Nigeria's Ministry of the Interior

Unit 4

I got this article through a link on nigeriaworld.com.

A link to the article can be found here.

The private company, Drexet Nigeria Limited, was recently picked by order of the Ministry of the Interior to handle a hiring session for the Nigeria Immigration Service. This company charged every applicant for a job with the NIS 1,000 naita(Nigerian currency). An astonishing 526,650 applicants paid the 1,000 naita price to have a shot at a job. Only a little less than 5,000 position were available which doesn't help out with the massive amount of applicants. There was a consultant that the Ministry of the Interior appointed to work out this hiring session. After the hectic result of 19 deaths and chaotic circumstances with the hire, the consultant was blamed. Currently, no evidence exists to give detailed reports about what the consultant specifically did, but he did choose a company without even considering the competition for a better price or service.

The Nigerians have lots of problems with the way things run in their country. This is yet another example of the chaos that occurs in Nigeria. I didn't realize the severity of the issues that occur in Nigeria until I read this article. I knew that they struggled with a lot of things, but I didn't realize that McMurray's statement about how Nigeria is a combination of all things gone wrong is a true one at that. This article helps viewers to see that Nigeria struggles across the spectrum; there isn't just violence, physical force, tribal conflicts, economical woes, and discrimination, but there are also major social issues like this one. Nigeria is a mess of all things at all angles. If they can't figure out how to fix some of their problems then I believe that we will soon see Nigeria fall to the ground as a failed state

Putin's Unpredictability

Unit 4

Here's a link.

Putin signed a law annexing Crimea into Russia. After revolts and violence that have gone on for the past 80 days, the “Russian” sector of Ukraine has now been added to the land mass of Russia. The EU and the US both very distinctly advised Putin to not go through with adding Crimea to Russia, but Putin decided otherwise.

I think this is absolutely crazy. The fact that something like what Germany did before World War II is happening today baffles me. Germany wanted to add some of their “technically German” neighbors to their country, but it ended up being way more than just their neighbors. Putin’s action should cause some serious alert because as its shown, history repeats itself. Crimea may be pleased that they don’t have to be a part of a country that doesn’t support a Putin-type government while Ukraine may be pleased that they don’t have to deal with Crimea any longer. Ukraine has lost a significant and valuable land mass while Russia has gained from their neighbor. The current result might be a satisfactory one, but ultimately the long term results matter most.

The Cold War Conflict Lingers

Unit 4

A link to the article can be found here.

It's an interesting article from NY Times. Check it out.

This article brought up some interesting points about what some Russians, mostly the Stalinist ideologues, think about the current tension in Ukraine. The writer focused on an intriquing Stalinist writer named Aleksandr A. Prokhanov. In regards what output the current conflict in Ukraine might have, Mr. Prokhanov thinks that the Cold War conflicts return with the transition from Yelstin and Gorbachev reforms to that of traditional Russian conservatism. Prokhanov argues that President Putin began ideologically in 2011 when he felt threatened by liberals whose anger over falsified elections came about. He thinks that Putin felt a sense of fear, so he tried to find a way to maintain his power by loosening ties with the West and their ideologies. The writer believes that Putin has proved to think for himself, but the influence of these extremist individuals could possibly have an influence towards the way Putin runs "his Russia."

I think I agree with what this writer analyzed. I believe that Russian ideologues have a significant influence on the future outcome of Russia. I believe that Putin will do anything he can to maintain his power, but if the people threaten him like they did in 2011 then he will retaliate. To maintain power, Putin realizes Russia can't be influenced by the Western views of increasing freedom and true democracy. He knows what he's doing. I think that Russia will continue to try to stray from being involved with the West as much as possible. Of our allies they are the ones we have the most conflict with. Russian politics hates that the world strays from their traditional norms of authoritarian, non-democratic government. The longer Russians hold on to their conservative ideologies the longer conflict between the West and Russia. One group will prevail. The future can only tell.

The Fed's Response to Marriage in the 801

The link to the article can be found here.

Unit 5

It was interesting to read this article due to its national viewpoint of what's going on here in Utah with respect to same-sex marriage. The article focuses on the fact that 1,300 marriages will recognize the marriages performed by county clerk's within the window created after Judge Shelby deemed Utah's stand-point on marriage between a man and a woman unconstitutional. Since a stay wasn't called for the marriages performed within that window are legal. Governor Gary Herbert, though, has said that Utah won't be granting new State privileges relating to marriage to the hundreds of gay, newly wedded couples. Due to fact that the previous legislation on marriage, strictly between a man and a woman, is back into play, the State will not grant further privileges to same-sex marriages. When it comes to federal aspects of marriage, Utah will recognize the rights of the same-sex marriage couples. One of the reasons why the State has decided to comply to federal aspects of marriage is because of the Attorney General. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., said that the federal government will recognize the marriages performed in Utah. Therefore, the same-sex couples who were married in Utah will be able to have federal marriage privileges such as "married, filing-jointly" when it comes to taxes. A step was made in giving equal rights to gay and lesbian couples, but there is a lot more to go before the term, equal, should be used.

Personally, I'm fine with same-sex marriage; it doesn't bother me. I don't see why someone should be discriminated because of their sexual affiliation. People are people, no matter what. Even though I support the legalization of same-sex marriage and the furthering of equal rights related, I don't necessarily believe in the notion of same-sex marriage. On a personal level, I don't think same-sex marriage is morally right, but I do believe people should be able to choose freely. In my mind I choose that same-sex marriage isn't right, but in another's it just might be right. People deserve to be free to believe what they want to believe. I think that our society needs to gain a little respect for individuals who are different. Once that happens, we can grow and become a stronger, more opportunistic community of individuals working towards the mythical "pursuit of happiness."

Israel's Finest

The link to the article can be found here.

Unit 5

The alliance between Israel and the United States has gone on since the the late 40's. The U.S. has always given support to the Israeli State and its leaders. On Saturday, today, the former Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, passed away. He wasn't the current Prime Minister of Israel at his death, though, he was a great leader while in office. He served from 2001-2006 as Prime Minister. Sharon's political career was suddenly ended due to a fatal stroke that kept him in a coma-like state until his death. His condition got better over the years, but his time was done. President Obama gave his condolences to Sharon's family and the people of Israel. Many politicians, both U.S. and Israeli, commented on the passion he had for the Israeli State. He will be remembered as a great leader, warrior, and idealist of the State of Israel.

While reading this article, I thought about some things regarding foreign policy. I remembered learning about how the United States pledged its loyalty Israel in AP U.S. and how that affected the world we live in today. I think it is interesting that one move, call it good or bad, can dig a hole so deep that it becomes almost impossible to get out of. The move to help Israel and support them was a reasonable decision, but it makes me think where we might be if that decision wouldn't have been so strictly made.

I wonder what wars might have been avoided and how the relations in the Middle East might have been different if we had chosen not to take a strong ally-related stance with Israel. It's possible that making a loose decision on who our allies in the Middle East are might have caused more harm than not. I understand foreign policy is a very hard issue to deal with, but I hope the White House has learned from its mistakes; history is supposed to be something we learn from. All we can do now is move forward and try to make better stances on what we think of countries and the peoples of the world.

A Privacy Hazard

The link to the article can be found here.

Unit 5

This article has some useful context of a real-life situation where the civil right of privacy is challenged. A theft of credit card, personal, and debit card information affected Target's holiday shoppers that were shopping between the times of November 27 and December 17. There is an estimate of 70 million customers who were affected by this scam. Some customers had all three items - credit card, personal, and debit card information - stolen, but some only had their one or two of the three stolen. The fact being that the right of privacy of an estimated 70 million people was breached by thieves. Target recently came out with a plan to deal with quite a large problem that happened over the holidays. 

Target, like a responsible company would do, has decided to offer free credit surveillance to any customers that feel like their privacy is at risk. They have offered suggestions to their customers in order to help them keep their information private: watch for mysterious purchases, notify their banks, and possibly change their pin numbers. They are continuing to correct the situation at hand, but in the mean time, they hope their customers can trust that they will handle the situation. 

I thought this article was interesting regarding that our class recently talked about civil rights and civil liberties. We talked about how government has created civil liberties to ensure certain aspects of human interaction are protected. We also talked about civil rights: the things you are entitled to for merely being a citizen. I think it is interesting that our civil rights can be challenged more often because of individuals in our society who don't support the ideology of such. When events like this occur, it is important that we learn. I think this article can teach us somethings about privacy, the most notable being the fact of late: the right to privacy, along with our other civil rights, won't always be protected. 

An individual or a group is bound do go against the morals of society. It is our responsibility as citizens to try our best to not let that happen. Of course, the government is there to help protect our rights; this explains why we use jails and prisons. Since we as a society have little control on what an individual or a group of individuals decides to do against the law, we must be cautious; when our rights are challenged, we must be smart. The security of the rights of an individual must be controlled by that individual. Sure society and government can help, but if a change is to occur or a decision is to be made to aid the assurance of security, it is up to the individual to see to it.

Capitalistic Freedom

I was quite intrigued with this article. It is a Radical Capitalists' response to a recent speech given by President Obama in Kansas. I hope you enjoy it.

The link is right here

Unit 5

First off, let's some up the part of Obama's speech that is driving this guy up the wall. Obama talks about a "certain crowd" in Washington who believe that the market will take care of everything. He shuts down this group and bluntly says that this ideology that the market will take care of everything isn't working and it isn't going to work. He then calls for the solution in his eyes: more regulations and government involvement in business. I thought the journalist, Harry Binswanger, had some interesting points in his response.

Binswanger starts out by admitting to being a part of that "certain crowd," and he clarifies what their beliefs actually are. This "certain crowd" is technically a rather small group of Radical Capitalists who are, that's right, radical for capitalism. He clarifies that government exists for one use and one use only, "to secure these rights" or, in other words, government is there to secure the personal civil rights we possess for merely being human beings. He gives some insight on how long its been since laissez-faire of capitalism; its been since the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Get this, he then bashes on the Federal Reserve and tells why he thinks it is corrupt. He makes this point, "Obama is pretending that the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society were repealed, so that he can blame the financial crisis on capitalism." The finishing touches too his article are quite superb; he concludes that Obama is trying to do two things: limit our freedom because we can't handle it and, to fix that, force is the answer. 

It's been a long time since the free market, per-say, "just did its thing," but I believe there are some reasons for that. Some things, like subsides, are a good way government is involved in business. Think about if government didn't have a subsidy on oil, the oil companies could charge whatever they wanted to. Sure, if that were to happen, a better energy source might rise from the ashes, but the transition would be detrimental; we rely to heavily on oil, so we aren't going to drop it. Regardless, government helps contain corruption of power. 

There is a point that I think government needs to cease its involvement in business, but that's not the point right now, the point is that, if what this writer is saying has any significance, we need to worry but not a lot. In my opinion, capitalism is a pretty good building block for an economy. The concept of supply and demand helps to get people what the want/need when the want/need it. There shouldn't have to be more regulations on businesses. Of course, some newer regulations may be needed, but business should be free. People should be able get what they want because they want it. I'm not saying that Obama is trying to limit peoples freedoms, but people need to watch and pay attention to what's going on around them so that they can protect themselves and their freedoms; if they want to be protected, they will be.