On January 2011 South Sudan seceded from Sudan following a self-determination referendum, which is a principle in international law that nations have the right to choose has control of them. One of the reasons South Sudan had chose to secede was due to the feeling of being oppressed by their Arab and Muslim neighbors of the north. Due to the recent problems that the two Sudan’s are facing the United Nation has decided to make a resolution; a resolution in which they will use non-military sanctions against both Sudan, and South Sudan if the violence does not halt, and if they do not return to negotiations. A sanction is a provision of a law enacting a penalty for disobedience. One example of a Sanction that the U.N had passed was Resolution 1267 of (1999). This sanction demanded the denial of permission to take off, or land any aircraft on Taliban owned land. The sanction also froze funds and other financial resources that were directly or indirectly controlled by the Taliban. Sanctions are important because they act as a non-violent form of discipline.
Link to Article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57426509/u.n-tries-to-prevent-a-sudans-war-with-sanctions/?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea
Question: Do you think the sanctions will make Sudan and South Sudan come to peace? If so then why, and if not how do you think the U.N. should try to make peace?
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Derek Scafidi Current Event
Hilary
Clinton has been in India the past few days this week speaking about how India
has been doing well reducing its dependence on Iranian Oil. Hilary Clinton met
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata
Banerjee in Kolkata and spoke about the United States relationship with India.
She said that India shares the same feelings towards Iran. She also spoke about
the feelings towards women, both in India and in the United States. She talked about
the well achieved “quotas” for women and how well it has worked, and compared
it to our nation, how excited she was to run for president, but had to drop out
due to “the system being hard to navigate, for both men and women, but
particularly for women.
Historical Significance between US and India:
-We both share the same feelings towards Iran
-India imports most of its oil from Iran
-trade with india
India
to Us
increased
by 21.12% to $6.94 billion.
US to India
Merchandise exports
from U.S. to India increased by 20.09.26% to U.S. $2.95 billion.
"Well,
India has reduced its dependence on Iranian oil. I know their refineries have
stopped asking for orders to purchase Iranian oil. So they certainly have taken
steps," Clinton told the CNN in an interview. And we have worked with them
and offered suggestions about alternative sources of supply at an affordable
cost," -Hilary Clinton
Question: Why do you think the United States wants India to reduce its dependence on Iraq for oil? Also, Why do you think that the look of women professionally is different in India then it is here?
Source:
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/highlights-hillary-clinton-on-foreign-policy-politics-and-india-207134
http://ww2.shaadi.com/olmt/register/pop-under/?a=1&&utm_source=Partner&utm_medium=Times_Popbehind&utm_content=signup&utm_campaign=G38CIT&
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/hillary-clinton-lauds-india-for-reducing-dependence-on-iranian-oil/articleshow/13055795.cms
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Topic: War on terror
Title of Article: On surprise Afghanistan visit, Obama says goal of defeating Al Qaeda 'within our reach'
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/01/obama-arrives-in-afghanistan/ (Fox News)
Nearly a year after Bin Laden's death, President Obama travelled to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to conclude the terrorist war, and to initiate a new partnership settlement with the Afghan government. He took a brief moment to coincide with his troops in order to address that the decade long-war in Afghanistan was finally coming to a halt. Obama promises that a new agreement will be offered to sovereign Afghanistan from American influences, but still offer support in the rebuilding the country. Obama addressed that the new agreement was a “historic moment for our two nations.” Still many fear that his heralding in another Middle Eastern war serves as another political advantage to his next political election.
The term “War on Terror” has been misguidedly used by previous politicians to enforce severe military conduct. After the Beirut barracks bombings of 1983, the Reagan administration had used the similar term “war on terrorism” to pass new legislations that would marshal military forces against terrorist organizations. The greatest act of terrorism in America occurred in September 11th, 2011 when the terrorist group Al Qaeda launched a massive bombing in the World Trade Centers. After the attack President George W. Bush commenced a new campaign that enforced the strict abolishment of terrorist groups all over the world. Though the campaign was directed toward Al Qaeda, President Bush expanded his opinions to a global fight on terrorism. His new campaign altered our foreign policies to persuade a global fight on terrorism, and enhanced America’s Homeland Security for more strict regulations. The end result was a formulation of a multinational organization called NATO that prominently focused in the destruction of terrorist groups.
The main focus of Obama’s arrival in Afghanistan his to formulate a new partnership agreement to better extend their relationship. He declares that the extensive war in the Middle East will be limited of American influence after 2014. Obama promises that the Afghan forces will be let independent, but with sprouted support from the American military. Obama states toward the reconstruction of Afghanistan that "As you stand up, you will not stand alone." Obama also announced that he has no purpose he administering a military foothold in Afghan soil, but instead wants to continue a presence of military forces in order to counteract any new uprising of Taliban influences. Essentially the agreement covered the security, economics, and governance of Afghanistan after 2014 while trying to construct a new sovereign nation.
Though a great political achievement accomplished by President Obama, many fear that the reason he settled for the agreement is to fund his political campaign in the upcoming election. His resolvement of two major Middle Eastern war brings great political attention to his campaign as well as an advantage over his competitors. Many believe that this was his sole purpose to settling a new international agreement, and that the dilemma in Afghanistan will still continue. In a previous military dispute, President Obama apprises his raid over Bin Laden, and questioned whether his adversary Mitt Romney would complete the same task. The situation is of Afghanistan is still skeptical to a large public, and the controversy continues on whether the government relations of the two nations will be stable.
Probing Questions: Is Obama’s settlement agreement only serve as an advantage for political propaganda to his upcoming campaign? Will the new partnership be stable? What will happen to the rest of the Al Qaeda group?
Title of Article: On surprise Afghanistan visit, Obama says goal of defeating Al Qaeda 'within our reach'
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/01/obama-arrives-in-afghanistan/ (Fox News)
Nearly a year after Bin Laden's death, President Obama travelled to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan to conclude the terrorist war, and to initiate a new partnership settlement with the Afghan government. He took a brief moment to coincide with his troops in order to address that the decade long-war in Afghanistan was finally coming to a halt. Obama promises that a new agreement will be offered to sovereign Afghanistan from American influences, but still offer support in the rebuilding the country. Obama addressed that the new agreement was a “historic moment for our two nations.” Still many fear that his heralding in another Middle Eastern war serves as another political advantage to his next political election.
The term “War on Terror” has been misguidedly used by previous politicians to enforce severe military conduct. After the Beirut barracks bombings of 1983, the Reagan administration had used the similar term “war on terrorism” to pass new legislations that would marshal military forces against terrorist organizations. The greatest act of terrorism in America occurred in September 11th, 2011 when the terrorist group Al Qaeda launched a massive bombing in the World Trade Centers. After the attack President George W. Bush commenced a new campaign that enforced the strict abolishment of terrorist groups all over the world. Though the campaign was directed toward Al Qaeda, President Bush expanded his opinions to a global fight on terrorism. His new campaign altered our foreign policies to persuade a global fight on terrorism, and enhanced America’s Homeland Security for more strict regulations. The end result was a formulation of a multinational organization called NATO that prominently focused in the destruction of terrorist groups.
The main focus of Obama’s arrival in Afghanistan his to formulate a new partnership agreement to better extend their relationship. He declares that the extensive war in the Middle East will be limited of American influence after 2014. Obama promises that the Afghan forces will be let independent, but with sprouted support from the American military. Obama states toward the reconstruction of Afghanistan that "As you stand up, you will not stand alone." Obama also announced that he has no purpose he administering a military foothold in Afghan soil, but instead wants to continue a presence of military forces in order to counteract any new uprising of Taliban influences. Essentially the agreement covered the security, economics, and governance of Afghanistan after 2014 while trying to construct a new sovereign nation.
Though a great political achievement accomplished by President Obama, many fear that the reason he settled for the agreement is to fund his political campaign in the upcoming election. His resolvement of two major Middle Eastern war brings great political attention to his campaign as well as an advantage over his competitors. Many believe that this was his sole purpose to settling a new international agreement, and that the dilemma in Afghanistan will still continue. In a previous military dispute, President Obama apprises his raid over Bin Laden, and questioned whether his adversary Mitt Romney would complete the same task. The situation is of Afghanistan is still skeptical to a large public, and the controversy continues on whether the government relations of the two nations will be stable.
Probing Questions: Is Obama’s settlement agreement only serve as an advantage for political propaganda to his upcoming campaign? Will the new partnership be stable? What will happen to the rest of the Al Qaeda group?
Friday, May 4, 2012
Era of Imperialism - Choosing a Foreign Policy Option
Your job is to come to class on Monday with a printed analytical argument (in a SPA paragraph) that explains which American foreign policy option was most appropriate at the turn of the 20th century. Take your evidence from either of the "Homefront Debate" speeches attached here (Under the 'Foreign Policy' folder). This video will also be helpful in understanding the mindset of the time: PBS's Crucible of Empire.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Anthony's Current event
My current event was about the problem with spending on schools and education. Each year we spend more and more on education, more than many other countries. But the issue is that we do not have the grades to show for it. Places like Canada, China, and North Korea are all doing academically better than the United States but are spending much less compared to us. With the economic crisis that we are in today, un-needed spending can not be over looked. Obama argues that with every one dollar we spend on education, we are getting 10 dollars back in future jobs and economic income. With the price of college increasing, people are worrying about if they will be able to get the job that they need afterwards. College isnt a guaranteed ticket into a blue collar lifestyle.
So the question I have is: Are we spending too much on education and is the spending worth it? And if not, are we getting back the knowledge and information we need to get a job from the schools?
So the question I have is: Are we spending too much on education and is the spending worth it? And if not, are we getting back the knowledge and information we need to get a job from the schools?
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Tim's Blog post; Student loan interest rate double or stay the same
Many of us will be going in to college after we
graduate next Spring. It involves us
getting student loans in the thousands of dollars. There is a bill going through Congress that
will double the student loan interest rate. Right now, there are not enough
jobs to support many of the students who are graduating from college and it
will be even worse if the interest rates double if the bill gets past.
Eager to
energize young voters, President Barack Obama is depicting Republicans as
obstacles to an affordable college education as he previews an argument he will
make on university campuses next week in states crucial to his re-election.
“This is a
question of values,” Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address
Saturday. “We cannot let America become a country where a shrinking number of
people do really well while a growing number of people struggle to get by.”
Education Secretary
Arne Duncan said Friday that more than 7 million students would be financially
squeezed if rates were to rise, to the cost of an additional $1,000 on average.
Obama wants
Congress to extend a law that cut interest rates on a popular federal loan
program for low- and middle-income undergraduates. If the law expires, the
rates will double on July 1, from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent.
Republican
Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney also agrees with Obama on the Student Loan
Bill which is very unusual.
“ I fully
support the effort to extend the low interest rate on student loans,” Romney
said at the end of a seven-minute joint news conference with Rubio.
There was
some concern that that would expire halfway through the year, and I support
extending the temporary relief on interest rates for students as a result of
student loans, obviously, in part because of the extraordinarily poor
conditions in the job market.”
The National Defense Education Act (NDEA), signed into law on
September 2, 1958, provided funding to United States education institutions at
all levels.[1] The act
authorized funding for four years, increasing funding per year: for example,
funding increased on eight program titles from 183 million dollars in 1959 to
222 million in 1960.[2] While motivated
by the increase in the number of students attending college and a growing
national sense that U.S. scientists were falling behind scientists in the Soviet Union, it was
arguably catalyzed by early Soviet success in the Space Race, notably the
launch of the first-ever satellite, Sputnik, the year before.
Helps give money to kids going to
college because of the fear of the Russians surpassing us in the education
field, especially in the sciences.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0423/Student-loans-Obama-s-bid-to-rekindle-Yes-We-Can-among-youths
question: It is very unusual for Obama and and Romney to be on the same page, do you agree with them in whether interest rates should not be doubled, or do you think they should? Explain.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Josh's Current Event (Economic Mistakes Obama Has Made)
CURRENT EVENT: Economic Mistakes Made by President Obama
In an article from US News in their opinion section, David Barker, a former Federal Reserve economist and author of Welcome to Free America, writes about how President Obama has made economic mistakes. He talks about how Obama “needs to be smarter about tax cuts, stimulus spending, and his rhetoric towards business.” Barker described how Obama was just inaugurated into office after the “worst financial panic since the Great Depression and the Stock Market Crash.” Despite how the economy is running today, smoothly and getting better, Barker finds that there are just a few mistakes that the Obama Administration is making.
Barker believes that the Administration is making “unnecessary tax cuts.” Barker states how the federal government needs an income source. He states how cutting government spending would be a better alternative than raising taxes. Barker also states how President Obama was supporting the tax reduction of employee payroll from 7.65 percent to 5.65 in one year. The reasoning for the tax cut was to “stimulate spending” so then the workers would get more money. The Administration planned on raising the taxes again the following year. Barker also stated how, although the tax cut would make it so workers got a bigger income, it then cost the government a rough estimate of $93 billion.
Another “mistake” that the Obama Administration has made, according to Barker, was inefficient stimulus spending. Barker stated how the Administration had created stimulus spending cost to about $170,000 and $400,000. The main goal of the stimulus spending was to increase jobs, but according to Barker, “a great deal of money appears to be wasted.” He states how only 7 percent of the spending was budgeted for infrastructure.
With relation to the Great Depression Era and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Barker talks about Robert Lucas who wrote about how FDR had an “anti-business rhetoric” where the government wouldn’t worry about “future taxes and regulations, and to cut back on investment plans.” Lucas then spoke of how Obama had the same “rhetoric” bust better than FDR. Obama gave businesses reason to worry about the economy. With the BP oil spill just recently and other drastic events that had happened that the government had to fund to help fix, the money had to go toward fixing these problems and Lucas stated how businesses shouldn’t be worrying about receiving their bonuses and making profits.
The main problem that David Barker talked about was how Obama has “no long term plan” for economics and to “reduce government debt.” Obama’s 2013 fiscal budget proposal predicted that federal dept would end up rising to close to 200 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or “The total value of goods produced and services provided in a country during one year (Google Dictionary). According to the Department of Treasury, the debt didn’t include the costs the government put into Social Security and Medicare, which debts grew larger. According to Barker, not only does the Obama Administration not have a long term plan, the senate hasn’t passed an annual budget since 2009.
Like after the crash of the Stock Market in 1929, businesses are becoming unwilling to invest because of tax increases and other possibilities to come in the future. However, if businesses knew what was to come in the near future, like tax cuts and government stimulus spending, they’d be more enthused to invest more.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/04/09/five-economic-mistakes-obama-is-making
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/04/08/low-approval-and-fragile-economy-spell-obama-reelection-trouble.html
QUESTION FOR THE BLOG: (Choose a scenario) If you were an affected business and had to coexist with the problems of Obama’s “plan,” how would you go about keeping the business alive? Would you have to cut employees or cut wages? If you ran a large business / chain, would you have to shut down businesses? How would you prepare for a crisis like this? OR, if you were Obama, what would your plan be? How would you handle tax cuts or increases, or stimulus spending to help the economy? With there being no “physical plan or budget” since 2009, how would you fix that? Is that why the economy is bad? How do you feel or what is your position on this issue? OR you could answer both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)