MP: 3 Blog: 5
So, John was totally right about the Monks. I read on BBC that during the past year, more than twenty-five monks set themselves on fire in protest of religious repression and this is considered to be a large increase from past years. After the monk lit himself on fire, many other monks and people from the surrounding area went to protest China's rule in Tibet.
The monk is said to have survived, suffering from major burns and was hospitalized, but was shortly returned to the monastery by fellow monks "for his safety." Since the protest, troops have been sent to the area and China's Premier said that Tibet would remain an inseparable part of China and that the self-immolation demonstrations. Also,in light of the upcoming anniversary of the rioting in Lhasa in 2008, security has been severely tightened in Tibet and many military trucks have been reported to have arrived in the town. He seems to have no compassion for these monks or capability of understanding their distress.
The protest also included students who called for freedom to study in Tibet.
Does anyone thinks it's crazy to have severe security for a monastery? The monks are setting themselves on fire as a severe form of self-expression to show their complete contempt for and dissatisfaction with Chinese rule. The monks aren't harming others, they're harming themselves and it is their conscious decision. If the monks are willing to go to that extreme level to show their extreme unhappiness, shouldn't there be a red flag that goes up to the government that's like "Hey, monks are setting themselves on fire. Maybe we should listen to what they have to say"? Does China really need Tibet? Didn't Tibet have high levels of autonomy in the past? Why does China all of a sudden (relatively speaking, considering it's all relative) need Tibet?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Does anyone else think that the world has lost its mind?
MP: 3 Blog: 4
So I know we have barely started China, but I figured I would try to look for an article pertaining to China (which is actually much, MUCH easier than doing so for Russia).
I found an article on CNN that was talking about Chinese legislators passing a law, a monumental law considering it is the "first overhaul of the criminal code in fifteen years," that allows the police to hold suspects at secret, undisclosed locations for up to six months. I'm getting the sense that the police in China already have a lot of influence over things and this will only give them more power. Essentially, under this law, the police can hold anyone who is suspected as a terrorist, accepting bribes, or being a threat to national security - and that includes saying things against the Chinese government. On paper, the suspects are allowed to have a lawyer and any evidence gathered from torture methods will be discarded, but in execution, who knows if this will actually be enforced considering police do illegal things all the time.
Apparently an amendment to this law was passed recently in which it is required of the police to notify the suspect's family to tell them that the suspect is being detained. However, they will not tell the family how long they will have the suspect or where they are keeping the suspect. This amendment and the "right to a lawyer" business are apparently considered "human rights" and improvements.
This gives the police wayyyyy too much power. They can detain suspects for almost anything because the interpretation of the law can be so broad.
What I want to know is why China is doing this? Is there something they're afraid of? How will the Chinese people respond to this? Will they respond to this? How is this making China any more "democratic"? Do you think America has the right to criticize this? Does anyone else think this is vaguely like NDAA?
Link!
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/14/world/asia/china-criminal-law/?hpt=ias_c2
So I know we have barely started China, but I figured I would try to look for an article pertaining to China (which is actually much, MUCH easier than doing so for Russia).
I found an article on CNN that was talking about Chinese legislators passing a law, a monumental law considering it is the "first overhaul of the criminal code in fifteen years," that allows the police to hold suspects at secret, undisclosed locations for up to six months. I'm getting the sense that the police in China already have a lot of influence over things and this will only give them more power. Essentially, under this law, the police can hold anyone who is suspected as a terrorist, accepting bribes, or being a threat to national security - and that includes saying things against the Chinese government. On paper, the suspects are allowed to have a lawyer and any evidence gathered from torture methods will be discarded, but in execution, who knows if this will actually be enforced considering police do illegal things all the time.
Apparently an amendment to this law was passed recently in which it is required of the police to notify the suspect's family to tell them that the suspect is being detained. However, they will not tell the family how long they will have the suspect or where they are keeping the suspect. This amendment and the "right to a lawyer" business are apparently considered "human rights" and improvements.
This gives the police wayyyyy too much power. They can detain suspects for almost anything because the interpretation of the law can be so broad.
What I want to know is why China is doing this? Is there something they're afraid of? How will the Chinese people respond to this? Will they respond to this? How is this making China any more "democratic"? Do you think America has the right to criticize this? Does anyone else think this is vaguely like NDAA?
Link!
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/14/world/asia/china-criminal-law/?hpt=ias_c2
Sunday, March 4, 2012
If you're Putin, one DOES simply win an election before votes are counted
MP:3 Blog: 3
According to exit poles, Putin is being congratulated on his victory of taking the presidency yet again in Russia. Not that the real votes have officially been counted, but he is expected to have a 60% majority of the votes. This is also assuming that the "real votes" even have any legitimacy. Many people, including opposing presidential candidates, are saying this election has no validity and Putin is a fraud. There are many rumors of "merry-go-round" voters who went around to many different polling places and voted many times under made-up names and if that didn't occur, there was surely rigging that occurred behind closed doors. There are also rumors that the crowd that was congratulating him on his victory was asked/forced to be there.
Is any of this true? Could any of this even be proved? Wouldn't it take a long time to prove? Would it even make a difference if it was ascertained that this was a fraudulent election? Are some people being paranoid? Is Putin trying to have control of Russia until he dies?
Additionally, it seems like there are people in Russia who do like Putin. Couldn't there be a lot of them? Are people just being sore losers? Also, is it just me or is it weird that Putin just always gets to be in charge of everything? But don't Russians kind of like when someone takes initiative to take care of things for them?
Anyway, there is an opposition protest that is planned to occur on Monday. The people making up the opposition are still mad about allegations of election fraud concerning parliamentary elections that so happened to end up in favor of Putin's United Russia. I don't think this protest will have any effect. Obviously if Putin took the lengths to rig an entire election in his favor, as well as work around the constitution to gain power over the country as prime minister, why would a single protest mean anything to him? I think they will be ignored and the protest will dissolve shortly, especially if the opposition doesn't gain any supporters (cause, you know, Russians feel kind of weird about gathering and working together on stuff).
All in all, I don't think this election has changed or will change anything in Russia. Putin is still in power and some people are still upset about it, but Putin is going to do what Putin wants to do--and to be honest, I know the whole one-party, one-ruler thing isn't ideal for anyone, but it is not like he's mistreating the Russian people or going all dictatorship on anyone. I guess I'm not really sure if I know what Russia wants...or if Russia even knows what Russia wants.
According to exit poles, Putin is being congratulated on his victory of taking the presidency yet again in Russia. Not that the real votes have officially been counted, but he is expected to have a 60% majority of the votes. This is also assuming that the "real votes" even have any legitimacy. Many people, including opposing presidential candidates, are saying this election has no validity and Putin is a fraud. There are many rumors of "merry-go-round" voters who went around to many different polling places and voted many times under made-up names and if that didn't occur, there was surely rigging that occurred behind closed doors. There are also rumors that the crowd that was congratulating him on his victory was asked/forced to be there.
Is any of this true? Could any of this even be proved? Wouldn't it take a long time to prove? Would it even make a difference if it was ascertained that this was a fraudulent election? Are some people being paranoid? Is Putin trying to have control of Russia until he dies?
Additionally, it seems like there are people in Russia who do like Putin. Couldn't there be a lot of them? Are people just being sore losers? Also, is it just me or is it weird that Putin just always gets to be in charge of everything? But don't Russians kind of like when someone takes initiative to take care of things for them?
Anyway, there is an opposition protest that is planned to occur on Monday. The people making up the opposition are still mad about allegations of election fraud concerning parliamentary elections that so happened to end up in favor of Putin's United Russia. I don't think this protest will have any effect. Obviously if Putin took the lengths to rig an entire election in his favor, as well as work around the constitution to gain power over the country as prime minister, why would a single protest mean anything to him? I think they will be ignored and the protest will dissolve shortly, especially if the opposition doesn't gain any supporters (cause, you know, Russians feel kind of weird about gathering and working together on stuff).
All in all, I don't think this election has changed or will change anything in Russia. Putin is still in power and some people are still upset about it, but Putin is going to do what Putin wants to do--and to be honest, I know the whole one-party, one-ruler thing isn't ideal for anyone, but it is not like he's mistreating the Russian people or going all dictatorship on anyone. I guess I'm not really sure if I know what Russia wants...or if Russia even knows what Russia wants.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Putin Protests
MP: 3 Blog: 2
So last time I wrote about the problem with immigration into Russia and about how Putin promised to make stricter legislation if reelected. Obviously, we all know Putin's history of rigging elections so there is no doubt that he will win the next election.
However, Russian citizens are beginning to catch on and are getting tired of his grip on power.
Anti-Putin protesters stood out in extremely cold weather, approximately negative nineteen degrees Celsius, to let Putin know they want him out of power and they are demanding fair elections. A Pro-Putin group has also formed, but what is interesting is that Russians are being FORCED to go to Pro-Putin rallies; workers are threatened by employers that they will lose their job if they do not attend the Pro-Putin rallies.
Not only that, but Moscow police are even fudging the numbers for how many protesters show up to each rally--not the smartest move on Putin's part considering citizens are already mad at him for rigging things. Anyway, police report the number of attendees at the Anti-Putin rallies as being much lower than they actually were and they report the number of attendees at the Pro-Putin rallies as much much higher than they actually are.
Putin addressed the Anti-Putin organizations and told them that he was glad they are sharing their perspectives and also encouraged them to dress warm. This seems a little condescending because I don't think he cares about their perspectives enough to give up power and give an honest election. I personally don't think this movement will have enough of an effect to change Putin's ways.
But what do you think? Will the protesters have any influence? Do you think they have/would be able to acquire any evidence that Putin actually does rig elections? Will Putin ever get out of power? If Putin did get out of power, do you think honest elections would even be granted then?
So last time I wrote about the problem with immigration into Russia and about how Putin promised to make stricter legislation if reelected. Obviously, we all know Putin's history of rigging elections so there is no doubt that he will win the next election.
However, Russian citizens are beginning to catch on and are getting tired of his grip on power.
Anti-Putin protesters stood out in extremely cold weather, approximately negative nineteen degrees Celsius, to let Putin know they want him out of power and they are demanding fair elections. A Pro-Putin group has also formed, but what is interesting is that Russians are being FORCED to go to Pro-Putin rallies; workers are threatened by employers that they will lose their job if they do not attend the Pro-Putin rallies.
Not only that, but Moscow police are even fudging the numbers for how many protesters show up to each rally--not the smartest move on Putin's part considering citizens are already mad at him for rigging things. Anyway, police report the number of attendees at the Anti-Putin rallies as being much lower than they actually were and they report the number of attendees at the Pro-Putin rallies as much much higher than they actually are.
Putin addressed the Anti-Putin organizations and told them that he was glad they are sharing their perspectives and also encouraged them to dress warm. This seems a little condescending because I don't think he cares about their perspectives enough to give up power and give an honest election. I personally don't think this movement will have enough of an effect to change Putin's ways.
But what do you think? Will the protesters have any influence? Do you think they have/would be able to acquire any evidence that Putin actually does rig elections? Will Putin ever get out of power? If Putin did get out of power, do you think honest elections would even be granted then?
Russian to the Rescue...or not
MP: 3 Blog: 1
I don't know if you all know what's up in Syria, but it is pretty crazy. The Syrian government, under Assad, in the past few days, has been murdering civilians in their homes and denying them access to medical care, though Syria's UN diplomat denies this saying that "no sensible person" would launch an attack on the citizens of his country the night before a security counsel debate. Considering there have been a great number of accounts and brutal photos circulating the internet, it is doubtful that the shots and accounts were made up or set up, as Syrian government officials have claimed.
The Security Counsel was meeting to discuss and vote on a resolution to Assad's war-machine rule in Syria. Essentially, if the resolution passed, resources and weapons would no longer become available to the Syrian government and would hopefully cause Assad to lose or give up power...at which time Syria would adopt a democratic government.
This resolution didn't pass after a veto from both China and Russia. Clinton called the veto a "travesty" and is now putting the death and blood of Syrian citizens on the hands of Russia and China as well. Because of their veto, she says, bloodshed will continue to flow and more Syrian citizens will continue to die.
Russia says that they vetoed the resolution because it was biased and it would mean that they would have to pick a side in a civil war--and they really don't want to do that, even though Syria is a huge ally of Russia's in the middle east. Additionally, China's veto came after Russia's and seems to be for the same reason. The Turkish Prime Minister accuses China and Russia of reverting to Cold War logic and not wanting to support this resolution simply because of their attitude against the West.
Many countries are in support of the resolution and really want to help get Assad out of power. Even other Middle Eastern countries have publicly decided they are opposed to Assad.
Do you think if there are enough countries that band together, they could form a new group and help Syria without the approval of Russia and China? What changes do you think could be made for China and Russia to support the resolution? Why do you think China and Russia can't put aside their opposition to the West to help Syria?
I don't know if you all know what's up in Syria, but it is pretty crazy. The Syrian government, under Assad, in the past few days, has been murdering civilians in their homes and denying them access to medical care, though Syria's UN diplomat denies this saying that "no sensible person" would launch an attack on the citizens of his country the night before a security counsel debate. Considering there have been a great number of accounts and brutal photos circulating the internet, it is doubtful that the shots and accounts were made up or set up, as Syrian government officials have claimed.
The Security Counsel was meeting to discuss and vote on a resolution to Assad's war-machine rule in Syria. Essentially, if the resolution passed, resources and weapons would no longer become available to the Syrian government and would hopefully cause Assad to lose or give up power...at which time Syria would adopt a democratic government.
This resolution didn't pass after a veto from both China and Russia. Clinton called the veto a "travesty" and is now putting the death and blood of Syrian citizens on the hands of Russia and China as well. Because of their veto, she says, bloodshed will continue to flow and more Syrian citizens will continue to die.
Russia says that they vetoed the resolution because it was biased and it would mean that they would have to pick a side in a civil war--and they really don't want to do that, even though Syria is a huge ally of Russia's in the middle east. Additionally, China's veto came after Russia's and seems to be for the same reason. The Turkish Prime Minister accuses China and Russia of reverting to Cold War logic and not wanting to support this resolution simply because of their attitude against the West.
Many countries are in support of the resolution and really want to help get Assad out of power. Even other Middle Eastern countries have publicly decided they are opposed to Assad.
Do you think if there are enough countries that band together, they could form a new group and help Syria without the approval of Russia and China? What changes do you think could be made for China and Russia to support the resolution? Why do you think China and Russia can't put aside their opposition to the West to help Syria?
Thursday, January 26, 2012
I finally read an article relevant to what's happening in class
So I know today in class Mrs. Garber mentioned how Russians want everyone in Russia to be and act Russian even if they're not. This is actually really true.
Elections are expected to take place in March of this year, and Putin is expected to win. Interestingly, his is taking a strong stance on immigration and labor laws.
Last year, Russia saw seven percent unemployment. This is while immigrants are flooding into the country, taking jobs without proper permits or documentation. They are either forging it or employers are ignoring it/forging it for them.
Many Russians are really frustrated with these immigrants because not only are they taking much needed jobs illegally, they are overcrowding living spaces. This has caused discrimination against anyone who doesn't appear to be or act Russian and it has caused the Russian people to fear and detest different people. Certain groups have even come about that kill or beat these workers who are also openly criticized by politicians.
Putin, if reelected, plans to take a serious stance against illegal immigration and labor and not only punish the illegal workers, but the employers also. For the Russians, this is a serious threat and many people are clearly angry. Out of the ten million foreign workers, there are about four million that are there illegally.
To be clearer, I don't think that it is necessarily that the Russians hate that people that are different, but the lack of respect for Russian law towards immigration and labor is apparent when workers come work in the country illegally and this is a blatant refusal to accept a Russian identity.
Do you think the Russian government is really going to crack down on immigration? Do you think it will be effective? Do you think it is possible to keep a close enough eye on this problem to be able to solve it? Do you think Russians put a permanent stigma on foreigners because some of them came to work in Russia illegally? Do you think this is anything like America's relationship with Mexico and immigration? Similarities? Differences?
Elections are expected to take place in March of this year, and Putin is expected to win. Interestingly, his is taking a strong stance on immigration and labor laws.
Last year, Russia saw seven percent unemployment. This is while immigrants are flooding into the country, taking jobs without proper permits or documentation. They are either forging it or employers are ignoring it/forging it for them.
Many Russians are really frustrated with these immigrants because not only are they taking much needed jobs illegally, they are overcrowding living spaces. This has caused discrimination against anyone who doesn't appear to be or act Russian and it has caused the Russian people to fear and detest different people. Certain groups have even come about that kill or beat these workers who are also openly criticized by politicians.
Putin, if reelected, plans to take a serious stance against illegal immigration and labor and not only punish the illegal workers, but the employers also. For the Russians, this is a serious threat and many people are clearly angry. Out of the ten million foreign workers, there are about four million that are there illegally.
To be clearer, I don't think that it is necessarily that the Russians hate that people that are different, but the lack of respect for Russian law towards immigration and labor is apparent when workers come work in the country illegally and this is a blatant refusal to accept a Russian identity.
Do you think the Russian government is really going to crack down on immigration? Do you think it will be effective? Do you think it is possible to keep a close enough eye on this problem to be able to solve it? Do you think Russians put a permanent stigma on foreigners because some of them came to work in Russia illegally? Do you think this is anything like America's relationship with Mexico and immigration? Similarities? Differences?
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
STOCK. Yeah, that's it.
So I don't even know if it's my week to blog...but here it is!
The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge act was proposed to stop congressmen from trading stocks based on information not available to the public obtained on the job. The House version of STOCK makes congressmen disclose their trading activity ninety days after it happens and the Senate version goes even further and requires a thirty day deadline.
Occupiers can cross one concern off of their list with this bill receiving a majority of the vote in Congress. This would have been a major accomplishment for reducing corruption and reduce the incentive for going into Congress for money.
HOWEVER, Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, is blocking the bill! He cancelled the markup session that was scheduled for next week because he wants to "give Congress more time to examine the bill." He also claims that he wants to expand the bill by building upon it to focus on stock trading, too. This action could kill the whole bill. Other Congressmen have criticized Cantor calling him "petty" and saying his action is "absolutely is unacceptable."
So why is Cantor blocking this bill? Do you this his actions mean that Cantor doesn't see problems with Congress' unethical insider trading? Does he really have the authority to override a majority vote on the bill? Isn't it odd that Congress is voting on a bill to control its own actions.
Also, I didn't feel like re-reading this, so sorry if some parts sound kray.
The Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge act was proposed to stop congressmen from trading stocks based on information not available to the public obtained on the job. The House version of STOCK makes congressmen disclose their trading activity ninety days after it happens and the Senate version goes even further and requires a thirty day deadline.
Occupiers can cross one concern off of their list with this bill receiving a majority of the vote in Congress. This would have been a major accomplishment for reducing corruption and reduce the incentive for going into Congress for money.
HOWEVER, Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, is blocking the bill! He cancelled the markup session that was scheduled for next week because he wants to "give Congress more time to examine the bill." He also claims that he wants to expand the bill by building upon it to focus on stock trading, too. This action could kill the whole bill. Other Congressmen have criticized Cantor calling him "petty" and saying his action is "absolutely is unacceptable."
So why is Cantor blocking this bill? Do you this his actions mean that Cantor doesn't see problems with Congress' unethical insider trading? Does he really have the authority to override a majority vote on the bill? Isn't it odd that Congress is voting on a bill to control its own actions.
Also, I didn't feel like re-reading this, so sorry if some parts sound kray.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)