Article found here:
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/mexico/1
40310/mexican-craziest-nazario-moreno-drug-war
This article is about how a drug cartel owner recently died
(again). It says he was reported dead by machine gun fire in
2010, though most of the public didn't believe that, and it
points out that this highlights how corrupt law enforcers protect
the criminals in Mexico, like Mrs. McMurray was saying. It also
goes into details of another drug guy that was reported dead
months before he actually was dead, and even another guy who was
reported dead on a plastic surgery table, when they later found
the bodies of the plastic surgeons stuffed in barrels on the
highway.
I am pretty much doing this article because it is just so crazy.
It sounds like something from a movie or a video game where you
have to kill the bad guy like 2 million times because he wasn't
really dead. Even the way they reported him dead before- from a
machine gun on a helicopter- sounds like a movie. Anyways, as far
as actual political stuff goes, I think the article is right in
that there could be some corruption going on through all of
these cases, though I have no idea how to fix it. The article
did say at the end though, that it was starting to get better.
Friday, March 21, 2014
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Nigeria
Article found here:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/04/nigeria-must-hold-extremists-accountable/
This article urges Nigeria's government to properly deal with Boko Haram, an Islamic extremist group. It tells of the terrorist acts committed by the group and then highlights the tension between Christians and Muslims. It argues that the Nigerian government must "embrace a comprehensive approach that includes the protection of human rights and the promotion of rule of law."
This is a sticky situation. Reading around, I have found more articles on attacks on a school and a town and other things that have killed people, so I obviously do think that this group can not be allowed to continue to act like this. I think it needs to be done carefully, without using the same or similar methods against the group as they have used, and religious freedom should still be protected, but this group should still be held accountable for their crimes. You can have your religious freedom, as long as you don't infringe upon others rights. It makes me sad that groups like this give all of Islam a bad name.
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/04/nigeria-must-hold-extremists-accountable/
This article urges Nigeria's government to properly deal with Boko Haram, an Islamic extremist group. It tells of the terrorist acts committed by the group and then highlights the tension between Christians and Muslims. It argues that the Nigerian government must "embrace a comprehensive approach that includes the protection of human rights and the promotion of rule of law."
This is a sticky situation. Reading around, I have found more articles on attacks on a school and a town and other things that have killed people, so I obviously do think that this group can not be allowed to continue to act like this. I think it needs to be done carefully, without using the same or similar methods against the group as they have used, and religious freedom should still be protected, but this group should still be held accountable for their crimes. You can have your religious freedom, as long as you don't infringe upon others rights. It makes me sad that groups like this give all of Islam a bad name.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Mexico
Article found here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/10639879/Mexico-City-government-mulls-legalisation-of-marijuana.html
This article is about a bill in Mexico City that would allow the legalization of marijuana. It talks about how "If [the bill] is approved, the Mexico City legislature could find itself at odds with federal government" because the national government is more conservative right now, and then it goes off to talk about how laws regarding marijuana have been in the past in mexico (it said that they were allowed to be in possession of up to 5 grams, but buying or selling was illegal, which I thought was kind of weird), and then the article gave what specifics about the bill it knew, but it said that it was unknown how it would be taxed and regulated and such.
I feel like I have been saying this a lot, especially lately, but I am not 100% sure of my opinion. On one hand, I could see how it could bring in new revenue via taxes and hopefully stop the black market, and part of me is saying "just let people do what they want with themselves". But I also see that there could (and in my opinion would) be some bad consequences of legalizing marijuana. People always say things about how marijuana isn't really that bad and stuff, but I am not convinced; it is a gateway drug. Anyways, I think I am leaning towards thinking it should not be legalized, but I am not certain. If they do legalize it I would be interested to see how things turn out.
This article is about a bill in Mexico City that would allow the legalization of marijuana. It talks about how "If [the bill] is approved, the Mexico City legislature could find itself at odds with federal government" because the national government is more conservative right now, and then it goes off to talk about how laws regarding marijuana have been in the past in mexico (it said that they were allowed to be in possession of up to 5 grams, but buying or selling was illegal, which I thought was kind of weird), and then the article gave what specifics about the bill it knew, but it said that it was unknown how it would be taxed and regulated and such.
I feel like I have been saying this a lot, especially lately, but I am not 100% sure of my opinion. On one hand, I could see how it could bring in new revenue via taxes and hopefully stop the black market, and part of me is saying "just let people do what they want with themselves". But I also see that there could (and in my opinion would) be some bad consequences of legalizing marijuana. People always say things about how marijuana isn't really that bad and stuff, but I am not convinced; it is a gateway drug. Anyways, I think I am leaning towards thinking it should not be legalized, but I am not certain. If they do legalize it I would be interested to see how things turn out.
Monday, March 10, 2014
Iran
Article is here: http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/10/world/meast/iran-nuclear-deal/
I think this article might be slightly outdated, it was from earlier in the year, so if something else happened feel free to correct me. It pretty much says that Iran and the US, UN, China and Russia are trying to come to an agreement about Iran's nuclear plans. It says that while the talks are still ongoing, they think they might have an agreement. It also talked about a bill in the senate that would "authorize new economic sanctions on Iran if it breaches an interim agreement to limit its nuclear program or fails to strike a final accord terminating those ambitions", and then talked about how President Obama has "threatened to veto any legislation that would authorize new economic sanctions on Iran, saying such a bill at this time would undermine delicate efforts to forge a lasting deal with Tehran".
So once again, I am not super educated when it comes to issues like these. I just feel like nobody should have nuclear weapons, including us. We should all just agree never to make them again and ship them all off into space or something. But I feel like that is NEVER going to happen, so the question is since they are going to exist how do we deal with them? I really don't know. I obviously don't want to get nuked by another country, but I also don't want us to be the police of the world. How do we find the balance? Thoughts?
I think this article might be slightly outdated, it was from earlier in the year, so if something else happened feel free to correct me. It pretty much says that Iran and the US, UN, China and Russia are trying to come to an agreement about Iran's nuclear plans. It says that while the talks are still ongoing, they think they might have an agreement. It also talked about a bill in the senate that would "authorize new economic sanctions on Iran if it breaches an interim agreement to limit its nuclear program or fails to strike a final accord terminating those ambitions", and then talked about how President Obama has "threatened to veto any legislation that would authorize new economic sanctions on Iran, saying such a bill at this time would undermine delicate efforts to forge a lasting deal with Tehran".
So once again, I am not super educated when it comes to issues like these. I just feel like nobody should have nuclear weapons, including us. We should all just agree never to make them again and ship them all off into space or something. But I feel like that is NEVER going to happen, so the question is since they are going to exist how do we deal with them? I really don't know. I obviously don't want to get nuked by another country, but I also don't want us to be the police of the world. How do we find the balance? Thoughts?
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Russia
Article found here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26424738
This article is about just what you would expect it to be about: Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. It talks about how rumors are flying around that the Russian military has demanded surrender of their forces in Crimea, or risk a full assault, but a Russian spokesperson said that is not true. It talks about how the US is possibly going to "Target Russian individuals and organizations with economic sanctions", and how the EU is "also preparing to hit Moscow with sanctions." It also says that the UK prime minister urges allies to send economic aid.
I honestly don't know much of the situation or how things were between the Ukraine and Russia before this whole ordeal. I obviously do not think it is good that Russia invaded Ukraine, but I don't feel informed enough to know whether I think we should intervene or not. I feel like I can't really make comments when I don't know how the Ukraine people really feel about it, or how things really are over there. One thing that made me think is the quote they had from Obama saying that Moscow was "on the wrong side of history". I do wonder what the history books 100 years from now will say about today. Maybe it will just blow off and the history books will all but ignore it, or maybe it turns into WWIII. Who knows, but it is interesting to think about.
This article is about just what you would expect it to be about: Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. It talks about how rumors are flying around that the Russian military has demanded surrender of their forces in Crimea, or risk a full assault, but a Russian spokesperson said that is not true. It talks about how the US is possibly going to "Target Russian individuals and organizations with economic sanctions", and how the EU is "also preparing to hit Moscow with sanctions." It also says that the UK prime minister urges allies to send economic aid.
I honestly don't know much of the situation or how things were between the Ukraine and Russia before this whole ordeal. I obviously do not think it is good that Russia invaded Ukraine, but I don't feel informed enough to know whether I think we should intervene or not. I feel like I can't really make comments when I don't know how the Ukraine people really feel about it, or how things really are over there. One thing that made me think is the quote they had from Obama saying that Moscow was "on the wrong side of history". I do wonder what the history books 100 years from now will say about today. Maybe it will just blow off and the history books will all but ignore it, or maybe it turns into WWIII. Who knows, but it is interesting to think about.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
China
Article found here- http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/25/world/asia/china-activist-trial-media/index.html
This article is about a guy named Xu who got convicted and sentenced to four years in prison for "[gathering] a crowd to disturb public order". He rallied people to unfurl banners "calling for public officials to declare their assets". He was interrupted during his statement because he said he wanted leaders to be transparent about their assets. Searches for his name and "constitutional rule" on the internet are now blocked.
Sorry for such a choppy summary. Just read the article. anyways I don't know exactly for what cause he was protesting for, but it said something about findings on how much money the chinese elite has. I am not sure. I think that since he wasn't violent or anything, he should have been let go, and of course I think the censorship of his name is stupid, but maybe that is just the westerner in me. I wonder how somebody living in china their whole life would see this, if they would think it is wrong or just normal.
This article is about a guy named Xu who got convicted and sentenced to four years in prison for "[gathering] a crowd to disturb public order". He rallied people to unfurl banners "calling for public officials to declare their assets". He was interrupted during his statement because he said he wanted leaders to be transparent about their assets. Searches for his name and "constitutional rule" on the internet are now blocked.
Sorry for such a choppy summary. Just read the article. anyways I don't know exactly for what cause he was protesting for, but it said something about findings on how much money the chinese elite has. I am not sure. I think that since he wasn't violent or anything, he should have been let go, and of course I think the censorship of his name is stupid, but maybe that is just the westerner in me. I wonder how somebody living in china their whole life would see this, if they would think it is wrong or just normal.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
England
Article is here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26074476
So this article is about a bill that will be voted on Monday in parliament that would ban smoking in cars where children are present. It talks about how many doctors back the bill, and then it says how other countries have already implemented such measures. (It mentioned the US had already implemented such measures, and I was curious, so I looked it up and it turns out that some states have state laws against smoking in cars with children) Then it gives the arguments of the smokers lobbyist, saying that even though smoking in a car with children is "inconsiderate but there is a line that the state shouldn't cross when it comes to dictating how people behave in private places". They say that the government need not tell parents how to raise their children. It then goes on to say that if the bill isn't passed, Labor party will put it in its manifesto.
Personally, the libertarian part of me said let people do what they want, don't let the government dictate how people live their private lives. But I think a bigger part of me thinks that this is a good bill to pass. I think that if you want to smoke alone in your car and harm yourself then great, go ahead. But when there are children present, then by exercising your right to smoke, you would be harming their right to healthy air to breathe. I think if it is with another adult then that is OK because they can either ask you to not smoke or get out of the car, but kids don't really know better and wont take that initiative to prevent it. I am all for letting parents raise their kids how they see fit, but if they are doing something that is so obviously harmful to the kid as this for their own selfish reasons, then there should be at least some kind of consequence.
So this article is about a bill that will be voted on Monday in parliament that would ban smoking in cars where children are present. It talks about how many doctors back the bill, and then it says how other countries have already implemented such measures. (It mentioned the US had already implemented such measures, and I was curious, so I looked it up and it turns out that some states have state laws against smoking in cars with children) Then it gives the arguments of the smokers lobbyist, saying that even though smoking in a car with children is "inconsiderate but there is a line that the state shouldn't cross when it comes to dictating how people behave in private places". They say that the government need not tell parents how to raise their children. It then goes on to say that if the bill isn't passed, Labor party will put it in its manifesto.
Personally, the libertarian part of me said let people do what they want, don't let the government dictate how people live their private lives. But I think a bigger part of me thinks that this is a good bill to pass. I think that if you want to smoke alone in your car and harm yourself then great, go ahead. But when there are children present, then by exercising your right to smoke, you would be harming their right to healthy air to breathe. I think if it is with another adult then that is OK because they can either ask you to not smoke or get out of the car, but kids don't really know better and wont take that initiative to prevent it. I am all for letting parents raise their kids how they see fit, but if they are doing something that is so obviously harmful to the kid as this for their own selfish reasons, then there should be at least some kind of consequence.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)