Senators urge Facebook to change privacy settings

I thought this was an interesting story. Check out the story and video.

CNN.com Video: Is Facebook compromising your privacy?

Sen. Schumer is outraged that Facebook can now share your information with other websites. CNN's Brian Todd reports.

Governing with an iPad?

   Everyone knows about the Icelandic volcano and the issues it has caused, not only in Europe, but around the world. Flights have been cancelled. People have been displaced and stranded. It has been chaotic. But, the Norwegian Prime Minister is dealing with the pressing issues facing his country all with the click of a mouse.....or rather iPad? With Jens Stoltenberg stranded in New York with national issues to deal with, he has taken to using the recently released Apple tablet to keep on top of the situation and keep in constant communication back home. The prime minister has been pictured [below], working at the Kennedy Airport in New York using a mobile phone, and the iPad. Trude Maaseid, a spokesman for the prime minister, told the Associated Press (AP), "When we were in the U.S., it was one of the several tools he used to keep in touch with the office back in Norway, to do his work." This is probably the best PR Apple could get for their new, popular device. Not to mention, free.

Raw Video: Iceland Volcano Spews More Ash

Raw Video: Volcano on Iceland Glacier Erupts

"Anonymous Sources"/Freedom of the Press Cartoons

Considering the previous topic on "Anonymous Sources," I thought it would be fun to post some cartoons. Enjoy!

White House Bans Anonymous Government Sources?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Comcast vs the FCC: What does this mean for us?

   So, a recent court decision coming out of the U.S. Court of  Appeals is, in fact, very interesting. It has to do with a coined term, 'net neutrality.' It involves Comcast, a major internet service provider and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The recent case involved Comcast's slowing or blocking users from some peer-to-peer sharing applications, which could be used to distribute large files such as movies or television shows. The FCC responded in complaints in 2008, ordering Comcast to stop its practices. But, the FCC does not have authorty over the worldwide web, neither does Comcast,right?

   So, Comcast decided to ask an appeals court whether the FCC had the authority to impose such restrictions or requirements on it. Comcast stated that they were essentially trying to block such services as BitTorrent in order to manage the internet traffic on its network in order to prevent degradation of its services for the majority of its users or customers. Essentially, the Court sided with Comcast, stating that the FCC failed to show that it had the necessary authority to impose such restrictions on the provider's network operations. This called in to question the FCC's ability to regulate broadband as a service, or the internet for that matter. The worldwide web is basically a free for all for everyone. Can the FCC try to regulate such a medium? We'll just have to wait and see what the FCCs next move will be. The Supreme Court or will they be happy with that decision? For now?

Could Stevens be replaced by Clinton?

 In recent Supreme Court news, another justice will be retiring, meaning that President Obama must appoint another replacement. The Supreme Court's current oldest justice, who was, in fact, appointed by President Ford in 1975, Justice John Paul Stevens will finally be retiring. This comes close to a year after Justice Souter's retirement and replacement bythe first Hispanic female justice, Justice Sotomayor.

  So, who could be the next Supreme Court Justice to walk up those steps and through those doors? Obama's short list is compiled of an eclectic bunch of potential nominees. On that list is a personal friend or should I say competitor? A Clinton? No, not Bill, of course. On Obama's list is a Mrs. Hillary Clinton, otherwise known as our Secretary of State. And, it seems that she could be a forerunner in this whole situation.

 

 Could she or rather should she be considered a respectable nominee? Many are stating that her law degree is not enough for the position. That her experience is minimal. This brings to mind, the debacle that occurred during the Bush Administration. When Bush, Jr. took it upon himself to nominate his White House Counsel, Harriet Miers. In 2005, much controversy arose due to her qualifications, or rather lack thereof. Needless to say , the backlash led to Miers withdrawing her name and the appointment of Alito. As much as I hate to admit it, Obama's potential "Clinton" candidate serves as a reminder of that event. Is Hillary truly qualified for such a position? And, rather, would she want to take on such a position? Remaining within those walls until retirement? Would she want to give up her lavish life of traveling around the world and meeting with some of the world's top leaders?

  But, Obama's list includes various other names that are being considered. Names range from a 14-yr veteran on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Sidney Thomas to a Harvard Law School Dean, Martha Minow and the head of Congressional Oversight Panel, Elizabeth Warren. The President is feeling the heat from some White House officials, who feel that it is necessary for Obama to expand on the list of possible nominees to include more non-judges and include people with different backgrounds and from other regions of the country. Could we be seeing an Asian justice next? All the current justices except for the retiring Stevens are Ivy League law school graduates. Which leads us to a question: Shouldn't there be certain criteria for one of the most important positions in our nation? And, shouldn't experience in the court of law as a judge be one of them? If so, how many people on this current list would meet that criterium?

I guess we will just have to wait and see who Obama nominates next to replace the beloved Stevens and walk those infamous steps. Clinton or rather, the first Asian woman justice?

Pros & Cons of the Health Care Reform Bill

ObamaCare Healthcare: The Passing of the Healthcare Bill and the Nation's Reaction?

So, obviously I've fallen off the edge of the Earth for a while. But, I'm back now to fulfill your "news-seeking" needs. I know lots of news stories have come and gone in my absence. But, I feel one in particular should not be skipped or ignored. I must go back to this particular story, which in reality is still an ongoing development that will continue to be expanded upon as the months and years go on. It is something that will have to be perfected and will undoubtedly continue to be criticized as time goes on. The obvious story that I am speaking about has caused nothing but controversy and uproar across the nation. I am, of course, speaking of the much talked/argued/debated about (however you want to put it) the "finally passed" health care bill. So, unless you have been hiding under a rock for a few weeks (like me), you are well aware of this developing story.

   Obama was finally able to sign the bill into law, giving health care to all citizens or otherwise making health care insurance required by all. He signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with the strokes of 22 pens, to be exact. Many are stating that this bill is bringing our once democratic society into a very socialist one. So, this bill has absolutely caused much uproar, leading to a decline in Americans' approval ratings for Obama. The health care bill was finally pushed through the House and Senate. With some final touches, the Senators and Representatives who voted 'yes' were happy (to a certain extent).

   The bill is still obviously not 100% perfected and it will take until 2013/2014 for some provisions to be instated. Some are saying that this bill is in fact a good thing and that they should take their time to get it right. Others feel a bill should not be signed into law until everything is completely ready. While, others feel that this reform is a horrible thing for our country and could ultimately destroy everything that our nation stands for. House of Representatives, Republican John A. Boehner, stated that, "This is a somber day for the American people. By signing this bill, President Obama is abandoning our founding principle that government governs best when it governs closest to the people." But, Obama says that, "The bill I'm signing will set in motion reforms that generations of Americans have fought for and marched for and hungered to see. We are affirming that essential truth, a truth every generation is called to rediscover for itself, that we are not a nation that scales back its aspirations."
   Despite the passing and signature of our president, legislatives' work on this bill are not over, nor is the partisan opposition. Republicans opposed to the health care reform have not given up their fight and have taken on a new slogan, "repeal and replace." They hope to campaign overturning popular benefits in the bill among Americans, such as young people staying on their parents' health care plans until the age of 26.

   So, what does this health care bill address? Let's explore some of some of the areas in more detail. As I stated, a popular benefit is that young adults will continue to be covered under their parents' health care coverage until the age of 26 while living under their parents' roof. Additionally, the reform is expected to expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured. The uninsured and self-employed will be able to purchase insurance through a state-based exchange that has subsidies available to individuals and families with an income between the 133 and 400 percent of the poverty level. Small businesses would have separate exchanges to purchase which should go into effective in 2014. There will also be funding available to states in order to establish exchanges within one year of enactment until January 1, 2015. Families and individuals who make between 100 percent and 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level and want to buy their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies. Therefore, they aren’t eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. Another element of the health care bill: tanning tax? Yep, with the reform their will be a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services. They have estimated that this reform will cost approximately $940 billion dollars over ten years and reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years and $1.2 trillion dollars in the second ten years.

   So, why is this health care reform bill getting so much backlash? In the end, people may find it to be a good thing for our nation. I mean, everyone is required to have car insurance, right? So, why shouldn't health insurance be? So, maybe everyone is in a frenzy over nothing. I guess only time will tell.

"Department of Jihad" & Blitzer's Controversy?

So, here's a story that caught my eye this week. Apparently, it has recently come out that 7 to 9 Justice Department lawyers, who before working in the Justice Department, represented Guantanamo detainees while they were in private practice. Therefore, questioning their patriotism.

What makes this story even more interesting? Well, a group called Keep America Safe, whom are actually associated with Dick Cheney's daughter, Elizabeth, have recently come out with a video, headlined, "DOJ: Department of Jihad?" They basically criticized these government officials and questioned their loyalty to their country. In the video, they asked, "Who are these government officials? And, whose values do they share?"

If you don't know already, Keep America Safe has been criticizing Obama and his policies since he has entered office. So, its not the first time they have been outspoken or, in this case, outspoken with a video. They created a video prior to this one after President Obama's State of the Union address, called "State of the Rhetoric?" And, Cheney's daughter seems to be associated with them. (Seems very interesting though, that Cheney's daughter be associated with a group set against Obama and his policies. Don't you think?)

But, Keep America Safe aren't the only ones concerned with these "Jihad lawyers." Republican Senators have been asking for months for the names of these nine officials and voicing concerns about whether they are trustworthy or not. Not, only that but the media has been having a field day with this. Fox News actually identified the lawyers. While CNN went on to create a controversy of their own.

If you haven't heard, last week, Wolf Blitzer had his own controversy with this whole "Department of Jihad" situation/smear. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer apologized for the segment that focused on the smear ads from “Keep America Safe” that charge Department of Justice lawyers with being in "cahoots" with Al Qaeda terrorists. The segment actually included a graphic that read “Department of Jihad?” and ended up angering viewers.

The segment was a "debate-style point-counterpoint discussion" of the “Keep America Safe” ads. They actually opened it up to the airwaves, as they do 'many a times.' But, with such a controversial subject at bay, CNN should have known better and should have addressed the controversy themselves. Instead, they allowed the audience to debate. Should CNN have allowed for such a thing? Many have stated that the answer is in fact quite easy. It is not "CNN’s job" to resolve questions one way or another. It is to keep the questions alive for the sake of drawing an audience. So, was the graphic really the problem or was it the way that CNN went about the whole situation.

Anyway, Wolf Blitzer actually offered or was "forced?" to issue an apology for the segment. Here's the statement:

"On Friday, Wolf Blitzer apologized on behalf of CNN for the graphic, saying that “CNN had no intention of suggesting the Justice Department supported terrorism, lawyers at the Justice Department are patriotic Americans and we certainly reject any confusion that may have been caused by our graphic.”

So, what do you think? Do you think CNN should have involved viewers? Did they go a little too far?

First Haiti. Now Chile?

With 2010 already getting off to a bad start with one devastating earthquake in Haiti, followed by a large number of aftershocks, the 8.8 magnitude in Chile on February 27th has shocked many. Recovery is still in effect in Haiti and now, we have even more devastation. Chilean President Michelle Bachelet called the damage "an emergency unparalleled in the history of Chile."

The death toll has been reported at an estimated 723 people, although Chilean officials have indicated that that number is "significantly overestimated", with the actual death toll being only 497 as of March 8, 2010. An estimated half a million homes have been damaged with Chile's earthquake.

Earthquake in Chile 2010

The Chilean government called for aid as devastation sank in. Chile is considered to be Latin America's most earthquake-ready country though. Children learn how to run for cover during quake drills before even learning to read. They are ready for a variety of scenarios with their thick disaster manual. But, even with that, the powerfully devastating earthquake that damaged bridges, collapsed bridges, downed phone lines and killed hundreds, has left even more of an aftershock then they thought. Experts are saying that although the quake  showed Chile to be one of the most developed countries in the region, it is also "one of the most unequal, with huge pockets of urban and rural poor, who suffered most in the quake." Chile is certainly going to be needing a lot of assistance in order to get the country back to the way it was. And, to think, just a few weeks ago, Chile was the one giving aid, not receiving it.

New Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown: Could We All Have Spoken Too Soon?

If you haven’t heard this past week, the Senate advanced the jobs bill. A $15 billion bill of tax cuts and highway spending advanced in the Senate on Monday. What makes this so surprising or significant? Maybe, it’s the fact that one of our new Republican senators voted with the Democrats, possibly setting the mood for the remainder of his term (or Ted Kennedy's term). What’s the mood? Unpredictability? So, you may have heard about the highly publicized Massachusetts Senate races that occurred in January, in which, Republican Scott Brown won in a surprising victory. He beat out the Democratic Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley. This shifted the always Democratic state of Massachusetts to an unanticipated Republican one. Therefore, Democrats lost their super majority vote in the Senate.


With Senator Brown’s election, President Obama, along with other Democrats’ were prompted to call for increased bipartisanship. Democrats did not know exactly how the votes would go now with Brown’s election. Would he be super conservative? Or moderate? No one knew what to expect. But, the former model's first vote in this jobs bill shows us that we may not know what to expect from this new Republican senator. We may have all just spoken too soon. Senator Brown joined four other republicans, 55 Democrats and two independents in a procedural hurdle that was to set up a final vote towards the end of last week. Brown said that the bill is not perfect but it would definitely help put people back to work. "I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington." Brown's first vote shows many that there is no way to predict how the Senate is going to vote now. The apocalypse that the Democrats saw with his election may, in fact, not be coming at all. We will all just have to wait and see.

Cheney vs. Biden? Battle of the VPs

            Alright, so many things have happened in one week. One story of interest this week is the "back and forth-ness" that is occurring between our former and current Vice President. There has essentially been a battle of the vice presidents on the Sunday talk shows if you haven't been watching. The former VP, Dick Cheney has been trading sharp criticism with talk shows about the Obama administration. He accused them of being slow to fight terrorism. Meanwhile, our current VP, Joe Biden, counters with accusations of Cheney's intent on "rewriting history."

           Biden states that Cheney is ignoring all of the progress that Obama has made to weaken al Qaida. Cheney has since countered stating that Biden is "dead wrong" to state that another 9/11 type attack on the United States is unlikely to occur. He commented on the Obama administration's ideas to prosecute terror suspects in civilian courts, although that is exactly what Bush did with the "wannabe" shoe bomber, Richard Reid. Cheney has stated though that the war in Iraq certainly did protect America and American interests. Biden, on the reply, points out that shifting the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan is, in fact, more "successfully" fighting the war. But, these dueling VPs certainly didn't offer anything new. Just seemed like meaningless bickering on both of their ends. All this bickering, in my opinion, is not solving anything.

          What are your opinions? Do you think that Cheney or Biden is right? Or do you think that this constant bickering is taking the focus from more important matters? Shouldn't we be focusing on a plan of action instead?