In a comment to classmate Kara's blog post concerning the legalization of marijuana, http://karagovcurious.blogspot.com/, I wrote: 

  I have to say I agree with you on many points. America is a constantly changing nation because the people of this nation are constantly changing and push for progress. The people of this nation are now  pushing for the legalization of mari-juana.
    On the idea of the medical perks of marijuana, there is apparently overwhelming evidence that marijuana relieves various medical conditions. It is known to relieve nausea and vomiting, pain and spasms, as well as side effects of some prescription drugs. It is also know that it is less toxic than many pharmaceuticals, BONUS!Concerning the medical perks of marijuana there is more than just the medicinal benefits, there is also the research benefits of legalizing marijuana. Right now there isn't any good quality research on marijuana due to it being illegal, but legalize that sucker and that kicks open the door for a lot of research that could further benefit the people.
    Alcohol and marijuana are frequently compared, I believe because alcohol is a substance that is used by a large amount of people and that it negatively affects them on the basis of decision making, personality changes, development of health issues, and content. And for some reason it is easily accepted as a legal substance that people can purchase, but marijuana gets the controversy . The argument/confusion comes from the fact that alcohol is without a doubt known to have terrible affects on people, but is somehow more widely accepted than marijuana which seems to have more good effects than bad, if any bad effects at all. Another substance that is compared to marijuana is tobacco. Tobacco is also known to have serious negative affects on people, such as, I don't know, causing cancer! But STILL it is a substance that is legal, that is people are apparently more ok with than marijuana. I have to agree that this is just ridiculous. After looking at all the proven facts, the statistics, it is just astounding that people give the thumbs up to alcohol and tobacco, but have issues with marijuana, a substance that has not had a hard proven case to cause negative effects and only seems to have good ones, and even awesome ones.
   The legalization of marijuana has already been approved in Washington and Colorado and their system has not completely fallen apart. A constant concern is if we legalize it then of course there will be more children using it because it's more readily accessible. But in fact, in the states that have legalized marijuana there has been a downward trend in the statistics of teens who use it. These states have in fact set up very strict rules and regulations to control the usage and distribution of marijuana. And you see that this embracement of marijuana has not lead to some society of anarchy, but to a society that is growing exponentially. Colorado has actually opened up the first private marijuana club.
   So in conclusion I think marijuana should be legalized, it shows great benefits and I think in the end the voice of the population will ring out and we'll see legalization of marijuana across the nation.

Feud over airspace in East China

    Tension between China and Japan is rising in the wake of recent events. China has declared a new air defense zone that overlaps airspace that Japan has claimed. Both countries are trying to claim the islands that occupy the disputed space. 
    The tension started to rise this past year when Chinese and Japanese airplanes would fly in close quarters over the islands. Japan believes the islands are theirs, there is nothing to discuss and that the Chinese planes were flying in their air defense zone. 
    Apparently, this move by the Chinese government was approved by President Xi Jinping who has shown a hatred for Japan. It would seem that China has two agendas with this move. The first being to get Japan to recognize there is a dispute and thereby pulling them into negotiations. The other is to establish China's own air defense zone. It is seeking to be a "maritime strong power". By claiming the island China would extend its boundaries and breakthrough to the ocean.
    Vice President Joe Biden has gone to Asia and part of his trip will be spent addressing the air zone issue between the two countries. The first part of accomplishing this goal will have to be reassuring Japan of America's commitment to the region. Japan's confidence in America wavered after American airlines were advised to comply with the Chinese regulations over the area and identify themselves before entering. The State Department has said that the advise was purely a safety recommendation and did not mean they were recognizing the Chinese air defense control. 
    The second part of controlling the situation is going to be convincing the Chinese that their move was one of provocation and will be disregarded as far a military options are concerned. The Chinese' move is a huge change in the norm and concerns people about their intentions. Although Biden will not give a formal diplomatic protest he will make it clear that the U.S "will keep sending military aircraft into the declared zone." It is up to Vice President Biden to solidify America's resolve in maintaining its military presence and to work with China to bring and end to their "unilateral actions".

    In a comment to classmate Ardiana Shillova's blog post titled, America, "The Land of the Free, unless you want Medical Marijuana.",http://simplyforeign.blogspot.com/ I wrote:

    I completely agree with your blog. I think all too often the government tries to overstep its boundaries and tries to influence people's freedom of choice. When it comes to people's health care I think it is up to the individual and the individual alone as to how they choose to treat their illness or condition.  In this situation I think it is absolutely the individual's choice whether or not they want to receive medical marijuana as a treatment. The doctor is of course there to diagnose your condition and then propose a treatment ; the main word being propose. I don't think any doctor, or any other person whether it be government or otherwise, has the right to tell someone what treatment they are restricted from. At that point they are pretty much forcing the person to choose an alternative treatment, one that might not be as effective. 

    All people are entitled to their opinions. The people who oppose the idea of using medical marijuana are well within their rights to refuse it. Those people can choose alternative choices and never have to touch the drug. I believe their reasons against medical marijuana, whether they be moral, religious, or otherwise, are no less valid than those who are for it. I don't know if all the statistics that say marijuana is the cause of accidents or that it is highly addictive are true, I have not done enough research on those topics to make an assessment, but if people want to hold it as truth that's fine with me.  I think where the line is crossed is when those people start trying to impose their ideas on everyone else. It is fine if they think it's bad or immoral and they don't want to use it for themselves or their family but that doesn't give them the right to try to shove their ideas down everyone else's throats. 

     I think your point about your friends pain and the fact that people can not truly understand other's perception of pain is very true. At hospitals they grade pain on an individualized scale. It's very much a case by case scenario, there is no standard scale for everyone. This makes it very hard to relate to people's own perception of their pain. Doctors should be there to do everything they can to provide the patient with every option to get healthy not restricting them.

    You're right, in the end it all goes back to human choice and freedom. We should all have the opportunity to choose how we receive our healthcare and by what means. This nation does preach freedom, but if we continue to make decisions that limit the people's freedom of choice I'm afraid America is headed down a slippery slope.

      In an article in the Washington Post,Senate votes to ban discrimination against gay and tran,

reporter Ed O'keefe reports on the passing of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act by Congress. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would ban employers from firing, refusing to hire or discriminating against workers or job applicants based on their sexual orientation or
gender identity. Though most states already have laws like this in place, there are some,
namely Virginia, who have no laws and discrimination is allowed to run rampant in the
workplace. The argument presented against passing ENDA came from Sen. Daniel Coats
who claimed that ENDA "diminishes" the religious freedom of organizations and
employers who may feel compelled to hire people who hold religious views contrary to
the views of the organization.
     The ideal presented that putting a legal end to the discrimination of people based
on their sexual orientation or legal identity diminishes religious freedom is bogus. The
issue is not religious freedom. I understand that there are religions who condemn
homosexuals because their relationships don't produce children. The followers of those
religions should still not be allowed to discriminate against a homosexual man or woman
because that homosexual's beliefs are not the same. Also, if a Christian organization, for
example, did not want to hire a homosexual man because they do not agree with his
homosexuality despite the fact that he has proclaimed himself a Christian, they should
not be allowed to reject his application based on that disagreement of personal beliefs.
     I believe that every man or woman's beliefs are theirs personally, not to be laid out on
display and judged by an employer. If two Buddhists, two Christians, or two Baha'is
disagree on the way the other of their same religion is following their Faith, that is
personal and should not be brought in to the workplace. It is unprofessional. It is not
okay to deny equality based on the fear that you might have to work with someone who
has different beliefs or lives their life in a different manner than you.

In an article, Obamacare repair written by Michael Gerson, the author attacks Obamacare. He calls it a fiasco. He attacks Obamacare predominantly on a technical front. Since people could start trying to buy insurance online there have been numerous reports of glitches or faultiness with the website.
   The author definitely appeals to an audience that might be fed up with trying to use the website and getting no where. Because it is so hard to sign up for insurance using the government website a problem is presented, that only the really adamant, meaning the elderly or sick, would be the ones who would succeed in creating an account while the young and healthy would not waste the time. This could lead to what the author describes as the insurance "death spiral". This situation stems from not enough young and healthy people signing up for insurance while too many old or sick do. This would cause premiums to rise which would further discourage young people from signing up resulting in a further rise in premiums. This is viewed as a very serious issue that if not resolved would set off a catastrophic adverse-selection spiral that has the potential to badly damage our large health care systems.
    Mr. Gerson calls into questions if putting a federal agency in charge of a health system that's suppose to aid millions of Americans is even possible. That maybe all the other problems that have stemmed from this idea are just evidence that this whole thing is not even possible. That maybe some aspects of the human system are just too complex to be managed.
   
 

    In an opinion article in the New York Times titled,Do Republicans Believe in Their Own Crisis? By DAVID FIRESTONE October 7, 2013, the author talks about how he thinks the Republicans are not taking the possibility of a default seriously with an underlying blame of the default on the Republicans. He also states that in fact they are downgrading the effects of a possible default.
    Mr. Firestone ways heavy on the idea that the prospect of a default is all blamed on the Republicans. I can neither disagree or agree fully only because I have not researched this topic fully,but Mr. Firestone certainly shoots to reemphasize this idea. He says that they are trying to use the government shutdown as well as the debt ceiling as leverage to get their way on policies. That the Republicans are pretty much asking for the Democrats to give up all the liberal ideals so that they can have their way. It's very clear that Mr. Firestone is taking one sided view on this topic. It's very possible that the Democrats are making some requests or demands, but none are mentioned throughout the entire article.
   A good portion of the article is devoted to showing how the Republicans are completely downgrading the default, acting like it's not that big of a deal. Mr. Firestone uses many statements from representatives. Some of the representatives are saying it won't be that bad, others are simply denying that it will even happen, and some are saying that it will even be beneficial. I think the author does a very good job at swaying the public opinion that the Republicans are just being absolutely absurd by adding these statements. It really drives the point home for readers that they are not taking the gravity of their decisions very seriously.   
    The author goes on to claim that the Republicans are trying to keep the public blind to the real threat a default would have on society. In the last two paragraphs he really tries to make the Republicans out to be the bad guys. He presents it like they are evil manipulators; their task is to keep the public ignorant while trying to bully the Democrats into giving them what they want.
    Mr. Firestone does a very good job overall of convincing readers, not only that the Republican are some evil group, but that they are also incompetent and don't care what happens to the general public.

Call for Better Tracking of Cases of Excessive Force at Borders

A recent New York Times article brings light to the issue of excessive or unnecessary use of force by Border Patrol agents and a failure to properly document these excessive-force accusations. The problem begins with the agents not being properly trained on "all of the less-lethal weapons available to them", the article goes on to list pepper spray and tasers as examples. Another issue is that although the agents know the basics they are not sufficiently trained on real life situations like rock assaults. Because of this lack of training, once they are placed in these situations and are faced with the real life fear and stress, they immediately resort to using weapons and this leads to deadly consequences.  Documented from January 2010, fifteen people have been killed by agents, including a 16-year-old. There have been many changes and reforms to the Customs and Border Patrol, as well as financing for use-of-force training, to try and aid in countering these deadly situations. But the agency has still not set up a mock border fence for the agents to practice on which could help in simulating high stress scenarios.  On top of this, these incidents of excessive use of force are not being properly documented.  The system to track these incidences is actually broken up into two separate systems that are the arms of the Department of Homeland Security. Both systems have different ways of classifying the complaints. This causes it to be very difficult to determine the exact number of excessive force accusations. And although this fact has been known since this past spring the second arm of the Department of Homeland Security, which is jointly run by Customs and Border Protection and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, has not added the use of force as a way to categorize the complaints. I chose this article because of its relevance to the presentation given in class on Wednesday on the laws of immigration and what measures the U.S. Government are taking to prevent it. I think this article is worth reading because it shows that, although America says it's very passionate about the issue of immigration, it seems it is doing very little to deal with this very serious situation in a safe and efficient way.