A few short glimpses of Australia thus far..

Somali Pirates Strike Again..

In the twelve months preceding November of 2008, Somali pirates received over $150 million dollars in ransom money. 7 ships have been captured since the beginning of 2009, and 16 ships were captured in 2008.

In the past 24 hours, 2 more tankers were hijacked by the pirates. Armed with machine guns a Norwegian chemical tanker was hijacked on today, off the coast of Somalia, and on Wednesday a smaller Greek vessel was seized in the same area.

Since November of last year, the U.S. Navy has committed ships to try and help monitor things going on over there, but since it is some of the busiest seas in the world, it is a daunting task. The 5th Fleet patrols the Gulf of Aden, said that both of the hijackings took place in the same area, in what are known as some of the most treacherous seas in the world.

The cargo in which each vessel was carrying was not released, but it is known that they are chemical tankers. Due to the fact that the area in which these hijackings keep occurring, is over 750,000 square miles, "This activity highlights the complexity of even trying to monitor an area of this size," according to Cmdr. Jane Campbell. On Wednesday even another ship was almost hijacked, but the crew was apparently able to fight them off with fire hoses.

January and February of 2009 had seen over 10 times as many attacks as in 2008. In March however, there are almost daily attacks. The attacks primarily began in the early nineties when Somali's socialist dictator was overthrown, and they haven't had a functioning government ever since.

I think the pirates actions are absolutely terrifying, and I would be so terrified to even travel through those seas. A simple solution would be not to travel through those waterways, but they are so significant to trade and everything else, that not traveling, isn't nearly an option. I can say, that for the limited resources that the pirates have, they are very successful. With small boats and guns, they are able to take over much larger boats, and I find that rather remarkable. I know what they're doing is terrorizing, but I can say that they are very good at doing what they're doing.




Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_re_af/piracy

Americans Want to Legalize Marijuana?

The White House decided to make a call to have a town hall style question session, and the received an unlikely response. More than 92,000 people responded with deep concern about issues such as the "decriminalization of marijuana, its possible use for medicinal purposes and its potential as a new source of revenue."

The town hall set up was rather remarkable since citizens got to express their concerns raw and purely, without the filtering of the media. The overall consensus was that people had broad interest in legalizing marijuana and taxing it.

The topic was the national economy yet, the top four questions concerned Marijuana. "On the budget, people voted up questions about marijuana to positions 1-4." Secondly, "Marijuana was in the first and third positions under 'jobs'." Thirdly, "People boosted a plug for legalizing marijuana to No. 2 under 'health care reform'.

After the President answered more significant questions, he began to openly address the issue of marijuana. Obama jokingly stated, "I don't know what that says about the online audience" in reference to the mass interest in marijuana. To seriously answer the question, the president added, "The answer is no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy."

The issue of legalizing marijuana for medical reasons, or just in general, is highly debated. Opponents to it believe that if we legalize marijuana, it would lead America on a slippery slope, like if we legalize marijuana, then the next thing would be cocaine and the next thing would be murder, or something extreme like that. When my roommate went to California over spring break, she got this little post card, that is titled, "Medical Cannabis is legal in the state of California". The organization is called Medical Cannabis of Southern California, and it lists some symptoms in which you can be "prescribed" medical marijuana. Some of the symptoms include Chronic Pain, Migraines, insomnia etc.

I personally don't really know what would be best for America. I think that if we legalize alcohol and cigarettes, marijuana isn't extremely different. Supposedly, it's been said that it is healthier than smoking cigarettes. Plus, if there was a way to make it like an industry, in which the country could tax and get significant money from it, it'd probably be a significant asset. It'd be like how in the state of Nevada how Prostitution is legal, and it's seen as a legal mean of income. Although everyone has their opinions about prostitution, if it's something that already occurs, I guess the argument that can be made, is might as well make an industry out of it.





Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20526.html

Even More Restrictions for Saudi Women

Saudi clerics have requested that the government ban woman from appearing on television, and to ban their images from being in the print media. They consider both television and the print media signs of growing “deviant thought”. Information Minister Abdul Aziz al-Khoja received a letter from 35 Islamic clerics who also condemn dancing and music on television. In the letter it stated, "Our faith in you is great to carry out media reform, for we have seen how perversity is rooted in the ministry of information and culture, on television, radio, in the press, literary clubs, and book fairs,".

The clerics have a fear that women are gaining freedom, which is an attempt to “westernize” Saudi women by “reducing their rights to a question of removing veils, wearing makeup and mixing with men.”

Is it just me, or is it shocking to think that a country with such degrading of women, is such good friends with the US? I’m aware that their politics are in a different section then their religion, but seriously, even their political leaders have outrageous thoughts on the freedoms of women. The leading family of Saudi Arabia were good friends with the Bush family, and we kept pretty good relations with them. Probably because of the economic reasons involved with oil and such, but still the way the country treats women, is absolutely appalling. As a western country, an one that values the principles of democracy so well, it’s a shame that we choose to have such close relations without speaking against them.

The letter sent by the clerics also stated in reference to women on the television, “There is no doubt that this is religiously impermissible.” The clerics main purpose for coming to these conclusions because they want to challenge the “growing push for liberalization of tough restrictions on women” and they also talk about the EXTREMELY conservative outfits they’re supposed to wear.

Though, there has been no actual political action, I really hope that something like what they’re requesting doesn’t occur. If they don’t want to become democratic, that’s fine, but making their already extremely restrictive laws even more restrictive is absolutely ridiculous.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Saudi-women-cross-street-Hofuf-city-250-kms-east-Saudi/photo//090324/photos_wl_me_afp/01267b3d078c754dc4d26181d553942c//s:/afp/20090324/lf_afp/saudireligionwomenrightsmedia

88-year-old Man is being deported to Germany to face War Crime charges..

John Demjanjuk is in need of travel documents to go back to Germany, because he is being deported. The reasoning behind the 88-year-old’s deportation is because his is an accused World War II Nazi guard, who is charged with 29,000 counts of accessory to murder. Demjanjuk was once accused but cleared of being a notorious guard at the Treblinka concentration camp in Poland, according to the Associated Press.

John currently resides in suburban Cleveland, but in March, Germany charged his with crimes while working as a guard at Sobibor, another Nazi death camp in Poland. The warrant requests the deportation or extradition of Demjanjuk. Demjanjuk denies any involvement in the deaths.

Prosecutors in Munich stated, “"In this capacity, he participated in the accessory to murder of at least 29,000 people of the Jewish faith.” Demjanjuk’s family says he is in poor health and unable to travel, “"My dad spent a few hours in the emergency room the other day," John Demjanjuk Jr. said. "He is being treated for kidney stones at present."

I understand the cruelty that the Nazi’s committed against the Jews, and how absolutely horrific it was. But it’s really rather bizarre to me that people are still getting charged with crimes. I don’t disagree with them being taken to justice, I completely agree with it, but I was rather shocked to see that people are still pursuing people, over a half a century later. Obviously many people involved with the Nazi’s is of old age now, and many are probably dead.

It’s just weird to me, because I have met German people who are my age, and have multiple relatives who were involved with the Nazi’s, like great uncles, and grandparents and so forth, and yet they live their days like common people. I know there is a difference however, like my friend Steffen, his grandfather was in the Nazi youth, yet he was never I guess formally involved with a murder.

I guess my point is, people are still being prosecuted for what they were involved with in the horrible atrocities that occurred over 60 years ago, and I suppose that must bring lots of hope to families of the victims.

Do you think it's fair for the elderly people to still be prosecuted for war crimes from WWII?
	Absolutely
	Sort of
	Maybe
	Don't know
	Absolutely Not
pollcode.com free poll

Source:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090324/ap_on_re_us/demjanjuk_germany

Today's Biggest Headline: Zac Efron drops out of "Footloose" remake!

ONLY JOKING. No, but seriously, now talking about a much bigger diva, and no I'm not talking about Oprah, but rather, Hillary Clinton. The Supreme Court recently viewed the video titled "Hillary: The movie" and ruled whether. On the Hillarythemovie.com, the primary quote on the website states, "Senator Clinton has an extraordinary ability to obfuscate, to refuse to answer questions, to avoid confrontations; and up until now has been given a pass on it."--Bob Novak

In January of 2008, Hillary Clinton’s political opponents wanted to put the 90-minute film on Cable TV as a video-on demand offering, in the middle of the heated primaries. The government however, blocked the attempt looking at it as a “glorified attack ad improperly paid for in part by corporate contributions.” McCain-Feingold law was supposed to be for corporate money to stay out of politics. The moviemakers believed that the ban of their film, was “an unconstitutional restriction on free speech”, and it appears that the Supreme Court agrees.

The fact that the moviemakers wanted to have it shown on video-on-demand, was much different than if it were shown for example on CBS. People who WANTED to watch it, had to seek it out, and there really isn’t anything wrong with it. Justice Antonin Scalia stated “Isn’t the First Amendment interest greater when the government is trying to stifle not only the speaker but also the person who wants to listen?”

I agree with the Supreme Court, and the moviemakers, not only because I openly dislike Hillary Clinton, but in the sake of objectivity. Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling for Columbine, Bush and various other films were produced with open bias and utter attacks to the conservative people. Yet once the opposite situation occurs, all of a sudden, it’s not okay. That is unconstitutional. The film industry is free game, and if a movie producer gets the funding and gets the sponsorship to be produced, they should be able to produce it, and if people don’t want to watch well then….don’t watch it! Pure rocket science folks.

Other Links:
http://www.hillarythemovie.com/press_MSNBC_2009.html

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Sudanese President Travels Abroad

Three weeks after a warrant was issued for his arrest Omar Al-Bashir, has traveled abroad to Eritrea. This trip came as a surprise to many as it was unannounced and supposedly even close advisors had not been informed of the trip.

The International Criminal Court, issued the warrant for charges that include "war crimes and crimes against humanity for playing what it called an essential role in the murder, rape and displacement of vast numbers of civilians in Darfur."

Sudan has been a country of chaos since the Arab dominated government has displaced more than 2.5 non-Arab Sudanese people, and killed over 300,000. Although the president continues to deny any involvement with the Janjaweed, which is the primary terrorist group.

The court's guidelines make it so the 108 country members of the court are obligated to arrest him if he steps foot on their territory. The court now wants any country if given the opportunity to arrest him, not just the 108 members of the court. Ali Abdu, Eritrea’s information minister said on Monday, "Yes, he is here." It has also been reported that Eritrea probably won't cooperate with the court's plea to arrest him.

When Al-Bashir's warrant had been issued it was seen as a large step in the ending of genocide in Sudan. Unfortunately, Al-Bashir is NOT going down without a fight. The genocide has been occurring since February of 2003, and has caused great devastation to the already unstable country.

I really hope that Al-Bashir is captured and will pay the consequence for all of the horror he has supported to occur in his country. Although he has not admitted, it is pretty evident that he is guilty, and there needs to be a change of leadership, or else the genocide will never end.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/world/africa/24sudan.html?_r=1&hp
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9367/

Do you think that the warrant for Al-Bashir's arrest is justified?
	Absolutely
	Sort of
	Maybe
	Don't Know
	Absolutely Not
pollcode.com free polls