Passport Diplomacy

I came across an article in the New York Times online newspaper called " Passport Diplomacy", in this article it addresses the current issue of the Supreme Court's decision to consider the citizens born the Jerusalem list Israel as their place of birth on their passports. President Obama's administration believes that this is something the Palestine and Israelites should negotiate on their own. The question asked is does Congress have the power to override the Presidents foreign policy wishes. There is listed a debate in which there appears to be various views regarding the issue. Stephan Vladeck, professor of law and co-editor of Just Security blog states that " the American foreign policy is a complex series of powers shared between Congress and the executive branch." He argues that the president does not act as the "sole organ" in the decisions of foreign policy. However, Elizabeth Foley professor at Florida International University  and author of The Tea Party: Three Principles states that "It would be unwise and potentially dangerous for any court to allow Congress's passport power to trump sensitive foreign policy judgments such as the president's position on sovereign recognition." According to the constitution the powers regarding foreign policy issues should be decided among the Congress and executive branch.

Commentary of " Do I matter" blog

I am writing in response to The People's blog post called "Do I matter" by Hernando Fonacier. This blog is addressing the concept that congress is a misrepresentation of all the nations people. I think Hernando brought to light some valid points about how most of the congress is mostly white males. I do not believe everyone is truly represented if this is in fact the case. Hernando Fonacier also mentions that congress is to " enhance and refine" public opinion, he then argues that this is not possible unless congress represents all of public opinion. He then brings to attention the gender differences in the House of Representatives. He states that women are " grossly underrepresented" in the House of Representatives. This statement I do believe to be true, and this can be a major dilemma , because lets be honest women think differently than men. I think this blog touched on valid points that should be considered.

Republicans believe the U.S is headed for another Cold War

I have recently come across an editorial in The Washington Post written by Eugene Robinson , an opinion writer for The Post Partisan blog. In the post he describes that the Russian's seizure of the Crimean peninsula from neighboring Ukraine has lead to Republican's belief that this will lead to another Cold War. I don't find it surprising that the republican party is in opposition of President Obama's views. This seems to always be the case ever since Democratic President Obama started running for office! I did however find it interesting that in the editorial by Robinson, he mentions that Romney had said to President Obama that " Russia is the number-one geopolitical foe." This statement has been the reason why the republicans are now pointing the finger at President Obama and accusing him. By republicans I am referring to Senator McCain and Senator Ted Cruz , who both seem to be equally opinionated about the whole issue. I think that President Obama is doing a great job in maneuvering through this whole crisis. As Robinson states in his blog, President Obama has been "steady, firm and realistic". I think sometimes the Republicans need to step back and start viewing certain situations in an objective view, without placing their personal conceptions. Although this crisis is serious I do not think either side wants another cold war.

Blog Stage 4

On March 4, 2014 Media Matters for America posted an editorial blog titled " Bad Apple": Fox News Attacks business sustainability efforts by Shauna Theel (Climate and Energy Control Director of Media Matters). In the blog, Shauna argues that Fox Businesses attack on Apple, stating that they are using  "politics over profit" regarding Green Energy, is invalid. Shauna Theel's undertone in her editorial states that Apple has remained sustainable regarding a return on investments ( ROI). I would argue that this is true. Theel uses explainable logos in proving that energy investments are profitable. She writes that "A recent report by the investor group Ceres found that clean energy investments must reach $1 trillion a year (a "Clean Trillion") in order to have an 80 percent chance of avoiding global warming of more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a measure deemed necessary by international governments at the Copenhagen climate conference to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. However, without greater commitments to addressing climate change, we face the potential of 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warming, which would severely disrupt global supply chains including food stocks. That is one reason why companies such as Apple are recognizing the risks climate change poses to their businesses and turning toward cleaner sources of energy." This is the logos she uses to prove why Apple's decision to use energy investments is sustainable. I agree with this editorial because Shauna Theel is credible and she is soild facts in order to prove her argument.

Blog Stage 3

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/business/mixed-results-in-us-study-of-increasing-minimum-wage.html?ref=us

Minimum Wage Increase: Mixed Effects

The article I read was called Minimum Wage Increase Would Have Mixed Effects by Annie Lowery I found this article to be fairly interesting because of the arguments made by both sides seem so valid! In the article, the argument being made is wither the increase in minimum wage would help or hinder the economy.The article states that it would do both.The Democrats are for the raise in minimum wage because they believe it would "lift one million Americans out of poverty, and help build an economy that works for everyone" The Republicans are skeptical and believe that it would "destroy as many as one million jobs , which would be hurting the very people whom we are trying to help". The truth is both of these arguments are in fact true. In my opinion, the numbers for an increase in poverty seem to be greater than the risk of job loss.  Moreover, the article also states that raising minimum wage would "raise reduce employment by $100,000, but it would also push $300,000 people over the poverty line." It seems to me that the risk is worth the reward. I think although the raising of minimum wage could potentially lead to business loss, it would also provide people with more stability in the economy. I suppose it could be argued both ways.The arguments made in this article are both realistic. I think whatever the outcome will be, it will effect our economy in a major way. Which is what this article explains. Overall, I think that the raising of the minimum wage would lead to a greater outcome, which is worth the risk.

Government Target Killings


The article below is about targets, such as drones, being put in place to kill terrorist from the United States. I found this article to be worthwhile because it effects how we view our government.I found this article to be very interesting, because I had no idea that this was even taking place. The government has these targets placed to kill people internationally. There seem to be many opinions about wither this is right or wrong. One of the questions that are raised is," is it legal?" I was surprised to learn that President Obama stated it was completely legal. President Obama stated that "we should remember the terrorist the government targets are targeting millions of citizens, therefore doing nothing is not an option." In some ways I do think it is a necessary act, because it eliminates the possibility of millions being killed by the acts of these terrorist. On the other hand I do wonder if this is morally right, because it is murder. There is more about this subject the link posted on CNN news.




Government Target Killings