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.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Obamacare
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28342935&nid=757&title=the-truth-behind-obamacare-6-million-insured-figure&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-11
This article is pretty much saying that the 6 million have been enrolled in marketplace or medicare is a pretty "mushy" number, since it includes some people were just renewing, and it goes on to pretty much say that nobody knows exactly how many are really getting it new.
It seems to me that everything about Obamacare is mushy. So many people post on facebook articles about how horrible it is, and how this and that person totally got screwed by it, but then so many other people also post on facebook other articles showing how much it has helped this or that person, and that it really is working. Wow, I hope that last sentence made sense. Not to mention the business with the website being screwy for a while. Because I don't pay for my health insurance, I really don't know how it has impacted my family. I was and still am pretty doubtful about how well it works, but I feel like I just want facts on how many people have gotten it, how many peoples insurance has gone up or down, etc that aren't tainted by bias, but that is never going to happen. I give up on politics.
This article is pretty much saying that the 6 million have been enrolled in marketplace or medicare is a pretty "mushy" number, since it includes some people were just renewing, and it goes on to pretty much say that nobody knows exactly how many are really getting it new.
It seems to me that everything about Obamacare is mushy. So many people post on facebook articles about how horrible it is, and how this and that person totally got screwed by it, but then so many other people also post on facebook other articles showing how much it has helped this or that person, and that it really is working. Wow, I hope that last sentence made sense. Not to mention the business with the website being screwy for a while. Because I don't pay for my health insurance, I really don't know how it has impacted my family. I was and still am pretty doubtful about how well it works, but I feel like I just want facts on how many people have gotten it, how many peoples insurance has gone up or down, etc that aren't tainted by bias, but that is never going to happen. I give up on politics.
First Lady
Article:
http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/michelle-obama-no-ones-feminist-nightmare
This article is a response to another article that calls Michelle Obama a "feminist nightmare" and bashes on the first lady for saying that being a mom is her first priority, and says she is playing it safe with the childhood obesity thing. The response to the article goes on to say that undermining women because they are mothers is the real nightmare, and goes on to defend Michelle Obama's position as well as her stances on things such as childhood obesity.
I pretty much agree with this article. I think it is great that Mrs. Obama is "embracing her role as mom in chief" and showing that her family comes first. I don't necessarily agree with some of her views or like some of her programs, but I think she is trying to do what she feels is best. The biggest problem I have with feminism is when it is taken too far. I get the whole equal pay in the workplace thing, but when it starts to place full time mothers in a lower position than working moms or women, that is where I have a problem. This article said something I really liked: "If feminism isn't for mothers, then who is it for?" Most women turn out to be mothers, and I think that when feminists cross that line, they have gone too far.
http://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/michelle-obama-no-ones-feminist-nightmare
This article is a response to another article that calls Michelle Obama a "feminist nightmare" and bashes on the first lady for saying that being a mom is her first priority, and says she is playing it safe with the childhood obesity thing. The response to the article goes on to say that undermining women because they are mothers is the real nightmare, and goes on to defend Michelle Obama's position as well as her stances on things such as childhood obesity.
I pretty much agree with this article. I think it is great that Mrs. Obama is "embracing her role as mom in chief" and showing that her family comes first. I don't necessarily agree with some of her views or like some of her programs, but I think she is trying to do what she feels is best. The biggest problem I have with feminism is when it is taken too far. I get the whole equal pay in the workplace thing, but when it starts to place full time mothers in a lower position than working moms or women, that is where I have a problem. This article said something I really liked: "If feminism isn't for mothers, then who is it for?" Most women turn out to be mothers, and I think that when feminists cross that line, they have gone too far.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Voting information
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865593952/Lawmakers-want-to-change-way-voter-information-is-sold.html
This article is about how two UT lawmakers are trying to get a law passed that will make voter information (such as addresses, phone numbers and birthdays) only available for "Political, Scholarly, Journalistic, or Governmental purposes." for a fee. Right now, there is a site operated by a man in New Hampshire that has all the information for free. The article explains that the man has websites for some other states, and says he is "making an honest dollar by getting public information that people are selling for a fee and making it available for free." Because he is not currently breaking a law, this proposed one would hopefully close that loop.
When I read the first paragraph of this I was like "What? they shouldn't sell our info!" but then I read the rest and I figured out they were trying to make the info harder to get, and would only sell it for certain purposes. I am still not sure they should be making that info available at all, but I guess it is a step in the right direction. I personally don't see how that guy thinks it is OK to put it on his site. A lot of comments were pretty mad and said things like 'I am never voting again unless they change it!". I don't know if I wouldn't vote, but I would be pretty mad.
This article is about how two UT lawmakers are trying to get a law passed that will make voter information (such as addresses, phone numbers and birthdays) only available for "Political, Scholarly, Journalistic, or Governmental purposes." for a fee. Right now, there is a site operated by a man in New Hampshire that has all the information for free. The article explains that the man has websites for some other states, and says he is "making an honest dollar by getting public information that people are selling for a fee and making it available for free." Because he is not currently breaking a law, this proposed one would hopefully close that loop.
When I read the first paragraph of this I was like "What? they shouldn't sell our info!" but then I read the rest and I figured out they were trying to make the info harder to get, and would only sell it for certain purposes. I am still not sure they should be making that info available at all, but I guess it is a step in the right direction. I personally don't see how that guy thinks it is OK to put it on his site. A lot of comments were pretty mad and said things like 'I am never voting again unless they change it!". I don't know if I wouldn't vote, but I would be pretty mad.
Monday, January 6, 2014
Gay Marriage in Utah
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-halts-same-sex-marriages-in-utah-pending-appeal/2014/01/06/b1af9794-76e9-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html
This article is about gay marriage in Utah. Since everyone seems pretty well informed on the matter, I won't go into detail, but apparently the same sex marriages have been halted in Utah as of today. It said that the supreme court didn't give reasons, dissenting opinions, or hints as to how this will turn out in the long run for Utah, but as of now, a stay has been granted. The article said:
The state said each marriage was an "affront" to its ability to define marriage as between only a man and a woman, as well as to the Supreme Court's role as the final arbiter of whether state bans violate an individual's constitutional right to equal protection.
Then it talked about how Shelby and the Court of appeals denied a stay, and then it talked about the opinion of those opposing a stay:
James E Magelby...said the Supreme Court's stay "is obviously disappointing for the families in Utah who need the protection of marriage and now have to wait to get married until the appeal is over...every day that goes by, same-sex couples and their children are being harmed by not being able to marry and be treated equally."
Then it talked about the role of DOMA in this mess, and how it is unknown how those already married will be dealt with, and ultimately ended with a feeling of "who knows what will happen?"
Wow. Utah. Who woulda thunk? Well where should I start? I guess I will say that I agree with Mrs. McMurray about how the court's job is to make sure that the laws follow the constitution, not just the majority opinion. I do think it is fair to put a stay on the decision though, and bring it to a higher court rather than listen only to the opinion of this court on a matter this impactful. As far as the actual issue being decided here, I am not against giving gay couples all or at least some of the benefits given to married couples. I won't stop them from living their life how they see fit, even if I disagree, but to me personally, the institution of "marriage" is, by definition, between a man and a woman. If it is not that, it isn't marriage. It is a union or partnership or whatever. I think those partnerships can be recognized by the state, but to me they still aren't "marriages". Just my two cents.
This article is about gay marriage in Utah. Since everyone seems pretty well informed on the matter, I won't go into detail, but apparently the same sex marriages have been halted in Utah as of today. It said that the supreme court didn't give reasons, dissenting opinions, or hints as to how this will turn out in the long run for Utah, but as of now, a stay has been granted. The article said:
The state said each marriage was an "affront" to its ability to define marriage as between only a man and a woman, as well as to the Supreme Court's role as the final arbiter of whether state bans violate an individual's constitutional right to equal protection.
Then it talked about how Shelby and the Court of appeals denied a stay, and then it talked about the opinion of those opposing a stay:
James E Magelby...said the Supreme Court's stay "is obviously disappointing for the families in Utah who need the protection of marriage and now have to wait to get married until the appeal is over...every day that goes by, same-sex couples and their children are being harmed by not being able to marry and be treated equally."
Then it talked about the role of DOMA in this mess, and how it is unknown how those already married will be dealt with, and ultimately ended with a feeling of "who knows what will happen?"
Wow. Utah. Who woulda thunk? Well where should I start? I guess I will say that I agree with Mrs. McMurray about how the court's job is to make sure that the laws follow the constitution, not just the majority opinion. I do think it is fair to put a stay on the decision though, and bring it to a higher court rather than listen only to the opinion of this court on a matter this impactful. As far as the actual issue being decided here, I am not against giving gay couples all or at least some of the benefits given to married couples. I won't stop them from living their life how they see fit, even if I disagree, but to me personally, the institution of "marriage" is, by definition, between a man and a woman. If it is not that, it isn't marriage. It is a union or partnership or whatever. I think those partnerships can be recognized by the state, but to me they still aren't "marriages". Just my two cents.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Ohio killer to get 2-drug injection untried in US
article found here:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/01/ohio-killer-to-get-2-drug-injection-untried-in-us/?intcmp=latestnews
This article explains that in trying to put Dennis McGuire to death for raping and killing a pregnant woman, Ohio was unable to get their usual death penalty drug, pentoarbital, Instead they are going to use two drugs in combination (a sedative and a painkiller) that have not been tried together before in the US. They tried to use this method on another man before, but he "won a reprieve from Gov. John Kasich while the prisons agency studies the feasibility of his desire to donate a kidney to his mother and his heart to his sister after his death." The article then goes into a little more detail about his crime, but if you wanna read it go look at the link. It talks about other state's drugs used for the death penalty, then it says that McGuires lawyers say that the court didn't get to hear all of the abuse and suffering of his childhood, while the prosecution said that he should be put to death because of the nature of his crime.
I do not really want to open this can of worms, but oh well. As far as the death penalty goes, I think it should be used in some situations. There are some crimes that are just so horrible that the criminal should be put to death to prevent future problems. I don't have enough info to know if it should be used in this case, however. As far as the main point of this article, the whole untried-2-drug thing, I am not sure. Is is cruel and unusual punishment? A painkiller and a sedative sure doesn't sound cruel, but it is untried so who knows? I am thinking that they should get his consent to do it that way, and if he says no, they need to find a different way.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/01/ohio-killer-to-get-2-drug-injection-untried-in-us/?intcmp=latestnews
This article explains that in trying to put Dennis McGuire to death for raping and killing a pregnant woman, Ohio was unable to get their usual death penalty drug, pentoarbital, Instead they are going to use two drugs in combination (a sedative and a painkiller) that have not been tried together before in the US. They tried to use this method on another man before, but he "won a reprieve from Gov. John Kasich while the prisons agency studies the feasibility of his desire to donate a kidney to his mother and his heart to his sister after his death." The article then goes into a little more detail about his crime, but if you wanna read it go look at the link. It talks about other state's drugs used for the death penalty, then it says that McGuires lawyers say that the court didn't get to hear all of the abuse and suffering of his childhood, while the prosecution said that he should be put to death because of the nature of his crime.
I do not really want to open this can of worms, but oh well. As far as the death penalty goes, I think it should be used in some situations. There are some crimes that are just so horrible that the criminal should be put to death to prevent future problems. I don't have enough info to know if it should be used in this case, however. As far as the main point of this article, the whole untried-2-drug thing, I am not sure. Is is cruel and unusual punishment? A painkiller and a sedative sure doesn't sound cruel, but it is untried so who knows? I am thinking that they should get his consent to do it that way, and if he says no, they need to find a different way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)