Ukraine cries 'robbery' as Russia annexes Crimea

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/world/americas/opponent-of-mexicos-cartels-is-detained-in-vigilantes-deaths.html

Completely contradictory to western condemnation Russia has annexed Crimea. Crimea was actually originally a part of Russia but was given to Ukraine by Nikita Khruschev who was Ukrainian and very Pro Ukraine. So a large majority of the population in Crimea and eastern Ukraine is Russian. So when they voted at a 97% majority to be annexed into Russia it's not completely unlikely, it's just annoying because Russia thinks they can do whatever the heck they want to and that they don't have to abide by international law or listen to anyone else. And we can't really do anything about it because a huge percentage of U.S. natural gas comes out of Russia. Specifically the region right there by Crimea. So basically we can't fight them, cuz we don't want a war first of all, but also because we depend on them for a lot of resources and we can't afford that kind of conflict with them. Honestly they just bug me. Vladimir Putin bugs me. He's a bully and he think he can just do whatever he wants and get away with it. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT!?!? He pretty much can so that really sucks...

Opponent of Mexico’s Cartels Is Detained in Vigilantes’ Deaths

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/world/americas/opponent-of-mexicos-cartels-is-detained-in-vigilantes-deaths.html

Hipolito Mora claims to have started the first self-defense group a little over a year ago to defend the people in the region against the knights templar cartel and their incredible violence and cruelty. Since then other groups have been developed as well and it looks to me like the self-defense groups are starting to act like the cartels... Mora was recently arrested as a suspect in the murder of two men from another group. A lot of people are denying it saying that he would never and that he was framed. There is a lot of evidence pointing to him tho including many disputes between him and this rival groups leader and the negotiations that these groups have been having get heated and turn into fights. Mora is also accused of using the land that he has acquired for himself and making personal money off of it rather than for the group. There is also a lot of suspicion about the groups being infiltrated by the cartels and may be working for them more than anything at this point. 

What really interests me about this article is first of all the whole dynamic of the situation is so foreign to me. Where I live the government and the police force defend against lawlessness but in some parts of Mexico the cartel is so out of hand that the people have had to set these groups up to feel safe and in the end the rivalry between the self-defense groups has turned violent and very tense and full of friction more than anything really a power struggle, making them resemble cartels that they are defending against quite a bit. Which is really kind of ironic in a sad way that makes you really feel for the people that are so caught up and stuck in the midst of this corruption and violence. And the fact that the government is now intervening and taking action against who are supposed to be the good guys that has got to be so frusterating for the people who live there. But then again are they really the good guys?

West Sees Unity on Iran Despite Crisis in Ukraine

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/world/europe/iran-nuclear-talks.html?_r=1

Basically no one wants Iran to make or to have nuclear weapons. So Iran and the 5 plus-1 coutnries, which includes, Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — plus Germany, are having some negotiations on the issue. The current crisis in Ukraine that Russia is involved in is apparently not effecting the negotiations at all and they are still continuing on as planned. The west had feared that Iran could exploit them because of Russia's defiance of their condemnation and annexing Crimea anyway, but this argument has made no appearance in the two-day talks they've had thus far. Iran continues to insist that their nuclear activities are peaceful. Russia does have personal interest in being apart of these negotiations. So we'll see how it goes. 

I really don't think that Iran should have nuclear weapons cuz they can be a little crazy sometimes and from what I know of their government and processes they are leaning on the more corrupt side of the spectrum and I don't really rust them...

Minister fuels pension debate with Lamborghini comment

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-26649162


From 2015 on, there will be a rule change with state pensions and people will be able to spend them however they want. George Osborne made a comment about how people could spend it on a Lamborghini if they wanted and that it wasn't up to them to decide that. Under the rule change people are guaranteed free advice on how to spend it but will no longer be restricted as to what they can spend it on. Most pension pots aren't even enough for people to be buying things like elaborate sports cars. It is expected that anyone who is over the age of 55 will be able to take out sums of cash form their pension pots do spend or invest how they wish.
There has been a lot of controversy about this new change to the budget, as well as other changes made by Osborne. Conservatives are questioning what will happen once the pension runs out. Who will pick up the tab?
I think that both sides have good points and valuable reasons behind their arguments. But being the capitalist American that I am naturally I would say that there should be little restriction on how people are to spend their pensions. They don't need to be babysat by the government.

Canadian-Mexican relations: Rivals more than friends

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/02/canadian-mexican-relations?zid=305&ah=417bd5664dc76da5d98af4f7a640fd8a

This article is basically just all about how Canada says their all good with Mexico. And Mexico is all like, "No, we're ticked at them." Cause Canada is pretty much ignoring them and not trading with them as much as Mexico wants them to. Also there's Canada’s refusal to lift a visa requirement for all visitors from Mexico imposed in 2009 to stem a surge in false-refugee claims. So that's annoying...

This paragraph of the article made me laugh cuz the last sentence is really funny.
"Just before Mr Harper left for Mexico his office put out a press release saying “Mexico and Canada enjoy excellent bilateral relations”. The Mexican ambassador described relations as having entered post-NAFTA old age “with flaws, limitations and increasing wrinkles”. One of them is misreading the situation."

Also this part is funny. 
 "The rancour between two of North America’s three amigos, as the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States were once called, predates the visa problem. Canada was a reluctant signatory to the North America Free Trade Agreement, joining to protect access to the American market it secured in a 1989 Canada-US deal rather than out of any desire for closer relations with Mexico. The two have been rivals for US affection and attention ever since."
The last line made me think of a Studio C skit on international relations that I think is hysterical and that you all would enjoy. It's pretty cheesy, but you should watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqIh3N7_xGk

Governor of Nigeria’s Central Bank Is Fired After Warning of Missing Oil Revenue

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/world/africa/governor-of-nigerias-central-bank-is-fired-after-warning-of-missing-oil-revenue.html?_r=0

President Jonathan of Nigeria dismissed the governor of Nigeria's central bank after the governor repeatedly addressed the president with reports that billions of dollars in oil revenue were missing from the treasury. The oil  company responded to these charges by Mr. Sanusi, the governor, with outrage. Mr. Jonathan’s government ousted Mr. Sanusi, saying his “tenure has been characterized by various acts of financial recklessness and misconduct.” After he was dismissed the stock market in Nigeria took a plunge and their currency was valued at an all time low. Outside investors had seen Mr. Sanusi as an effective regulator of the country's troubled banking sector. This and many incidents like it in Nigeria under President Jonathan's administration raise concerns about the growing corruption and the dwindling willingness of the government to deal with it or fix it. Public opinion of the government in Nigeria among Nigerians has gone down hill at reoccurrences of such removals of good officials. Even supporters of Jonathan are now calling for an investigaion into the missing oil money.

Corruption of government officials like this, especially on such a large scale, is a sure step on the path straight to chaos, and the collapsing of government. Even whole countries. That may seem kind of dramatic, but one of the common characteristics of a failed state is that the government officials take the money from the people and national organizations and use them towards their own agendas rather than improving the state. That combined with the increasing terrorist activity and other unrest in the region I think puts Nigeria in a precarious position.

Ukraine mobilizes troops after Russia's 'declaration of war'

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/02/world/europe/ukraine-politics/

After a violent uprising in Ukraine, which resulted from former president Viktor Yanukovych rejected a deal with the EU and instead decided to tighten ties with Moscow, the country was thrown into chaos. Since then Russian troops have begun to occupy the Ukraine, Ukraine sees this as a declaration of war. Many disagree with what the russians are doing, saying that it violates the rights of the Ukraine. NATO had a conference in Brussels, Belgium to discuss the verdict of the situation and how to respond. There has been much speculation about the economic effects these events could have on the international economy as well as the Russian economy and it has been presented that until Russia straightens up they should be cut off from international economics. Leaders from all over the world are speculating as to what these events could mean for their country.

This incident is a very clear example of how globalization has effected our world today. A civil conflict within the borders of one country has quickly become a world wide concern, so much so that Russia even took military action. Because of the nature of the modern international economy and unions between nations, such as the EU, there isn't any avoiding the interconnectedness of approximately every nation in the world and in turn the widespread involvement in civil issues.

Should the minimum wage be increased?

http://crossfire.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/08/should-the-minimum-wage-be-increased/

I think that the minimum wage should be increased. People cannot live on $7.25 an hour. Nor can they progress in society on $7.25 an hour. Big businesses can afford an increase in minimum wage. They may not want to, but they can. There is the argument that some people will lose their jobs, which is true. Small businesses that really can't afford to employ as many people as they currently do if the minimum wage increased would have to lay off workers, but that would be a very small percentage of people, I think. And in order for the economy to grow we need this extra money being pumped into it. And after a few years things should balance out. People get paid more=people spend more=businesses make more. So, those small businesses should be able to catch up after not too long. It's the cycle and the way of the economy. It's happened before and it needs to happen now.

Political vendettas 'as American as apple pie'

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/12/political-vendettas-as-american-as-apple-pie/

This article just kind of goes through several extreme cases of political retribution throughout the history of politics in the U.S. It's super interesting (you should read it). But also kind of disturbing. I'm thinking that maybe some of our "leaders" are spending too much of their time and resources on revenge and making other people not get what they want than actually focusing on the real problems in this country and the needs of the people. Obviously politics are a big game and a competition and in order to succeed there is always some of that (unfortunately) but when that becomes more important than your actual responsibilities and doing what the people elected you to do, um problem. That is a problem. 

Chris Christie's Bridge Scandal, Explained

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/chris-christie-bridge-traffic-jam-emails

"How'd this begin? In mid-September, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey unexpectedly closed two access lanes on the New Jersey side of the George Washington Bridge, which spans the Hudson River and serves as a major commuter route between the two states. A massive, weeklong traffic jam ensued, clogging the streets of nearby Fort Lee.

Cops and lawmakers in Fort Lee said they were given no warning about the decision to close the lanes, which delayed school buses, first responders, and commuters bound for New York City. The Port Authority justified its decision by saying it was conducting a "traffic study."

Why is this political? Soon after the traffic jam, rumors emerged that the Port Authority closed the bridge lanes as political retribution against Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat who endorsed Gov. Chris Christie's opponent in the 2013 gubernatorial campaign. As news outlets and New Jersey Democrats dug deeper into the circumstances of the bridge incident, they eventually connected the lane closures to two Port Authority officials with close ties to Christie: Bill Baroni, the deputy executive director of the agency, and David Wildstein, its director of interstate capital projects. Baroni and Wildstein have since resigned, and both men have retained criminal defense attorneys.

All along, the Christie administration had denied any connection to the decision to close the bridge lanes. In September, a Christie spokesman called the retribution claim "crazy." Christietold reporters at a December press conference that the Fort Lee traffic snarl was "absolutely, unequivocally not" a result of political score-settling. 

What's new today? In response to a subpoena, Wildstein provided a bevy of emails sent by Christie's staff to a panel of state lawmakers investigating the road closures. The messages fly in the face of many of the claims Christie has made about the lane closures. Wildstein will testify about the documents before that panel on Thursday.

The messages, traded between several members of Christie's senior staff, his campaign manager, and his deputy chief of staff, were sent mostly from staffers' private accounts and did not loop in Christie. They strongly suggest that members of Christie's inner circle planned the lane closures as political retaliation against Sokolich. Other top Christie associates included in the email chain after the lanes were reopened include David Samson, the chairman of the Port Authority, and Michael Drewniak, Christie's spokesman. The emails contradict repeated statements by Christie that neither his staff nor anyone from his campaign was involved with the lane closures.

The messages also lay bare Christie's staff's gleeful anticipation of Fort Lee's traffic debacle. On the day of the lane closures and in the aftermath, Christie's top aids privately traded jabs at Fort Lee's mayor and mocked the town's residents as they struggled to deal with the traffic."

I think this entire thing is absolutely ridiculous. Like, honestly, are you five years old? It ticks me off to know that a leader of the state would use people as pawns like that, messing with their commutes for days, causing complete chaos and stress, for what? To get back at someone who supported his running opponent? Who lost? I can clearly see why he didn't support you pal! I think these actions show very little respect for voters and their right to vote and support which candidate they want. Like, everyone doesn't have the same opinion. OBVIOUSLY. Can you deal with that please? These actions are very irresponsible and immature and disrespectful. Although I feel kind of bad for bashing on the guy, cuz like I don't even know him, but I really disagree with what has happened here! I'm sure he has some good qualities but.....This is a giant problem. He should be fired. 

.

Al Qaeda training Americans in Syria?

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/01/10/tsr-dnt-sciutto-al-qaeda-training-americans-in-syria.cnn.html

The Syrian civil war has been growing in intensity and scope for more than two years. Young liberal Americans have gone over to fight with the rebels against their government, most had been previously in the U.S. military. U.S. officials are questioning and worried that these Americans have been or may be the targets of Al Qaeda recruiters. The idea is that since they are American citizens and have all the right paperwork and documents to get back into the country that the young Americans would be ideal assets to carrying out terrorist activity within the United States. U.S. officials have taken the liberty of tracking these Americans documents, phones, emails, and social media to make sure that they are not a threat to the homeland. 

My question is, other than their presence in Syria what other cause have these Americans given to be tracked and suspected by the U.S. government? Do they really have the right to track their communications? Under the USA PATRIOT act of 2001 the government has the right to "intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism." While I understand that there are precedented behaviors and situations that would cause this type of suspicion it doesn't seem quite right to me that the government is able to this with quite a small amount of probable cause against these Americans. But on the other hand I do understand it because how are U.S. officials supposed to stop tragedies like 9/11 without capitalizing on instances like these? 

Arkansas lieutenant governor says he'll resign over ethics violations

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/11/arkansas-lieutenant-governor-says-hell-resign-over-ethics-violations/?hpt=po_c2

Arkansas lieutenant governor, Mark Darr, announced his resignation after the state ethics commission discovered that he broke 11 campaign finance rules since 2010. Just following the ruling he admitted to being guilty and agreed to pay $11,000 in fines but refused to step down until now. Previously Governor Mike Beebe and others had called for his removal but in Arkansas, only the state legislature has the power to remove a lieutenant governor from office. 

I think it was a good idea for him to resign and I also think it's good that only the state legislature has the power to remove him. I think it can't be too easy to be able to remove government officials because then political enemies or people with other agendas would be able to abuse the system but it still must be possible. 

Utah Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down As Unconstitutional

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/20/utah-gay-marriage-ban_n_4482222.html

The article basically just discusses the reasons that not legalizing gay marraige in Utah is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby issued a ruling saying Utah's law passed by voters in 2004 violates gay and lesbian couples' rights to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment. This caused an almost ripple effect and in the days that followed gay marraige was legalized in New Mexico and Hawaii. People were shocked and surprised that the highly conservative Utah would be among one of the earlier states to have this kind of action passed. Immediately after the ruling lot of gay and lesbian doubted how long it would last say that it was "too good to be true."

I have mixed feelings about this issue. Initially I think how in the world can you justify not legalizing gay marraige? It's in direct violation to the rights of those citizens and to the Constitution to do that, as stated in the article. 
There's a lot of people, however, that argue about how it's a matter of seperation of church and state, that people who do not support the legalization of gay marraige are ignorant because they are trying to mix religion and secular matters. That I disagree with because gay marriage, while your ideas of it may be guided by your religious veiws, is not a religious issue. It's a moral issue. So I think it would be much better classified as such. But I think where the big problem comes in between the two point of views is that in more recent years it's not being discussed as a moral issure anymore (at least for some) but now it's a civil rights issue. And in terms of civil rights, I feel that it only makes sense, legally/constitutionally, to have gay marriage leglaized. Even in terms of morality, though, the government doesn't traditionally rule on moral issues, nor do I think that it's their place (there are things such as murder that obvioulsy are a danger to society and that is why the government does rule on such things). For example, some may think that drinking is immoral, or that cheating on your spouse is immoral, but it's not the governements place to say that those things are illegal because they do not reach some moral standard. So, some may think that gay marraige is immoral, but I don't think that it's the governments place to say that it's illegal because of that. Therefore, I would come to the same conclusion, that it should be legal. 

Senators near deal on unemployment

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/194956-senators-nearing-deal-on-unemployment

Senate majority leader Henry Reid is hopeful that a deal can be reached to extend unemployment beneifts for a year without adding to the deficit. Senator Jack Reed and Representative Dean Heller have been pushing for a three-month plan for unemployment benefits that would add $6.4 billion to the deficit. Extending benefits for the rest of the year would cost $26 billion. But could be achieved by spending cuts. It is unclear whether this will pass in either the House or the Senate.

I think that unemployment assistance is a worthwhile reason for cutting spending in other areas (*cough* military spending *cough*). A lot of people feel that unemployment assistance encourages those out of work to not be super proactive about fixing that. Which I can see their point. But I think the real problem is that minimum wage is so low that people can make more from government assistance than from actually working. That is what I think needs to be fixed.