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?
Sunday, February 5, 2012
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.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
SOPA: it's not just about soup anymore.
As you are all aware, a recent bill by Congress, known as SOPA, is trying to censor the internet. What may have started out as an attempt to stop illegal pirating of music to protect the copyrights of Hollywood musicians and artists has become censorship of free speech which resembles oppressive nations that the US openly scrutinizes for such censorship.
What really concerns me about this bill is how few people know about it. I had to tell my self-proclaimed "I know everything about everything" older sister about it, and as an devout Google-r and Facebook-er, she should really know about this. It seems to me that only people who are really interested in politics or the news or have enough free time to muck around the depths of the internet are aware of this. Tweens trying to post pictures of their future husbands Justin Bieber and Taylor Lautner--don't know about this bill. Teens tweeting their favorite song lyrics or posting a funny meme to their friends' wall--don't know about this bill. Young adults sharing articles and posting philosophical quotes to their Facebooks--don't know about this bill. What they also don't know, is that they won't be able to do any of these things under this bill.
One of my favorite websites, Reddit (which I do not recommend going to if you're a major procrastinator like me because it has so many wondrous and distracting things...), has take the responsibility upon its whole community of users to fight congress and keep this bill from passing. So far, they have launched a boycott of the host GoDaddy.com because they were a creator a supporter of SOPA. After Reddit got tons of users and companies to switch their domains away from GoDaddy, GoDaddy changed its view on SOPA and now publicly opposes it.
Through Reddit's influence, other companies like Nintendo, EA, and Sony (who also received a menacing letter from the hacking group Anonymous, basically threatening to destroy the company) also dropped or at least mitigated their support for SOPA.
Taking inspiration from Reddit's leadership and action on this issue, many other websites have decided to take a stance against SOPA through a self-induced blackout. This means that for at least a day, the website will be inaccessible to users except for a message that will appear on the homepage telling users about the dangers of SOPA and telling them to contact their congressman. Possible websites to do this include: Facebook, Wikipedia, Google, Reddit, Twitter, and maybe more. A popular website, Tumblr, has already included a pop-up message on their page with information about SOPA and successfully initiated almost 90,000 calls to congress from its users.
I can't help but think that congress underestimated the American public and avid internet users. It seems to me like they thought that this bill would pass through legislation unnoticed and they could continue doing what ever they want. This probably comes from their complete lack of understanding about the internet. One congressman described that internet as a series of tubes. Not only that, they have no internet experts and to give a perfect comparison, "it's like going into surgery and performing an operation with no nurses or doctors." However, this bill has erupted a major response from the internet community and it is amazing to see that there are more people on the internet than trolls and Justin Bieber fangirls and they're taking action--and I'm really interested to see what will happen.
There have been rumors that the bill will be debated on January 24. This is also rumored to be the date of the blackout. Let's hope that congress realizes that 95% of the country they legislate for is against them.
Do you think SOPA will pass? Will there be congressman so stubborn and money hungry to pass the bill even with so much opposition? What would happen if it did pass? Do you think Obama will veto it if it gets to him? Would a blackout of popular websites be effective? Would it communicate the right message to users? Have you noticed that most news stations (at least our local ones that I keep an eye on, anyway) have not even mentioned SOPA? Why do you think that is?
What really concerns me about this bill is how few people know about it. I had to tell my self-proclaimed "I know everything about everything" older sister about it, and as an devout Google-r and Facebook-er, she should really know about this. It seems to me that only people who are really interested in politics or the news or have enough free time to muck around the depths of the internet are aware of this. Tweens trying to post pictures of their future husbands Justin Bieber and Taylor Lautner--don't know about this bill. Teens tweeting their favorite song lyrics or posting a funny meme to their friends' wall--don't know about this bill. Young adults sharing articles and posting philosophical quotes to their Facebooks--don't know about this bill. What they also don't know, is that they won't be able to do any of these things under this bill.
One of my favorite websites, Reddit (which I do not recommend going to if you're a major procrastinator like me because it has so many wondrous and distracting things...), has take the responsibility upon its whole community of users to fight congress and keep this bill from passing. So far, they have launched a boycott of the host GoDaddy.com because they were a creator a supporter of SOPA. After Reddit got tons of users and companies to switch their domains away from GoDaddy, GoDaddy changed its view on SOPA and now publicly opposes it.
Through Reddit's influence, other companies like Nintendo, EA, and Sony (who also received a menacing letter from the hacking group Anonymous, basically threatening to destroy the company) also dropped or at least mitigated their support for SOPA.
Taking inspiration from Reddit's leadership and action on this issue, many other websites have decided to take a stance against SOPA through a self-induced blackout. This means that for at least a day, the website will be inaccessible to users except for a message that will appear on the homepage telling users about the dangers of SOPA and telling them to contact their congressman. Possible websites to do this include: Facebook, Wikipedia, Google, Reddit, Twitter, and maybe more. A popular website, Tumblr, has already included a pop-up message on their page with information about SOPA and successfully initiated almost 90,000 calls to congress from its users.
I can't help but think that congress underestimated the American public and avid internet users. It seems to me like they thought that this bill would pass through legislation unnoticed and they could continue doing what ever they want. This probably comes from their complete lack of understanding about the internet. One congressman described that internet as a series of tubes. Not only that, they have no internet experts and to give a perfect comparison, "it's like going into surgery and performing an operation with no nurses or doctors." However, this bill has erupted a major response from the internet community and it is amazing to see that there are more people on the internet than trolls and Justin Bieber fangirls and they're taking action--and I'm really interested to see what will happen.
There have been rumors that the bill will be debated on January 24. This is also rumored to be the date of the blackout. Let's hope that congress realizes that 95% of the country they legislate for is against them.
Do you think SOPA will pass? Will there be congressman so stubborn and money hungry to pass the bill even with so much opposition? What would happen if it did pass? Do you think Obama will veto it if it gets to him? Would a blackout of popular websites be effective? Would it communicate the right message to users? Have you noticed that most news stations (at least our local ones that I keep an eye on, anyway) have not even mentioned SOPA? Why do you think that is?
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
NDAA? Sounds more like HUAC...
The Senate recently passed the National Defense Authority Act and it's a pretty scary thing.
Under this act, anyone who the governments says is a terrorists can be held in military custody "without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of the Military Force."
Uh, what?
No trial?
Pretty sure that violates the 6th Amendment of the Constitution which guarantees a right to trial....
What's worse is that one of the creators of the bill defends it by saying that this bill only gives the government the option to withhold a trial, it wouldn't force it to.
This bill gives the government a whole lot of power. They simply have to accuse you and present "evidence" to the judge and that's it. No judicial review. Just you. In prison. Maybe forever. It is unconstitutional and violates our fundamental values, including that of right to a trial.
What may be even scarier is the fact that American citizens would be susceptible to the effects of this act, too. For example, if it passes, we could all get called terrorists for my writing this blog and your commenting on it. And if the government decided we were terrorists we could be put in military detention indefinitely or until the Friday after NEVER.
Does anyone else think this sounds a lot like the Red Scare with Communism? Now it's just a Terrorism scare? Do you think there are ANY potential benefits to this? If so, would they weigh out the costs? Would it be worth it to sacrifice American liberties? Does anyone realize that this completely and blatantly violates the 6th amendment? Anybody? What is going on with America?
Under this act, anyone who the governments says is a terrorists can be held in military custody "without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of the Military Force."
Uh, what?
No trial?
Pretty sure that violates the 6th Amendment of the Constitution which guarantees a right to trial....
What's worse is that one of the creators of the bill defends it by saying that this bill only gives the government the option to withhold a trial, it wouldn't force it to.
This bill gives the government a whole lot of power. They simply have to accuse you and present "evidence" to the judge and that's it. No judicial review. Just you. In prison. Maybe forever. It is unconstitutional and violates our fundamental values, including that of right to a trial.
What may be even scarier is the fact that American citizens would be susceptible to the effects of this act, too. For example, if it passes, we could all get called terrorists for my writing this blog and your commenting on it. And if the government decided we were terrorists we could be put in military detention indefinitely or until the Friday after NEVER.
Does anyone else think this sounds a lot like the Red Scare with Communism? Now it's just a Terrorism scare? Do you think there are ANY potential benefits to this? If so, would they weigh out the costs? Would it be worth it to sacrifice American liberties? Does anyone realize that this completely and blatantly violates the 6th amendment? Anybody? What is going on with America?
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
I'll think of a quippy title for this later.
So finally, girls have equal opportunity to succession of the throne in Britain. I know we briefly discussed this in class, but it is pretty significant because this rule undoes about three-hundred years of British monarch tradition—and without baby steps!
Albeit, it took them a really long time for this aspect of gender equality, but it is impressive nonetheless.
With this new law, not only could William and Kate’s potential daughter be queen over her potential younger brothers, but the law that states that the monarch has to marry a Roman Catholic was also overturned (Britain, Mrs. Garber’s AP Comparative Government Class would formally like to welcome you to 21st century). This is a huge deal because we all know how rapt Britain is with their history and traditions and taking things slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow.
Changes to and consideration of the following documents will ensue: >the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Coronation Oath Act 1689, the Act of Union with Scotland 1706, Princess Sophia's Precedence Act 1711, the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910 and the Regency Act 1937. This change is a great one and will require a lot of revision of previous rules.
This plan may not be implemented for about four years, but so far has received unanimous support and realization that the old law was seriously obsolete in modern times.
What you may not have known about this is that members of Parliament have been trying to pass a bill almost identical to this at least eleven times in the past few years. Why now? Is it because of William and Kate (and how much everybody loves them)? Do you think the Queen supports it (not that it matters)? Seriously, why now? Will Britain start changing other things now? Do you think the House of Lords or House of Commons had more control on this issue?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)