skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome class!
All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.
Martin Luther King Jr.
Check out the following link. Nancy Pelosi has helped upgrade the menu to haute cuisine for Congress members.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html
Martin Luther King Jr.
Check out the following link. Nancy Pelosi has helped upgrade the menu to haute cuisine for Congress members.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7888.html
Blog Archive
About Me
12 comments:
The Australian
British apology over US renditions
Britian basically allowed the United States to refuel two planes at Diego Garcia in 2002, the planes were carrying 2 detainees. One was headed for Cuba, the other was headed for Morocco. The British government was repeatedly denying that it had any involvement in the transport of the terrorist suspects.
Why did it matter to say whether or not the British had anything to do with allowing us to refuel at their airbase? They were on the same side as us and had sent troops into Iraq; they still have some there. If they are with us then they should say they are with us. Of course Gordon Brown is distancing himself from us, he has other goals and we aren’t the most popular nation right now. Maybe after the elections we can have international friends again. I guess I can’t blame foreign countries for not knowing that our congress and senate actually make the laws and distribute the money, most of our own citizens don’t know.
I read pg. 215 " Has a new Civil War begun over oil that could lead to conflict"? I would agree with the arguement over on the yes side. I certainly can see how the key players on the political stage can "accidently" cause internal conflits by supporting arms trade to further their own political status. it is a sad fact that there will always be conflicts within certain countries and certain, but it is a sadder fact that other more powerful countries with supply these poorer countries with arms not so they can fight themselves out of poverty, but so they can assure a certain political stance when it comes to certain worldwide issue.
Will anti-Americanism wane after President Bush leaves office?
A nations image is created by years of interaction with other nations. When that image begins to change, and to change drastically, it is not a simple thing to bring that image back into focus. America is a leader of the world, and as such, it is a country that is always being watched to see how it implements its policies.
Countries make mistakes, but when leaders make mistakes that go counter to who they are as a nation, mistakes that push friends away and incite enemies, mistakes that cause a massive shift in the way their nation is viewed--then it will take time for that nation to repair the damage.
Even after a newly elected official rises to lead the country--people, nations, and organizations will still remember what has occured before. History cannont be erased or changed as easily as a government official. Policies from past leaders can cast echo effects that continue to be heard long after the offending party has left office and some of those views may one day be encountered again.
What exactly is torture? When can it be used? Can citizens be thrown in jail and never recieve a trial? Is the U.N. a powerless organization worthy of being ignored? Are the Hague and Geneva conventions documents/rules that should be followed if they do not serve our best interest? If we change the definition of what is is, can we make illegal, immoral acts legal and moral?
I read pages 146 and 147. The part I read was is torture ever justified. I believe there are different levels of torture. There are the torture methods people think about when they hear the word torture, which is violent things like electric shock and other bodily harm. Then there is little things like not giving comforts or worse needs like food. I do not think torture is necessary or justified ever. I have read reports that say torture can more often than not result in incorrect information. Additionally, to cause pain and listen to someone scream would take a disturbed person. There for I think we should just stay away from torture.
Clinton tells Obama: "Shame on You"; Obama Fires Back
Senator Hillary Clinton lashed out at Senator Barack Obama over campaign literature that she says distorts her views on universal healthcare and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The mailings she says are tactics to win over Ohio voters. Ohio along with Texas are both scheduled to hold votes on March 4. Clinton compares the tactics used by Obama to that of Karl Rove, President Bush's former political director.
With Ohio Governor Ted Strickland standing in agreement behind her, Clinton reassured Ohio voters that she does not support a health plan that forces people to purchase health insurance even if they cannot afford it. She also reaffirmed her stand on NAFTA stating, "I am fighting to change NAFTA"; she did not oppose it.
In his defense, Senator Obama stated that "there is nothing inaccurate about the mailings". A spokesperson for Senator Obama also stated that "Senator Clinton was a supporter of NAFTA until this campaign began". He goes on to mention that under the Clinton health plan, Senator Clinton would support going after the wages of Americans who don't purchase health insurance, even if they cannot afford it.
Thursday we were discussing the comment that Michelle Obama made about finally being proud her country, and how that comment offended many people. Bill O'Reilly's remarks about not wanting to go on a lynching party against Michelle unless there was hard evidence was reckless and extremely offense. I don't think that comment is appropiate about a person of any race, but the fact that he had it about an african american woman is hateful. I don't think he made that comment and meant something else. I think he wanted to incite a certain emotion and he did.
The Clinton-Obama Debate:
After the infamous remark made by Clinton in Texas, Obama and Clinton continue to take heated low shots at each since the debates in South Carolina.
Clinton's advisors seem intent on pointing out Obama's inexperience by having her campaign more aggressively. She pointed out rather sharply,"If your campaign is going to be about words, they should be your own words. Lifting whole passages isn't change you can believe in; it's change you can Xerox." In a dog-eat-dog race, this move could have made her appear a more signifigant and worthy candidate, but I felt it was just the beginning of the mud-slinging and smear campaigns we will see shortly. That comment only made her seem like a desperate, sore loser that needed one more pot shot to turn the tides. She should use her experience more diligently and see that regardless of race or gender, our next president needs to have a sense of assuredness and some well thought-out plans.
Page 118
What Makes a Person “British”?
The article was about the Pub Quiz, a competition usually focused on trivia or sports. But instead, it was a test to test immigrants for when they want to apply for citizenship. Also called the “Britishness text.” It has a total of 24 questions and was introduced in 2005. You wouldn’t think it would be that hard for people that have been living in England for many years, but none out of the hundred or so even passed. I don’t blame them though. Citizens of England wouldn’t be able to answer any of the questions if they had to take it. There were questions like “how many members are in Northern Ireland’s assembly?” and “Who is the monarch not allowed to marry?” These questions are on a need to know basis pretty much. No citizen bothers to even know these facts and all that had taken the test were very upset about it. It had nothing to do with everyday life in England, but was about statistics on boring stuff that nobody wants to know. Some people were offended by some of the questions. Some had to do with Muslims and one guy was defensive about it and same goes with a Iranian descent guy.
i read pg's. 382-383 of how corporations can surpass the economy of a country. corporations like exxon in early 2005 surpassed Sweden's economy by 7 billion dollars in one year. Many of the countries that year didn't pull off nearly as much as Sweden that year and barely broke over 100 billion that year. Exxon that year could have started its own economy and its own system with the cash that was invested. do you think that in a few years companies will eventually run the systems of our government if there taking in more than what other nations are taking in?
Yahoo! News - McCain, Obama tilt over al-Qaida in Iraq
By Libby Quaid and Tom Raum, Associated Press Writers
27 February 2008
In this article, in my opinion, Republican presidential hopeful John McCain ridiculed Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s view of al-Qaida in Iraq as a way to score favorable points as being more knowledgeable about the situation in Iraq than Obama.
Obama quickly answered back by saying, “I do know that al-Qaida is in Iraq and that’s why I have said we should continue to strike al-Qaida targets.” He also added, “There was no such thing as al-Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11 and that would be al-Qaida in Afghanistan, that is stronger now than at any time since 2001.”
The quit witted rebuttal by Obama placed the blame of al-Qaida being in Iraq because of the action of him and President Bush to send troops to Iraq instead of Afghanistan to seek out the real criminal responsible for 9/11. Now who looks inept?
I read Chapter 6 about Torture debate. Is torture effective?
In my opinion, torture is not effective at all. Torture is not only a human rights violation, but also a wrong way of approaching situation. I think that torture is terrible and wrong. Even though I think torture is ineffective, I also wonder if torture is the only way that can be used to uncover a secret plans. Will torturing that person make them tell you what you want to hear rather than the truth? What if victims of torture are forced to admit to crimes that they didn’t commit in order to end the pain?
As reported by CNN.com on January 23, 2008
There is growing concern that in the worlds efforts to embrace biofuels, the cons may actually outweigh the pros. Globalization may be allowing the to use more land for agricultural needs, but the push for emerging countries to benefit from the biofuel craze could be doing them more harm in the long run.
Many emerging countries have shifted their crops to those that are less useful for human sustenance, and more useful for the energy hungry nations such as the US. The demand for these crops has driven up prices for the needed crops, and could actually contribute to even more food shortages world wide, as crops such as corn are diverted to biofuel production instead of to those that need it to eat. There is also concern that the already short supply of ready fresh water in some nations is also being diverted away from those that need it to survive just to water that extra acreage of biofuel destined crops.
In our efforts to produce biofuel, are we blinded by the push to get away from fossil fuels? Should we not be trying to find a more balanced method of producing this renewable fuel, without taking away from those that need to eat, or destroying even more forest land that is vital to the planet?
Post a Comment