Obama says waterboarding was torture

President Barack Obama said Wednesday night that waterboarding authorized by George W. Bush was torture, and the information obtained from suspected terrorists through its use could have been gathered in another way. President Obama admits that it may be challenging, but is "absolutely convinced" he had acted correctly in banning waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning, and approved making public the Bush administration memos detailing its use as well as other harsh methods used on suspected terrorists. Obama has come under criticism from former Vice President Dick Cheney and other Republicans for banning waterboarding. Cheney as well as some congressional Republicans have urged Obama to release documents they say will show waterboarding was successful in obtaining information. President Obama told reporters he has reviewed the documents Cheney is referring to and stands by his decision.

President Obama's decision is ultimately justified .Terrorists are inhumane in their approach, but the United States should not behave at their level as it would merely result in hypocrisy. While obtaining information from terrorists is extremely crucial, the government should not have to resort to cruel and unusual punishment.

School closures... yea or nay?

I guess I've seen this in the newspapers and on the news in the past few days, but school closures are happening pretty close to us. If somebody shows symptoms then the school closes for a while in order to prevent the spread. Pretty crazy timing for us AP class taking seniors eh? While of course I hope that nobody at Aragon catches the flu, It seems a possibility. Additionally, and tragically, the first swine flu- caused death to happen in America was a 23 month old child who had traveled from Mexico, although another child has died in Texas. However, apart from those who are very young and weak, and as long as people don't wait when they feel symptoms, most cases are mild. Any thoughts on how the structure of our last high school year will be affected? At least it will make an interestingish story to tell people in 10 years.

Huge ice chunks break away from Antarctic shelf

Large chunks of ice are breaking away at a fast rate in the western Antarctic Peninsula. 1,300 square miles of ice may possibly crumble in the next few weeks from the Wilkins Ice Shelf. Ironically, the shelf had been stable for the majority of the last century but began deteriorating in the 1990's. A total of 8 ice shelves have shown signs of crumbling over the last few decades. Yet the retreat of the Wilkins shelf is by far the largest collapse scientists have documented, losing about 14 percent of its mass last year. The average temperature in the Antarctic Peninsula has risen about 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit within the last 50 years, which is higher than average global rise.

The condition of the Wilkins shelf obviously demonstrates human impact among global warming. It's no mere coincidence that the ice shelf began to disintegrate in an atmosphere heightened with greenhouse gas emissions. The government should definitely focus on this problem as the consequences of the potential sea level rise could be dramatic to the environment. It's easy to turn a blind eye to events that seem distant and do not have a direct effect on the public, yet the large demise of the ice shelf ultimately represents its urgent need for attention. As the effects of global warming become increasingly more harmful and apparent, time will tell if the government will take the correct steps to remedy the situation.

How are some of the many world events affecting you?

Lately, it seems that the world is almost falling apart at the seams. Genocide, illness, terrorism, war, economic woes, almost everything bad imaginable is happening somewhere in the world. As a member of a very affluent community, do you see these things in ways other than the statistics or the front page of a newspaper? I have been lucky enough to be relatively untouched by the economic downturn so far, and I have also been lucky enough that nobody close to me has been affected greatly. However, the first real concrete thing that happened to me recently was the cancellation of a mission trip to Mexico. Because our plane was stopping in Mexico city, it was decided that it was simply too much of a risk with the swine flu. How have these things been affecting you?

Officials propose swine flu may cause deaths in the US

Governments are currently taking action to prevent the further outbreaks of swine flu. Federal officials have stated that deaths as a result of swine flu are becoming increasingly more likely after killing numerous people in Mexico. Yet no deaths outside of Mexico have been reported. As of right now, there are 64 confirmed cases of swine flu in the United States. Richard Besser, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has stated that, "I fully expect we will see deaths from this infection." Cuba has even taken the extreme action of banning all flights to Mexico.

President Obama proposed 1.5 billion in emergency funds to Congress to aid prevention of the disease. The funds would contribute to building stockpiles of drugs and monitoring of future cases. Officials have stated that swine flu cannot be classified as a pandemic as of right now and encourage taking all actions to prevent it from becoming so.

I feel that the government should contribute to prevent further spreading of swine flu, yet the extent to which the government should focus on the disease is debatable. An average of 20,000 people die from regular flu-related causes each year. The severeness of the disease is not entirely known, as no deaths have resulted from swine flu outside of Mexico. The media may be exaggerating the effects of swine flu, resulting in unnecessary panic. While citizens should be forewarned of the disease and the precautions that should be taken to prevent it, the extent of its impact has not fully been discovered and therefore not worthy of nationwide hysteria.

Japan pays foreign workers to go home...and not come back

This is easily the strangest government plan to combat recession I have ever seen. Japan is now offering its hundreds of thousands of blue-collar Latin American immigrants to pay for their airline trip back to Latin America, in exchange for their agreement to never seek work in Japan again.

Some background information: Japan's Latin American immigrant workforce primarily came from Brazil, where Japanese citizens were encouraged to move to Brazil and its neighboring countries to work in coffee plantations around the 20th century. These "Nikkei Brazilians" were granted special visas to return to Japan around 1990 when Japan faced an industrial slump. Currently they make up the largest immigrant workforce in Japan, with around 366,000 people.

With the economic recession hitting nearly every country in the world, Japan faced a 45% drop in exports, 4.4% unemployment, and the lowest industrial production in 25 years. In response, the Japanese decided to urge its immigrant works to leave the country, which they reason could lower pressure on domestic labor markets.

The program offers about $3000 in airline fare to Latin American guest workers, as well as $2000 for each dependent in the family. Workers are allowed to keep any leftover money. The catch is that workers who agree to take the money cannot apply for a work visa in Japan. Without that, they essentially can never again work in Japan.

Not surprisingly, this plan caused a lot of shock among both native Japanese and the Brazilian immigrants. From what I understand, the Japanese ministry is trying to open up the vacant jobs left behind by leaving workers to native citizens. The vast majority of the immigrant workers hold jobs involving either more menial labor or dangerous conditions. Can you imagine if the US tried to do this too? I have no idea as to how successful this plan will be in improving Japan's economy, but it definitely wont help make the country more multicultural, something the country has tried to do in recent years. I guess only time will tell.

Pakistan Falling to the Taliban?

It seems to me as if all the focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, while obviously warranted, as we have two wars currently taking place there, coupled with the attention given to Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia is making it so that the situation in Pakistan is somewhat lost in the muddle of Middle East conflict. This is probably not a good thing.

Pakistan has been one of our most important allies in the War on Terror, especially in the Afghan theater, and it's now in danger of becoming either a failed state or a nation run by the Taliban. With all the recent political turmoil, involving assassinations, resignations, maybe even a coup, if I remember correctly, the overall stability of Pakistan is rapidly decreasing. This of course makes it ripe for insurgency action by Taliban members working out of the remote, essentially lawless borderlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

So what's the problem here? Well, besides likely signaling a complete failure of the conflict in Afghanistan, a Pakistan run by the Taliban would pose a grave threat to world safety.

Pakistan is one of the few nations in the world with nuclear capabilities, developed to serve as a deterrent against perpetual sharer of enmity India, also a nuclear power. A nuclear Taliban would, obviously, not be good. For anybody, except maybe the Taliban, although that might even be debatable.

Michael Crowley, a blogger at "The Plank" on the website of The New Republic, wonders how long it takes for Obama to send in airstrikes and/or special forces, whether the Pakistani government endorses it or not. A very fair question, although it's entirely possible neither is a feasible solution, at least, not without extreme dissent from an American public already tired of two Middle Eastern wars.

That seems to me to be a very reasonable argument against the war in Iraq, especially, but a lot of war in general: What do you do when you're in an unnecessary war, and all of a sudden a necessary one pops up? That's not to say that Pakistan is destined to fall, and we should all hope very much that it doesn't, but it's something to think about. You can only engage in so many battles at once. Pick your fights wisely, I guess.

Supreme Court limits car searches without warrants

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that police needed a search warrant to search the vehicle of an arrested person if the person is locked in a patrol cruiser and poses no threat to the officer. This 5-4 decision is said to put many new restrictions on police officers, stopping them from searching the vehicle immediately after an arrest. The warrantless searches can still take place if the officer has reason to believe evidence regarding the arrest can be found in the car.

The new ruling is mainly dealing with daily cases where cops will pull someone over. As long as one isn't a threat to the officer, or has any reason to be suspected of suspicious activity, their vehicle can't be randomly searched. Of course, drunk or otherwise influenced drivers don't get a free pass if the police thinks the offending substance is still in the car. Still, it's an interesting step towards more rights for the accused that will probably be well received.

European Nations Getting Involved....

To add more info from my last post, the CIA interrogation cases may be getting a bit more interesting as now it seems that some European nations are going to get involved, and possible hold some of their own trials for the men involved in this case. Some nations already have laws in which they state that they can investigate "torture, genocide and other human rights crimes anywhere in the world". Countries such as Spain have been pushing for their governments to investigate the men involved with these interrogation cases, with the backing of some UN officials who state how the techniques were a clear violation of human rights.

Personally, I do not mind seeing other nations getting involved if our own government does not want to step up and take responsibility for our own actions. But some also say we also have to consider how it would look to our image to the entire world. Do you think it would change what people around the word think of our country? Thoughts?

European Nations May Investigate Bush Officials Over Prisoner Treatment

Dick Cheney Has a Good Idea? Uhm... Okay...

I don't have the link handy at the moment, but it's been going around the blogosphere, and is perhaps even spreading into the MSM, that former Vice-President Dick Cheney has called for the release of CIA reports regarding the apparent successes of torture, or enhanced interrogation, or whatever we're all calling it these days.

Cheney's rationale is more or less that if everyone knows how well all our waterboarding, sensory deprivation, slappin, etc. worked, how safe it really made us, then we'll all just say "Great, sounds like torturing people is a good idea, no matter how illegal or immoral it may be."

Obviously I doubt that would be the expected reaction, but I think Mr. Cheney might be on to something here. The more we know about what the US has been doing in regards to interrogation, the more likely we may be to actually do something about this, in terms of prosecutions, truth comissions or what have you. So yeah, let's get those papers out, everything we can. Because really, if we don't let everything out, we can never know what else we're hiding.

The best thing I have ever seen on FOX NEWS

Warning: profanity included. Wow. Inappropriate, and yet so appropriate. Click here.

Morgan Stanley Brings Market Down

Morgan Stanley, one of the few investment banks left on Wall Street, announced their quarterly earnings today. Anticipating a poor report, traders set the market price of MS's stock two dollars before yesterdays closing price. Attacking the low price, MS investors raised the average stock price briefly until the quarterly announcement was made. After noon, equity fell and never rose again, leaving the current price two dollars and twenty one cents below yesterday's closing price, an 8.97 percent drop.

Unsurprisingly, Morgan Stanley's quarterly earnings reflected a more than expected loss. While officials believed Morgan Stanley would fall around eight cents per share, their actual loss was about fifty seven cents per share, roughly $177. In order to compensate, Morgan Stanely cut dividends from twenty seven cents per share to around five cents per share. The dramatic decrease can be explained by poor equity sales, the decline in commercial real estate, and changing their primary focus to fixed-income trading.

Morgan Stanley's decline had a noticeable impact on the rest of the market. JP Morgan, a competor in the investment banking sector, fell sixty three cents, a 1.94% drop, Dow Jones composite index dropped eighty two dollars and nintey nine cents, a 1.04% drop, and the Standard and Poors 500 composite index fell six dollars and fiftey three cents, a 0.77% drop.

While the current credit freeze is a reaction to the illiquidity of "toxic" assets that have poisoned bank's finances, the decline of Morgan Stanley's quarterly earnings was well expected. The good news, however, is that the large investment banks are refinancing their balance sheets in order to pull the loan industry out of fearful spending. By focusing on fixed-income trading, and other more reliable sources of income, the investment banking sector is moving towards a less risky manner of making money. Undoubtably, the investment banking sector is allways going to be involved in some form of risk, but the banks are rethinking and therefore rebalancing their finances. Hopefully, these assets will unfreze credit, and in turn raise the economy.

No Prosecution for Interrogation Methods?...Not So Fast

Today President Obama surprised some by stating that he would not be "necessarily oppose a U.S. panel to investigate the interrogation program", going against what many interpreted he said a couple days back about there being no prosecutions for these men involved in these interrogation programs. In this article by Reuters, http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE53K63020090422, Obama also went on to state that he just want the questioning to take place "outside of the 'typical hearing process' of Congress".

Now I know that the decision for Obama to release the memos was a very controversial one, with lots of backlash coming from conservatives, but is it a good idea to go through a hearing/interrogation of these men (ironically)? Personally, I would just see this as another distraction for our economic problems and I believe that those should be our first priority right now. What do you guys think? Should Obama be willing to let Congress have their day with these men? Or would it be too much of a distraction away from our economic problems in this country?

CIA delays 'torture memos' release

This article seemed to have caused a stir in the news recently. On Thursday, April 13, President Obama authorized the release of classified Bush-era interrogation memos. Had there not been staunch opposition from four former CIA directors, the memos would have been available to the public much sooner. Apparently, the memos' release might open up CIA officers to lawsuits filed against them on accusations of torture and abuse. The former CIA chiefs argued that opening the memos to the public could hinder current intelligence operations. Interestingly, the Jusitice Department urged senior CIA members to release the memos almost completely uncensored, which they were.

While I can understand why former CIA directors wanted to delay the relase of these once classified memos, I'm curious as to why Obama and his administration was pushing for their declassification. Because these documents are relatively recent, they contain important information on how our secret service operates that is not yet outdated, and to release the memos would be a considerable security leak. Exposing the acts of "torture" may be important for future reform of the department, but it definitely isn't helping the organization and efficiency of the department right now. To cover up human rights violations is bad, but to threaten the security of the nation just to satisfy the curious demands of society doesn't seem much better. Thoughts?

Marking an Anniversary

Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the shootings at Coloumbine High School in Colorado that killed 12 students and 2 teachers as well as the two shooters themselves. As we are high school students now, it is impossible to remember what life in high school was like pre-Columbine, but here is something to think about... when the school does a lock-down drill it is called Code 99 because Columbine occured in 1999. So much has changed in terms of security in schools in just 10 years. There are metal detectors in many urban schools and video surveillance on campuses across the country. Security has been amped up, but is it enough?

Yes, it is true that one could argue that it violates the students right to privacy when lockers are searched or we are video-taped in the hallways, but should that right take prescedence over safety? Unfortunately, violence in schools has not stopped. This spring it will have been two years since the Virginia Tech killings of 23 students. Is there a way to stop such acts, or will there always be that one kid who is bent on destruction? Can psychologists predict who the next perpetrator will be? Will stepping up gun restrictions and laws help, or simply anger the NRA? These are very difficult problems when dealing with the safety of children. Any thoughts?

4/20

It only seems fitting that 4/20 should merit a marijuana policy post, especially since the issue has received very little coverage throughout the year on the Hitchhiker's Guide to National Affairs.

I'm not sure how many of you are regular readers of blogs outside of the class blog, but there's a wonderful writer out there named Andrew Sullivan, you might have noticed his blog listed in the Don Roll on the left side of your screen.

Anyways, Andrew, a longtime advocate of gay rights, and a gay man himself, has analogized the gay rights movement with that of the push for ending marijuana prohibition, a cause he also supports. The way he sees it, a deciding factor in the fight for equality among homosexuals was the decision made by many homosexuals to "come out of the closet" and show people that to be gay is not to be a freak, or a pervert, or what have you. Once people started realizing that homosexuals are just like everyone else, the movement for equality started gaining momentum.

So what does all this have to do with legalizing weed? Well, Mr. Sullivan has begun a regular feature on his blog, The Daily Dish, entitled The Cannabis Closet. As the name implies, the feature consists of anonymous emails sent to Andrew by normal, everyday people. Who also happen to smoke pot.

He's printed emails from youth football coaches, bankers, lawyers, moms, dads, graduate students, just about anyone you can think of. The point being that: hey, normal people can smoke weed too, it's not just hippies.

So what do you all think? Is Andrew correct in making the connection between gay rights and marijuana legalization? Will people coming out of the cannabis closet have any affect on ending marijuana prohibition? Has reading any of those emails changed your ideas about marijuana?

Recession's grip tight on jobs

A new government report on Thursday has come up with a unpleasant, yet unsurprising statistic: A record 6.1 million people will be receiving jobless benefits. The housing market has also plunged to its second-lowest level on the record. Construction as a whole seemed to have slowed, as the number of new homes has dropped 10.8 percent and applications for building permits are also declining .The recession is far from over.

The good news is that the economy is not plunging as badly as economists predicted it would. The Department of Labor readjusted its figures on annual unemployment claims, and found the adjusted 610,000 much less than the predicted 655,000. Apparently the spring shopping season has changed some of the numbers around, being much more successful than predicted. Hopefully this will show that even hard times, people will not hide all their money under the couch.

Middle East Peace?

Having recently returned from Israel, I heard a very interesting seminar and lecture that proposed the following statement: Israel's real problem is not the Palestinians, nor is it Lebanon; rather Israel's greatest threat to its existence (let alone peace) is Iran. The speaker, Neil Lazarus, proposed that the Pentagon's worst nightmare would be an Israeli preemptive strike on Tehran and Iran's nuclear program and then the retaliation from Iran, Hezbollah and all other anti-Israel countries surrounding it attack. What is the United States going to do then? 

I wonder about all of your opinions regarding peace in the Middle East. Do you think it needs to come from Israel or from its neighbors, or both? What is hindering the process? What is the objective in the region both for the United States, the world, and more specifically the parties involved? 

I think it is extremely dangerous to have someone like Ahmedinejad in power and even more frightening to discover that he has access to nuclear weapons. Not only is this a problem for the United States, but also it is an imminent and extremely serious threat to Israel. However, how does one deal with someone who refuses to follow acknowledge Israel's right to exist, denies the Holocaust,  refuses to follow U.N restrictions and poses a huge threat to global security when we need things from him, namely oil. The U.S has deep ties to Iran in terms of getting a huge amount of oil from the region and it would NOT be good in this economy to do something drastic and lose that large percentage of the oil market. So, I guess the question is what is to be done?  

Turnitin wins court battle over fair use...

See this Volokh post. Admittedly I find this interesting both as a consumer of turnitin and as Journalism instructor that deals with fair use law on a regular basis. I like to think of myself as a students' rights advocate, but really I'm a moderate, perfectly comfortable with this decision and NJ vs. TLO while fully supportive of Tinker and semi-outraged by Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier and Morse v. Frederick. Interesting cases all.

Have a great, safe weekend.

Obama Heads South of the Border

Yesterday, President Obama met with Mexican President, Felipe Calderon, before they both head to the Summit of Americas later this week. The topic of discussion? Border safety and curbing the drug violence in both nations. President Obama expressed that the United States would be a partner with Mexico in terms of reducing the violent drug cartels' attacks and power. Obama acknowledged that this is not only Mexico's problem, but the United States' as well. He spoke of security measures in the United States (such as more stringent security on the border so guns and cash are not as accessible en route to Mexico) and how the United States is prepared to support Mexico in its endeavors.

From the articles I've read, the news and radio, it seems as though Americans don't fully understand the power of these drug cartels (I know I don't!). Apparently, it's like having 20 different mafias all of whom could take over cities, wreak havoc in little towns and have the power to do as they please because the citizens are so frightened of these drug lords. I think it is great that President Obama plans on supporting Mexico in this fight, but the question is will his plans come to fruition? Let's face it, the United States government, and especially Obama, has a lot on its plate. I hope that just because this problem isn't directly centered in the U.S (altough it's pretty dependent on America), it doesn't get pushed to the back burner.