Never-ending Cycle of Death

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/world/africa/in-congo-self-defense-can-offer-its-own-risk.html?pagewanted=2&ref=world

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is definitely noted as a war-torn region of the world. A large population, area, abundance of resources, and economic distress pushes many of the state's people into a life of violence. Many militant groups have been formed, initially most times to protect people of a village, but soon turning into marauders seeking to loot, rape, and kill at will. And now it seems, in one area of the DRC, villagers who are fed up with this violence have formed a combatant group in order to defend themselves. However, it is also apparent that these villagers have now acted out against the families of the militants attacking them. This is the formula of a vicious cycle of revenge and will never accomplish anything. While fierce competition for survival makes sense in an area such as DRC, but is there anything that can be done to curb it? Is there any possibility of educating villagers and rebels in the area and showing that resources can be perhaps used for the benefit of the whole community? Cooperation and understanding of issues will do much more in seeking progress, but it seems like that realization has not come to the DRC.

White Kills Black = Racism

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/us/skittles-sales-up-after-trayvon-martin-shooting.html?_r=1&hp#

I read this article about Skittles' rising profits after the killing of Trayvon Martin and got a bit annoyed at what was basically an assumption that this issue has anything to do with race. I understand that all Trayvon was doing was buying Skittles and iced tea, and that is indeed very innocent. However, I fail to see the link between the innocence of simply purchasing candy, and then being shot because one is black. And now there are suggestions to boycott Skittles by members of certain black communities? Why? What would the point of that be? The issue at hand deals with a teenager who may have been unfairly pursued and shot or who may have attacked another man and subsequently shot out of protection. Not what candy he went into the local convenience store to buy. And I understand how powerful a message can be made using Skittles to point out what some know for sure is his innocence, but threatening to cease purchasing of a product because the manufacturer of that product will not donate money to the family of Martin is ridiculous. It is racist to assume that the whole situation has to do with race.

The Pope

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/pope-benedict-xvi-cuba-visit_n_1384690.html?ref=world

The Pope recently visited Cuba, and left some ambiguous and confusing advice behind. It is clear that he called for less "irrationality and fanaticism" in the country, but a lot of what he said was Bible allusion-heavy and puzzling. To be honest, I couldn't get a real clear message from any of the quotes that were provided. That is not a very good sign for the Holy Father, especially when the group of people he attempted to inspire consists of more disloyal Catholics than the rest of Latin America.

Should a religious leader such as the Pope attempt to take no such roles of diplomacy? I understand that the Pope is the sovereign of the Vatican City, but he definitely holds more recognition and importance in his role as leader of the Catholic Church. Do you think it makes sense for people in such positions of faiths to try and sway followers living in certain areas to change? I myself am unsure how I feel about this whole situation. It does make sense for a leader like him to try and create certain goals for the people he serves, but is it too far when he attempts to talk down the policies of the leaders of other nations?

Syria's "Peace Plan"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/syria-crisis-peace-plan_n_1384541.html?ref=world

The situation in Syria somewhat confuses and frustrates me. While President Assad has accepted a UN-sponsored peace plan, there has clearly been some sort of continued military action against his people. I admit I am not really an expert on any of the uprisings in the Arab region recently, I do know a few things about it. There has been a struggle between President Assad and his opponents for about a year. And this struggle is probably the most violent and has definitely garnered much attention from human rights activists. But if President Assad continues to oppress his constituents in such a violent manner, why has it been almost a whole year without any assistance to help the people of Syria? I'm not merely asking why the US hasn't somehow gotten the responsibility of handling it, but why the world is taking so long to call for such a despot's removal. As I don't know all that I can, I'm sure there is much more to it, but I would love to hear your thoughts about the issue.

Déjà Vu in Egypt

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/19/egypt-elections-protesters-cairo-tahrir-square-clashes_n_1102732.html

This was also an interesting article I found on Huffington Post. Apparently, there was a violent clash between protesters and security forces in Egypt this morning. This struck me as particularly odd because Egypt is planning on having democratic elections soon, but further reading shed light on the issue.

Hosni Mubarak was President of Egypt for almost 30 years. I, and many others, did not think he was an obvious dictator or that his administration was very authoritarian. That could just be my ignorance, or it may not have been made known. In early 2011, however, revolts took the nation by storm, calling for the removal of Mubarak. This widespread feeling of revolution was seen around the same time all over the Arab world, in Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and other nations. Finally, Mubarak resigned, and a military junta was in power. To most, they would seem fitting as a temporary government, since the military of Egypt was in support of the protesters and no the government. Democratic elections were planned, and the revolution was successful.

But, now it looks like the military regime governing the nation at the moment is repressive, like Mubarak, and many Egyptians are still dissatisfied. A protest in Tahrir Square, where many of the earlier protests occurred, turned into a bloody clash between Egyptian security forces and civilians, resulting in lots of harm to participants in the protest.

Protesters are now gathering in opposition to the military junta in power. Supposedly, in the upcoming election scheduled for a few weeks from now, they plan on purposely not maintaining order anywhere. Chaos that would surely ensue, with no one to enforce order, would justify the government's decision to keep the military committee in power.

It seems like now Egyptians are back where they started, only this time they have a different enemy. I sadly see no hope in the near future for Egypt, but hopefully I am mistaken. I'd like to know what you guys think will happen, and if Egypt will ever resolve its problems.

When is it too far, and who decides that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/19/uc-davis-police-pepper-spray-students_n_1102728.html

This article's headline took up about half of HuffPost's main page, so I thought it might be important. It seems that 'Occupy' protesters at UC Davis are the center of a police brutality controversy. Apparently, lots of students gathered on the university's quad in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Upon setting tents up, university officials warned the students that a 'tent city' would not be allowed. Apparently, because the students refused to clear out the tents, UC Davis police used pepper spray on several students. Videos were recorded of police spraying students, and an incident involving an officer tackling a student. Many arrests were made. School officials are justifying the use of pepper spray because students were notified that tents were not allowed. However, many students and bystanders are arguing that they had the right to protest and using pepper spray and violence crossed the line and should be considered police brutality.

I am a bit torn between two opinions. The school apparently did notify students that they could not set up tents on the quad. So, the officers needed to do something to get the students to comply. However, the students did have the right to peacefully assemble on the quad, and many were advocating non-violence. So, it seems a bit extreme to use an agent of force that is as harmful as pepper spray. One woman went to the hospital to receive treatment for chemical burns. I feel like it was somewhat unnecessary for police force to be used over an issue of setting up tents. So, it does seem very harsh, but also justified by the university's prior warnings.

I guess I posted this to get your opinions on matters such as this. Were their 1st Amendment rights infringed upon, or were they acting illegally? Should police be able to use harsh, dangerous tactics such as pepper spray to coerce groups that are not complying? And does the severity of the issue matter, because I think setting up tents is not a highly concerning issue.

Certainty Over Alleged Iranian Assassination Attempt

I read this article from New York Times:


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/us/obama-calls-for-iran-sanctions-following-alleged-plot.html?_r=1&hp

and this article from International Business Times:


http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/230726/20111013/iranian-terror-plot-iran-terror-plot-iran-saudi-arabia-iran-informant-iran-obama.htm#disqus_comment






With a minimal amount of information provided to me about this affair, I was already a bit skeptical. It seems unlikely that the Iranian government would use a Mexican drug pusher to kill a Saudi dignitary on American soil. Even if an observer believes that Iran has the intent of harming other nations', whether they be from the United States or Saudi Arabia, representatives, he/she cannot possibly believe that Iran's government would lack the care and stealth necessary in such a plan.

There are obviously numerous Americans with enough resentment toward Iran that would believe that an assassination plot was drafted. Had it been a more intricate or stealthier plan, I would believe it. But then I would have to believe anything I read on the internet having to do with conspiracy theories and assassination attempts. It is a sort of insult to give the Iranian government credit for this.

Regarding the use of a Mexican drug dealer, I just left my computer and cried for a little. With the amount of security on our southern border these days, and the well-noticed growing problem of drug trafficking in the area, this supposed method, if it can even be considered an option, is the last choice for any official with half of a functioning brain. Using a person with an ethnic background that already sets alarms off in the minds of the Border Patrol is a discussion point that I highly doubt the "How We, the Government of Iran, Will Kill the Saudi Ambassador to the United States on American Soil" conference.

It may just be my ability to get irritated at any far-fetched theory some Americans label as terrorist plots and acts of war against the US, or it could just be common sense. However, if an unbiased attempt at determining the plausibility of this scheme is given, it still would lean towards iplausible. That is just what I think, however.