Has TSA crossed the line?

A blog titled Ron Paul: TSA Has Gone too Far that was written by Ashley talks about the argument that Representative Ron Paul makes against the TSA's new method of airport security. This new method of airport security consist of a pat down before anyone is allowed to board the plane which includes them checking the breast area of women and the groin area of men.
As I am sure many people agree that this issue is a violation to ones civil rights but the intent of this new method is to reduce the risk of terrorist or anyone with intentions to harm passengers on the plane from boarding the plane. I can also agree with people that say it is uncomfortable and not a pleasurable experience, but to what extent do you value your life? In my opinion its a rather good trade off to sacrifice your civil rights for 5 minutes in order to possibly disrupt an terrorist attack and save your life. What people don't understand is that the airport cannot control the actions and intentions of crazy people out there who always coming up with new schemes to get dangerous devices on a plane, because of this airport security must adjust in order to uphold the safety of the passengers.

North Korea a serious and ongoing threat

This morning on November 23, 2010 North Korea fired artillery shells at South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island which forced South Korea to respond with their own artillery fire. This attack by North Korea killed two Korean Soldiers and at least three civilians as well as injuring sixteen others. In response to this attack President Obama urged China to take a stand against North Korean aggression to help prevent attacks from escalating into more serious attacks and possibly war. Obama would not speculate on military actions, but said he was going to consult with the president of South Korea to figure out an appropriate response to the North Korean attack. The United States is discussing a number of measures with its allies, including action at the United Nations Security Council and further sanctions, and more joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises, to demonstrate solidarity and support. This attack by North Korea is the first on South Korean civilian territory since the Korean War in 1953. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called the attack one of "gravest incidents since the end of the Korean War" and said he "is deeply concerned by the escalation of tension on the Korean peninsula."

            President Obama is doing the right thing in my opinion by consulting with the president of South Korea first before jumping into the frying pan, but he also needs to be careful of what he is getting us into and should try and push peace and anti-war seeing as war with North Korea is the last thing the U.S needs right now. Going to war with North Korea would completely negate the progression we have made to get out of this economic depression and send us even further into debt than we were at the peak of the depression.

Should marijuana be legalized?

Anival Valadez wrote an interesting post titled Weeds that talks about the amount of time and money the U.S government has spent on cannabis (marijuana), and the benefits that the U.S would get from legalizing this plant.

I have read this post and can say that I completely agree with Anival that the U.S should legalize weed as it would do more good than harm. I agree with Anival that marijuana is not a gateway drug as I know many people who smoke marijuana and have not even thought of trying other kinds of drugs. One thing I do not understand about our governments logic of keeping marijuana illegal is how they say its dangerous and habitual when they allow alcohol and tobacco to be sold legally in the U.S. Marijuana has been scientifically proven to be less harmful then tobacco, and not an addictive substance such as nicotine in tobacco. Tobacco and alcohol combined are the cause of over half a million deaths in the U.S a year and yet the government still allows these to be sold legally when marijuana is illegal and has no known cause of death but is still considered dangerous by the government. If they were so worried about how much danger products in to market cause they should have banned tobacco and alcohol a long time ago. As Anival also says legalizing marijuana would be a huge boost to the U.S economy if a tax were applied, this would help lower the unemployment rate and raise money to help the  U.S get out of the massive debt its in currently.

New vision for diplomacy

         Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explains how she plans to redefine U.S diplomacy. In an essay in the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs, Clinton previews the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review or QDDR. The review is meant to balance a similar quadrennial review by the Defense Department that projects their strategy and priorities. Clinton says their new approach to development will focus on American leadership through civilian power. Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have talked about "demilitarizing" foreign policy and that they believe the QDDR will suggest how to do that. Clinton also says "Economic growth is the surest route out of poverty, and expanding and strengthening middle classes around the world will be key to creating the just and sustainable international order that lies at the heart of the United States' national security strategy." She also describes the QQDR as a blueprint for reforms to be implemented over the next four years. The goal of these reforms are to modernize and coordinate diplomacy across U.S. government agencies to create a stronger bond between diplomacy and development and ensuring that development undertaken by the U.S. has a lasting and "sustainable" impact.
         I think we are in great need of this change, because it provides an outline for how the United States undertakes "stabilization" efforts in post-conflict areas instead of just going in and enforcing democracy into their government. I agree with Clinton and Gates about "demilitarizing" foreign policy, because we send our troops everywhere that involves U.S presence or guiding and i can see how that can be threatening to the civilians of the foreign country.
         

        I read a blog on AmericaBlog by an author named Chris in Paris that talked about how the white house is going easy on Wall Street and not pushing them on the foreclosure abuse problem. I think the intended audience of this blog are mainly Republicans and any american voter interested in information about the governments actions over the Wall Street bailout. The credibility of the author is not possible to analyze due to this being a blog where anyone can write their opinions. From my reading of this blog i can infer that the author is somewhat credible and is up to date in the events that he has wrote about.
       I disagree with Chris in Paris because i think the governments decision to bailout Wall Street was the correct action to take to help prevent the economy from getting worse than it was. The author in my opinion provided sufficient support for his opinion because he provided a link to another blog that has more facts supporting his blog and has an excerpt from the Washington Post. He explains why he is upset in the blog and seems to know what he is taking about, overall i think he did a good job even though i don't agree with his opinion.

Does the internet filter liberal press for conservative journalist?

Brent Bozell says "15 years ago, conservatives couldn't expect fair shake in the media." 

This article from CNN is written by Brent Bozell who is the president of the Media Research Center and the founder of http://cnsnews.com/. In this article he talks about how back in the mid 1990's that the media was liberal bias and how it was poisoning the public discourse to a point where conservatives could not put their side of an issue on the table. Brent  does a good job giving evidence to his statement by talking about an interview between former CBS anchor Dan Rather and the top-rated conservative radio talk show host in Denver, Colorado , Mike Rosen. In this interview Rather says they tried to give both liberals and conservatives an equal share in news that CBS reported. Rosen then argued against this by bringing up the "Mediscare" campaign and how the press clearly had a liberal bias by echoing the Democratic line that Republicans wanted to cut medicare coverage, which was simply false. Rather was then put into a corner after several other facts were presented which he responded by hanging up. Brent then goes to say that there were few conservative magazines and newspapers and that they stood no chance as they had maybe a tenth of the audience that a television news network had.

Even though this article is based on events that occurred around 1995 which would make me four years old knowing nothing about politics, i do agree with Brent's article as he provides sufficient data and evidence to back his statements up. I think his audience would be the general public but leaning towards conservatives as he is informing how the media can be bias toward one political party over the other.

The Final Push For Control

Democrats return to Capitol Hill, mount final push to keep control

This article talks about the November 2nd elections and how the Democratic party will try to maintain there majority in Congress all 435 House Representatives and 37 Senator seats are up for election. This article explains that the Democrats final push includes the debate of the expiring Bush tax cuts and that they will use this to try and lean the public back into their favor. The article also reveals that Democrats want to pass some must-pass bills that will help prevent the government from running out of money at the beginning of the fiscal year which starts on October 1st. Regardless of which party wins the majority the expiring tax cuts are an issue that will have to be solved. The Democrats are arguing that their party is focused on the middle class while the Republicans are focused on the rich. The article defends this statement by letting the public know that the current House Minority Leader  John Boehner said that he would vote for extending the tax cuts for the middle class if that was the only option he had, but that he would do everything that he could to extend them for those making more than $250,000 as well.