intended to alarm Pyongyang sufficiently to deter it from further provocations, or to encourage an increasingly irritated Chinese leadership to impose decisive and punitive economic pressure on the North, most immediately through a suspension of critical crude oil supplies.

Yet if this is the intention, it does not appear to be working. The North has since April been stockpiling supplies of oil to guard against any new sanctions and the Chinese leadership, while reportedly increasingly irritated by the North, may therefore have concluded that restricting oil as either a symbolic or actual economic weapon may have limited immediate impact.

Assuming the president is neither irrational nor wilfully impulsive, nor willing to sacrifice Seoul for the interests of Washington, then the most likely response to the current crisis will be for the administration to push for much tougher sanctions against the North.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is currently drawing up a new proposal to punish any third countries doing business with the North by cutting off their access to the US market. While this would certainly be a dramatic and arguably proportionate response to the new North Korean provocation, it runs the risk of being both ineffective and counter-productive.

Unilateral US sanctions would be hard to enforce, would potentially provoke crippling retaliatory trade sanctions by countries such as China that have balked at further across the board economic pressure on the North, and would at best, even if enforceable, take time to have a meaningful effect on the North Korean leadership.

Given the grave risks and limited benefits associated with either sanctions or military action, diplomacy and dialogue remain the best means of defusing the current crisis.

While the UN and individual nations should continue to forcefully condemn the North's behaviour, it remains the responsibility of the United States - still the world's indispensable superpower - to actively and imaginatively explore the options for some form of dialogue with North Korea.

Not talking leaves open the possibility that strategic tensions will continue. A frustrated President Trump confronted, weeks or months from now, by the failure of sanctions or political brinkmanship to bring the North to heel, may end up acting on his apparent belief that force is the "one thing" that Kim Jong-un understands.

In such a situation it is conceivable that both sides may misperceive the intentions of the other and end up stumbling into conflict that could escalate to the nuclear level - not through rational design but by accidental miscalculation.

Patient negotiation remains, therefore, a way of pointing out to the North not only the costs (both diplomatic and economic) of further provocations, but also the potential gains to be realised through moderation.

Talking is not, as President Trump has erroneously suggested, "appeasement" and represents the best way of averting military conflict and preventing the hands of the doomsday clock, for now at least, moving perilously closer to midnight.

From: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41143589

My Response:

Audience:

This article was published on BBC world news and is therefore probably meant for a largely international audience. This means that it is written for mainly non-Americans such as European and Asian peoples. 

Author's Bias: 

This article was written by Dr John Nilsson-Wright who is a research fellow with the Asia program of Chatham house. It is very hard to determine what kind of Bias this author may have but it is likely that he is slightly bias toward Asian thoughts and topics because that is what he has spent so much time researching.

Publisher Bias: 

The publisher of this article is the BBC which generally tends to have a bias against the United States and in this case probably has some bias against North Korea. Since these are the two nations being discussed the article tends to be harsh against both of these nations.

Reader Bias:

Personally as a reader I tend to have a bias against North Korea because I generally think of them as the 'bad guys' and that can twist my view on this story. I also am generally biased against Donald Trump because of his actions and words as president. This may mean I will tend to think that he may choose the wrong options of the one's that this article proposes.

Purpose:

The goal of the author of this article is to inform the audience on what he believes is the best way for the Donald Trump and the United States to deal with this issue. His goal is also to help keep peace by offering his expert opinion on the issue.

Opinion:

To me this topic is very scary because it gives evidence that we are on the verge of a nuclear war and I am not convinced that Donald Trump cares enough about the rest of the world to prevent this. I do agree with the author that the only way to truly stop North Korea is by diplomatic relations but I am not sure that is possible and therefore I think that we need to come up with a more creative idea to solve this issue. I also think that it is important that they at least attempt to put the sanctions on North Korea because although the author doesn't believe this will work I am not convinced of that and I think that it will at least slow the North down in their progress. However I totally agree that the worst possible solution to this issue is military involvement because of the dangers which that creates.

Test News Article

As Houston Looks to Recover, Small Towns Now Bear the Brunt


By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON, RICK ROJAS and SHAILA DEWANAUG. 30, 2017


NEWTON, Tex. — Read the latest on the storm with Thursday’s live updates on Harvey.


For the streets of Newton, a small town on the Texas side of the Louisiana state line, to become impassable, “the flood would have to be biblical,” Kristen Rogers was told when she peeked into the sheriff’s office looking for guidance.


“That’s what they said about Houston,” replied Ms. Rogers, who was looking for a dry way out of rural Texas on her way to Florida.


But as Houston, the urban behemoth that has so far been the focal point in the unfolding drama of Hurricane Harvey, began gingerly to assess the devastation, the storm marched on to conquer a vast new swath speckled with small towns that are home to millions of people who were shocked anew by Harvey’s tenaciously destructive power. Officials faced a population in dire need, but far more difficult to reach.


Flooding and rain, topping 47 inches in some areas, pounded 50 counties in southeast and lower central Texas with a combined population of roughly 11 million people. The area includes more than 300 towns and smaller cities that felt the storm’s punishing force, even as Harvey was downgraded to a tropical depression on Wednesday.


The Federal Emergency Management Agency began to send out heavy-lift military helicopters carrying tons of food and drinking water, delivering it to people who could not evacuate.


Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas said officials were “immediately deploying far more” members of the National Guard to southeast Texas, increasing the total Guard deployment to 24,000, including 10,000 troops from other states.


In contrast to Houston, where the weather began to clear and a few children even returned to playgrounds, many people in these remote areas are still in desperate need of rescue. “There are a lot of places that are not accessible by car or truck or boat, and we need to get to the survivors to get them critical aid,” said Deanna Fraser, a FEMA spokeswoman.

Pleas for help poured out of the Beaumont-Port Arthur area, roughly 100 miles east of Houston. “We are just as devastated as the Houston area,” said Capt. Crystal Holmes of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department, which includes Port Arthur, a coastal city of about 55,000.


When officials there were caught off guard by the scale of the floods, and one emergency shelter started flooding, a MaxBowl bowling alley was transformed into a haven for about 500 people, the owner said.


For every rescue accomplished, Captain Holmes said, there seemed to be more people who needed help: “We have so many citizens that are trapped inside their homes.”


“Eventually we will” get to them, she said, “but we just don’t know if we’re going to be able to get to them in time.”


The police in Beaumont, near Port Arthur, said they had received more than 700 calls for rescue, and other departments were overwhelmed with calls for help. A mother died with her toddler, who survived, clinging to her body, and the number of deaths attributed to the storm climbed to at least 38.


“The geographic scope of this event is probably what is going to make it one of the most costly flood disasters in U.S. history,” said Samuel Brody, the director of the Center for Texas Beaches and Shores at Texas A&M University’s Galveston campus. “I’ve seen heavy rain, I’ve seen 30, 40 inches, but not over such a large geographic area, impacting rich, poor, black, white, you name it.”


Pastureland and swampland, cane fields and forests alike began to look like a mud-clouded, Texas version of ark country. Crosby, 25 miles northeast of Houston, faced not only flooding but reports of explosions Thursday when refrigeration that kept compounds at a chemical plant stable failed.

And still, as of Wednesday afternoon, the rain poured down.


Michael LeBouef, a retired surgical assistant who lives in Port Arthur, said air boats, fishing boats and helicopters, operating out of the Walmart parking lot, were running rescue missions.


“The town looks like a lake, it really does,” he said. “It’s like the whole town got dropped into Lake Sabine.”


Even before it hit Houston, Harvey had already deluged a band of smaller cities. “What about the rest of us?” a man named Sam Stone posted on Facebook on behalf of the lower Texas coast towns Aransas Pass, Port Aransas, Ingleside and Rockport, which took the storm head on. “No jobs to go back to, no money, no transportation. All they do is sit and worry about what happens next.”


In Liberty County northeast of Houston, tiny Moss Hill — a couple of restaurants, a couple of churches — had become a refuge for people fleeing the water, which began to creep onto the highways about a mile from town.


Moss Hill is the highest point in the area, and the Lighthouse Church attracted a steady stream of people seeking shelter, while a trail of pickup trucks towing fishing boats passed through on the way to points east.


More than 20 people spent the night at the church. For the most part, they had fled homes nearby. But there was also a man from Florida who was rescued from his car and dropped off there. Newlyweds whose honeymoon road trip had veered horribly off course were given the nursery as a bridal suite.


Residents said they were accustomed to hurricanes and floods, but not of this magnitude. Patty Lee, welcoming visitors with soup, cornbread and sweet tea, ticked off all the towns nearby that were struggling: Kountze, Silsbee, Sour Lake.


On Wednesday at the Simply Country Cafe, one of the few places open, B.J. Price said her home in nearby Batson had not flooded, but her property was engulfed. In the cafe, she got word that another friend had water up to the roofline.“You’ve never had this before,” she said, “so how do you prepare for it?”


Ms. Price said 1994 was the “only other time I’ve seen it like this, and it wasn’t on this magnitude.” She added, “This is the most catastrophic thing I’ve seen in my life.”


Ms. Price said she knew how widespread the storm’s toll was, and she knew that in the past rural areas like this one did not always get the most immediate aid.


“We’re not forgotten,” she said. “It just takes them a little longer to get to us.”


Rural residents insisted that they were used to being far from outside help and that self-reliance and an ethos of neighbors helping neighbors came with the territory.


The cafe in Moss Hill, for instance, sent pancakes and bacon over to the church on Wednesday morning, and some raided food from their own pantries, and even pillows off their beds, to donate.


In Bon Wier, Tex., people gathered at the Citgo, arriving by boat, truck or even dump truck, and helped others to a shelter in nearby Newton, where volunteers cheerfully divided up donated Clif bars and Fritos.


The shelter had been organized through Facebook and text messages, primarily by a woman who works in a furniture store. One family with a catering business was making a huge bin of pasta. “In an hour we really need to start thinking about showers,” said John Puz, another volunteer.


There, Ambika Seastrunk, a 38-year-old mother of five, waxed philosophical about the previous time she lost her home. It was last year.


But she got a new home, a double-wide trailer, that sits right by the Sabine River. It was a beautiful home. Is — or was. She couldn’t say.

Introduction

Whenever reading any news or opinions you need to take into consideration who is writing, their audience and how that may affect that piece. Therefore before we get started on any news stories and opinions it is important that you as readers understand a little bit about me and my worldview.

I am a senior in high school who has grown up as a third culture kid. This means that I grew up in a culture different than that of my parents which for me is in Kenya. I am an American but have spent the last 17 years of my life in Kenya. Having this experience has shaped my worldview to incorporate a global perspective and become more open-minded.

Another important aspect of my life which shapes my worldview is my Christian faith. Having grown up in a christian home and taking on this faith for myself this has shaped the way I view the world. Many times Christians tend to be very specific in their views and less open minded, but for me this is not the case. Since I know that this faith is true I do not need to be afraid of hearing others ideas and thoughts and being open to what they have to say. I try my best to be objective in whatever I am investigating even if it seems to contradict what I believe in regards to my faith. In fact this objectivity is more important because I am a Christian. If I do not look at every possible side then I have no basis for my belief on that subject as is with my faith.

That basically sums up the most important things to know about me when reading this blog.