It's about time!

            I’ve been following the news lately looking for something to talk about this week and I realized many are using the Bin Laden killing to fuel controversy. Was it “enhanced interrogation policies” that led to Osama being caught and killed? And if so, should we continue these policies? Or is torturing cruel and not the proper way? Do we give credit to the Obama administration or the Bush administration? Is it okay to openly rejoice in the streets about this death? Was it okay to throw Bin Laden into the sea and not give him a burial?

            Why is there any controversy over this? I have no idea … to me it is a wonderful time for the USA and for democracy. Bin Laden is finally dead! Who wouldn’t feel wonderful about that? This is a time for everyone to come together and rejoice, not for arguing and bickering

carnivores and omnivores

We learned this past week in class about blogs and why people read them. According to the article we read, most people read blogs that they can agree with. conservatives read conservative blogs and liberals read liberal blogs. We call these kind of blog readers carnivores since they read blogs in order to get the "red meat" that they are searching for. Omnivores on the other hand are those readers who read blogs both on the right and the left of the spectrum.
 It is sad that there are so few omnivores out there. It shows us that people are stubborn and close-minded when it comes to politics. Even if you disagree with the other side, what is the harm in reading their opinion on an issue? As Noah said in his blog "Media, Politics, and Lebron dunking on Jerry Stackhouse", people find it easier to make things black and white. Too many people think they are absolutely, completely right and anyone who disagrees is absolutely, completely wrong. It is a shame so many people are like this. Not only do they disagree, but they are reluctant to even hear what the other side has to say.

Facebook and the battle of good vs. evil

A facebook page calling for the third Palestinian Intifada was recently taken down by facebook. The page encouraged Palestinian’s to take to the streets after Friday prayers on may 15th and use violence against Jews. “Judgment day will be brought upon us only once the Muslims have killed all of the Jews” was the rallying call of the page. The page had 350,000 “likes” before it was finally removed. This shows us the pros and cons of new social media tools like facebook. Clearly, Facebook is something that can be used for tremendous good, but when a page like this is created and actually gains so much support it is really quite frightening. Since the removal of this page, others just like it have popped up. It is important that we recognize that facebook is a tool that can be used not only for good but for horrible, evil things as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/29/palestinian.facebook/index.html

Its a Crazy World Out There

Many people are upset that the recent events in Israel have not been given enough coverage in the media. As far as the Itamar massacre goes, i think without a doubt the earthquake in Japan had an effect on coverage of that tragedy. However, it's a shame that such a tragic event was not given the attention it surely warranted. With so much chaos going on in the world these days, it isn't reasonable to expect the Itamar massacre or the bus bombing in Jerusalem to receive complete attention. As a Jew and a supporter of Israel it saddens me when tragedy in Israel isn't fully recognized. However, i understand that it's a big world out there and other events that are happening such as the earthquake and it's aftermath in Japan, the conflict in Libya, and the current revolutions in the Middle East are going to take attention away from events in Israel.

Rush Limbaugh on Japan earthquake

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366866/Rush-Limbaugh-mocks-Japan-earthquake-refugees-recycling-natural-disaster.html

On his show this week, Rush Limbaugh has been completely out of line regarding the recent earthquake in Japan. He has mocked refugees for recycling their garbage, laughing about how ironic it is that a country with environmentally friendly policies has been hit with the enormity of this natural disaster. He called the quake an "ironic payback". In addition to this absurdity, Limbaugh questioned whether environmentalists would be happy or sad about this, because the disaster wiped out the car-manufacturing area of Japan. He also claims that the media has exaggerated the damage of the earthquake, because they want stuff like this. "These people are looking for disaster. They want the nuclear meltdown. They want the Japanese syndrome, if you will. They want this stuff." With over 5,000 dead (to date) and such enormous damage, there is no room for humor or sarcasm. Shame on you, Limbaugh....

Obama and oil reserves

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-japan-quake-gas-prices,0,5891791.story

This article from The LA times discusses President Obama's stance on rising gas prices in the country. Obama does not plan on releasing oil from U.S reserves right now, however, he said he would consider it at a certain point, refusing to say when that point is. The president is confident we can fill any gaps in the nations fuel supply as a result of the current unrest in the Middle East. The article mentioned that Obama is under attack from Republicans, who say that he has done very little to help the production of oil in the country. I thought the article did a great job of showing Obama's side of things and making him look good in general. The headline, "After Japan quake, Obama holds firm on oil reserves and drilling"is already pretty kind to Obama. While the article provided quotes from the president defending himself, it did not quote a single Republican attacking Obama. To me, this is clearly unfair. Also, the article mentions that the president is under attack from Republicans as if everyone else is in support of him. I think many people, not only Republicans, are upset with Obama.

An Objective Article

I found an article from the New York Times about juvenile crime. The article discussed how many states have raised the age of adulthood in criminal matters. By years end, New York may be the only state where the age of adult criminal responsibility is 16.

i thought the article was fair and objective. They gave reasons supporting both an older and a younger age cutoff. Prosecution in juvenile courts is more expensive, and because states are facing budget deficits, many are opposed to the recent changes in raising the age. Also, would the juvenile courts have the means to cope with another two age groups? On the other hand, it was mentioned in the article that the juvenile justice system is better able to rehabilitate young offenders due to the greater availability of social services.

In my opinion, 18 is a good age. It would cost more, but because the juvenile system focuses more on treatment and rehabilitation, it would be more beneficial. Also, Juvenile court records are sealed. This means that people who stay out of trouble as adults would have an easier time finding jobs.