Is War with Korea Happening?

Name: Scott

Current Event: #2

Topic: Leaders

Title: Smoke with fire

Publication: Economist

Date of Publication: Nov. 23rd, 2010

Length: 300+ words

http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/11/north_korea_shells_south

North Korea shelled the small island of Yeonpyeong leaving two South Korea Marines dead and an unconfirmed amount of civilian casualties. This marks the second time North Korea has attacked South Korea this year but this is the first time that there were civilian casualties. Both the attacks occurred along or close to the Northern Limit Line (NLL). After the first event the US and S. Korea were scheduled to have war games but the Chinese (a N. Korean ally) persuaded the US to postpone the games because they did not feel comfortable with an American aircraft carrier and battle group in their waters. After the shelling the USS George Washington and battle group came into the Korean/Chinese waters to let the Koreans know that the US is there to help. S. Korea and the US are scheduled to have the war games later this month. Although China is concerned with the USS George Washington being so close to Chinese waters they are not putting up as much of a fight this time. There is a huge amount of tension on the Korean peninsula and it is a concern of the US. If S. Korea were to go to war with the North the US, being an ally of the South, would have to jump in and help S. Korea. China being an ally of the North would possibly help the North fight the South and the US. The leaders of S. Korea, the US, and China are trying to figure out a way to work this out peacefully. China's relationship with North Korea is starting to decay making this situation more dangerous and war all the more likely.

Opinion

I believe that war with N. Korea is a possibility but very unlikely. North Korea cannot finance. They don't have the natural resources and ability to produce the amount of ammunition and weapons to fight a war against the US and S. Korea. Also N. Korea does not have enough money to buy the weapons from Russia or China. Their ally China is capable of doing this and helping N. Korea fight the war but N. Korea and China are not as close as they were before.

Your phone is now a Federal matter

Name:Cameron

Posting #2

Period: D

Topic: Tech/Science:

Title: Courts Drawing line against warrantless phone data searches?

Author: Amy Gahran

Publication Date: December 2, 2010

Many people are unaware, but they are in fact carrying around a small GPS tracking device: their cell phone. In line with this, the FBI has also begun placing trackers on suspects car without a warrant. Both of these actions are cutting very close to the line of infringing on people's constitutional rights. Three court cases have brought up this question and so far the judges are protecting the citizens right to have privacy of data. However, the federal government is pushing back and trying to make it so that all of that kind of data may be legally available for them. The data would allow investigators to track their suspects without them ever having knowledge of it. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a nonprofit group that is a major advocate for the protection of civil rights especially with regards to technology and data. One of the stronger arguments against release of personal data is the ruling of U.S. vs. Maryland. The verdict stated that "the warrantless installation and use of a GPS tracking device to monitor a suspects car violated the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures." According to the U.S. vs. Maryland verdict your personal data is still protected under your civil rights. The argument is long from over and there will be more ground lost on either sides as technology advances.

In conclusion, as more and more technology is incorporated in our everyday lives the question is raised as to how much of it is assumed private. As of now the people are still protected to their personal data, however it is only a matter of time before your location and phone activity is a federal matter. The constitution will continue to be pressed and molded to accommodate the ever changing technology it must monitor.

Companies Stop Shipping 7 Caffeine-Alcohol Drinks

Name: Mario

Posting: #2

Topic: Health
Title: Companies Stop Shipping 7 Caffeine-Alcohol Drinks

Writers: Elizabeth Cohen and Matt Smith

Publication Name:CNN

Date of Publication: Nov 24

Length: 796 Words

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/24/alcohol.caffeine.drinks/index.html?npt=NP1

The United States Food and Drug Administration labeled seven caffeinated alcoholic drinks public health hazards on November 17th. The FDA sent warning letters to the companies stating that the addition of caffeine to alcoholic beverages was not approved by the agency. The letters gave the companies 15 days to either change the ingredients or face seizure under federal law. Ever since four manufacturers have had to stop production. The combination of these alcohol and caffeine has been declared unsafe. Experts say that the caffeine masks the effects of the alcohol so drinkers can be left unaware of how intoxicated they are. One of the beverages called 4 Loko is also known as blackout in a can. It was one of the few other companies that had decided to drop caffeine from its list of ingredients. These companies had been under review after nine underage students at Central Hospital University were hospitalized after drinking 4 Loko mixed with other beverages.

In conclusion, these drinks were taken off the market because they were considered too dangerous for the public. The combination of alcohol and caffeine was not approved by the FDA. A beverage known to cause blackouts should never have been available on the market to begin with.

FDA Panel Rejects Expanded Use of Prostate Drug (Madison)

First Name: Madison

Current Event Posting Number: 2

Topic: Health

Title: FDA Panel Rejects Expanded Use of Prostate Drug

Writer: Gina Kolata

Publication Name: New York Times

Date of Publication: December 1, 2010

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/health/policy/02drug.html?_r=1&ref=health

Summery:

Earlier this week the Food and Drug Administration was asked a question. Would they recommend that the labels of two different drugs be changed to say that they can reduce a mans risk of getting prostate cancer. If answered yes, these would be the second drug on the market saying it will reduce risk of cancer. The first being tamoxifen that reduces breast cancer. The two drugs that could be joining tamoxifen are the drug with a name of dutasteride, made by GlaxcoSmithKline and sold as Avodart. The other is Finasteride a generic made by Merck and sold as Proscar. But neither of these passed thew the Food and Drug Administration. The committee said that there were uncertinty about long term consequences. Even though both of these are currently on the market to help shrink the prostate their label will not be changed to say they can help avoid the risk of cancer.

Conclusion:

The FDA did the right thing by not letting both drugs pass. If the drugs had further consequences and they weren't sure if it would fully avoid cancer, than it was probably the best idea not to put the drugs under the category, helping avoid cancer. The drug could possible do more harm than good, and the FDA would have more of a problem if they were let threw.

Obama Calls for Federal Wage Freeze

Obama Calls for Federal Wage Freeze

Name: Surriento
Post: 2
Topic: Leaders

Title: Obama announces federal pay freeze
Author: Charles Riley, staff reporter (CNN)
Publication: CNN
Date: November 29, 2010: 3:12 PM ET
Length (word count):

(http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/29/news/economy/federal_pay_freeze/index.htm?cnn=yes)
-----

To reduce national debt, Obama proposes a plan to freeze federal pay that will, over the next 10 years, save an estimated $60 billion. Experts criticize that $6 trillion is needed to stabilize the debt, and the new proposal is less than 1% of the needed amount, doing little to help. Afterwards, Obama was quoted, “The hard truth is that getting this deficit under control is going to require some broad sacrifice. And that sacrifice must be shared by the employees of the federal government.” The freeze will not apply to military personnel, but to civilian federal employees, including those at the Department of Defence. Republicans (as well as the co-chairman of Obama’s bipartisan deficit commission) have, in recent weeks, argued in favor of the freeze.
The key lawmaker of Obama’s own party (Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland) criticized the proposal, stating that the freeze should be extended to more military personnel although not those actively serving in combat. The National Federation of Federal Employees (representing 110,000 workers) also came out against the proposal, “We understand that sacrifices will have to be made in order to reduce our nation’s growing budget deficit, but we believe doing so at the expense of dedicated civil service employees is a misguided approach.” President William Dougan commented. Public opinion on the matter differed, and in an online poll, showed that 68% of Americans voted that reducing deficit takes priority over avoiding cuts in salary and benefits for federal workers, but in the same poll, responded that avoiding significant spending cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, college loans, aid to farmers and unemployed workers, is more important than reducing deficit.

In conclusion, Obama’s proposal intends to freeze federal pay to help reduce the nation’s debt, siding with him are, currently, the Republicans and co-chairman of Obama’s bipartisan deficit commission. Critics argue that the impact of the freeze (saving $6 bil. over the next 10 years) will do little to help reduce the nation’s debt as the amount comes out as less than 1% of the actual debt itself. He (Obama) is currently facing critic from his own party and the National Federation of Federal Employees (whom are directly affected by the proposal). Public seems to lean in favor of the pay freeze to reduce deficit, but unwilling to give up other public services in exchange.

U.S. diplomat: 'Grueling' effort to patch up international ties

Name: Jerry
Posting # 2
Topic: Politics
Title: U.S. diplomat: 'Grueling' effort to patch up international ties
Writer: Jill Dougherty
Publication Name: CNN
Date of Publication: Dec.1
Length: 623 words

This week, the leak in classified U.S. diplomatic informations from "WikiLeaks" has caused great damage in United States' diplomacy. After the incident, U.S. officials are now trying to regain trust from foriegn countries. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, have been making grueling efforts to minimize the effect of the leak. State Department officials and embassies have reached out a total of 186 governments to reinforce Clinton's message of "our deep regret and underscore steps we've taken to ensure confidentiality and underscore important diplomatic work before us". The secretary, now travelling over Central Asia, is attendind 2 conference meeting with world leaders to show the U.S.'s commitment to diplmacy. The leaked also raised the charge against the Secretary's office as a directive to U.S. diplomats to collect information on foreign UN diplmats was disclosured. The State Department defended the charges, saying that the directive was not an instruction.

In conclusion, several government agencies and the State Department are now taking more control over the access to classified information. Even so, there was still a lot of gaps to fill in our diplomacy. The leak from WikiLeaks will still complicate U.S.'s diplomacy and international cooperation for a long time.

Maddy_Dray_B#2_"Don't Ask" Showdown Looms in Senate This Week

Name: Maddy D
Posting Number 2
Period: D
Topic: Civil Rights
Title: "Don't Ask" Showdown Looms in Senate This Week
Writer: Mark Thompson
Publication Date: November 28, 2010
Publication Name: CNN
Length: 722
Article: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/28/dont-ask-showdown-looms-in-senate-this-week/
and http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/30/dadt.discharges/index.html

Summary: “Don’t ask, don’t tell” is a policy that restricts all openly bisexual service members or applicants from taking a part in the United Sates military. President Obama has put much effort into allowing openly gay people serve in the US military and for the past forty days no members have been taken out of the military for this reasoning. This is much improved from last year when they averaged to take out around eight troops each week all because they were openly bisexual. Some people along with more Republican politicians believe that this policy should stay because it is not acceptable to put the other members of the miliatary’s high standards of order, attitude, and discipline at risk. On the other side of things, a Democratic political talked about how bisexual members have been doing US military service for more than decades now and there has never been problem or challenge, and the sexuality of the members obviously does not change the outcome or ranking of the United States army because it is still top in the world. Many also state how it is a possible threat to fire perfectly good troops for the sole reason of them being bisexual. In other words, it is hurting the US military to take away these troops and people begin to question them why it is worth it put other members of the army along with the whole nation in danger just to follow the old rule that openly bisexual people are not allowed to take a part in the US military. Many also think that anyone who is willing to die for our country and is putting themselves out their in such risk, should be able to fight and it really should not matter what their sexual preference. It has been put out their that although the US military is defending a democracy this does NOT mean it is democracy. Meaning the service members really should not have the right to make this decision, it should not be let all up to them, but it should be chosen by the US government as a whole.

Conclusion: Now, if things go as the Senate and Pentagon leaders want them to, then the taking away of this 17 year lasting policy will happen within the next week, which would be moving very rapidly. This would mean the hundreds of service members discharged each year would come to an end, and all those great members who were taken out for being openly bisexual could be let back to help defend the country once again. This has been controversial for a long time now, and with the rapid decision making that the government has been making lately, things could end sooner than expected!