Jason Cannon
3/20/14
UK
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-22123931
Synopsis:
The UK Department of Education is currently in the process of changing the national curriculum for England Schools. They are in the final stages of their consultation period for the curriculum which they hope to implement very soon. Head teachers and school leaders in England think that the change is much too fast and is too challenging to implement. They feel like they are not very involved in the changes being made and they have concerns with what is happening. Brian Lightman, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said when speaking of the teachers and school leaders, "If their views are not taken on board, there is a real danger that implementation will be rushed, poorly implemented and could result in a drop in standards." He also said that the implementation of the curriculum relies on the school leaders. The Department for Education said that waiting to implement the curriculum would cause "a whole year of pupils [to] miss out on a more rigorous, knowledge-focused curriculum."
I don't think that this is a good idea for England Schools. It sounds like the Department for Education has independently created a new curriculum which will be very difficult to implement. They don't have the support of the teachers or school leaders who will need to be the major implementers. This shows the power of the Department for Education, which I do not think is good in this situation. I think that they new curriculum will get off to a very shaky start if it gets off at all.
Also, this situation reminds me of the Obamacare roll out that just recently occurred in the United States. The government tried to implement something that was obviously not ready to be implemented and it backfired. If England implements this new curriculum, they might find that it causes a whole year of students to miss out on a solid education.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Iran's Zarif 'sees signs of comprehensive nuclear deal'
Jason Cannon
3/19/14
Iran
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26643505
Synopsis:
Mohammad Javad Zariff, the Iranian Foreign Minister, met with the EU foreign policy chief (Catherine Ashton) to discuss the nuclear program of Iran. Six world powers (US, UK, France, China, Russia, Germany) do not want Iran to create a nuclear weapon, and thus want Iran to slow down their nuclear activities. Iran, on the other hand, claims that their nuclear program is peaceful and that their nuclear activities will continue. Zariff said that "an understanding is possible that respects the rights of the Iranian nation." Another meeting is scheduled for April, where Zarif and Ahston say they will "continue [their] work on the substantial areas which [they] intend to cover in a comprehensive agreement." Some of the substantial areas will be very tricky to work out.
Detailed Analysis:
I think that it is great that the US and other powers are pushing for Iran to not develop a nuclear weapon. Iran seems to be the type of country that would not be scared of threatening to use a nuclear weapon against another country (like the US). Then again, I guess North Korea does that all the time, but nothing ever comes of it. It sounds like Iran is pretty firm about continuing their nuclear activities which others will have a very hard time stopping. Hopefully the countries involved can peacefully work out a fair agreement with Iran that limits what Iran can produce. If Iran does get a nuclear weapon, I sure hope the Supreme Leader does not have any desire to use it on the US.
3/19/14
Iran
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26643505
Synopsis:
Mohammad Javad Zariff, the Iranian Foreign Minister, met with the EU foreign policy chief (Catherine Ashton) to discuss the nuclear program of Iran. Six world powers (US, UK, France, China, Russia, Germany) do not want Iran to create a nuclear weapon, and thus want Iran to slow down their nuclear activities. Iran, on the other hand, claims that their nuclear program is peaceful and that their nuclear activities will continue. Zariff said that "an understanding is possible that respects the rights of the Iranian nation." Another meeting is scheduled for April, where Zarif and Ahston say they will "continue [their] work on the substantial areas which [they] intend to cover in a comprehensive agreement." Some of the substantial areas will be very tricky to work out.
Detailed Analysis:
I think that it is great that the US and other powers are pushing for Iran to not develop a nuclear weapon. Iran seems to be the type of country that would not be scared of threatening to use a nuclear weapon against another country (like the US). Then again, I guess North Korea does that all the time, but nothing ever comes of it. It sounds like Iran is pretty firm about continuing their nuclear activities which others will have a very hard time stopping. Hopefully the countries involved can peacefully work out a fair agreement with Iran that limits what Iran can produce. If Iran does get a nuclear weapon, I sure hope the Supreme Leader does not have any desire to use it on the US.
Opponent of Mexico’s Cartels Is Detained in Vigilantes’ Deaths
Jason Cannon
3/19/14
Mexico
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/world/americas/opponent-of-mexicos-cartels-is-detained-in-vigilantes-deaths.html?_r=0
Synopsis:
In Mexico, Hipolito Mora was arrested for the suspected murder of 2 men. Mora is the leader of a "vigilante" group (self defense group) that fights the Knights Templar drug cartel. He is considered to be the "public face of Mexico's vigilante movement." According to the article, he said his goal was "to create a better, more just economy for his town and others." He helped get the Mexican government to provide great resources in the aid of his state, Michoacan. The two men whose death he is suspected of are members of another vigilante group in a nearby town. The group's leader is Luis Antonio Torres Gonzalez, who did not get along with Mora. The two groups have had a tense relationship, which Mora's suspected killings highlight. Accusations of corruption have been made against some vigilante groups. The government of Mexico has a tough situation on their hands in dealing with these vigilante groups and the drug cartels.
Detailed Analysis:
In reading about these vigilante groups, it seems like they are becoming similar to the drug cartel groups they are trying to get rid of. There is tension between the group, suspected corruption, and violence (as this article shows). While these groups can help in fighting the drug cartels, they seem to be adding to the current problem in Mexico. I think that the government should not get rid of these groups, but I do think that the government should become more involved in the actions of these groups and should regulate them more closely. If the government could play a part in uniting the vigilantes groups against the drug cartels, I think they could make significant progress in ridding Mexico of the corrupt influence of the cartels. The problem is that they don't know who is corrupt and who is not.
3/19/14
Mexico
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/world/americas/opponent-of-mexicos-cartels-is-detained-in-vigilantes-deaths.html?_r=0
Synopsis:
In Mexico, Hipolito Mora was arrested for the suspected murder of 2 men. Mora is the leader of a "vigilante" group (self defense group) that fights the Knights Templar drug cartel. He is considered to be the "public face of Mexico's vigilante movement." According to the article, he said his goal was "to create a better, more just economy for his town and others." He helped get the Mexican government to provide great resources in the aid of his state, Michoacan. The two men whose death he is suspected of are members of another vigilante group in a nearby town. The group's leader is Luis Antonio Torres Gonzalez, who did not get along with Mora. The two groups have had a tense relationship, which Mora's suspected killings highlight. Accusations of corruption have been made against some vigilante groups. The government of Mexico has a tough situation on their hands in dealing with these vigilante groups and the drug cartels.
Detailed Analysis:
In reading about these vigilante groups, it seems like they are becoming similar to the drug cartel groups they are trying to get rid of. There is tension between the group, suspected corruption, and violence (as this article shows). While these groups can help in fighting the drug cartels, they seem to be adding to the current problem in Mexico. I think that the government should not get rid of these groups, but I do think that the government should become more involved in the actions of these groups and should regulate them more closely. If the government could play a part in uniting the vigilantes groups against the drug cartels, I think they could make significant progress in ridding Mexico of the corrupt influence of the cartels. The problem is that they don't know who is corrupt and who is not.
Saturday, March 15, 2014
China to 'declare war' on pollution, cut energy use
Jason Cannon
3/15/14
China
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014npcandcppcc/2014-03/14/content_17346330.htm
I used a wikipedia article to find out more about the National People's Congress of China which is an important element of the main article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_People%27s_Congress
Synopsis:
The National People's Committee (NPC) of China just ended their annual session. Environmental issues were a major focus of the legislators, and Li Keqiang, a member of the NPC, said that China was going to fight pollution. He said that polluters would receive worse punishments. Currently China has a large monitoring system using something called PM 2.5 readings, which, according to Li, prompt the government and people to act against pollution. Also, Li said the government will focus on "issues involving people's livelihoods."
Detailed Analysis:
In reading the wikipedia article on the National People's Committee, I found that the NPC was the main legislative body of China. It meets every year and has certain responsibilities like choosing the President of the People's Republic of China. I also read that it does not have much power and is mainly just a puppet of the Communist Party in China. Given that the Communist Party is in control, it must be okay with the fight against pollution that these legislators are greatly focusing on. If any major changes are going to be made, they will first have to be approved or instigated by the Communist Party. It is interesting that China has several different political institutions and bodies, but only one has the real power.
3/15/14
China
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014npcandcppcc/2014-03/14/content_17346330.htm
I used a wikipedia article to find out more about the National People's Congress of China which is an important element of the main article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_People%27s_Congress
Synopsis:
The National People's Committee (NPC) of China just ended their annual session. Environmental issues were a major focus of the legislators, and Li Keqiang, a member of the NPC, said that China was going to fight pollution. He said that polluters would receive worse punishments. Currently China has a large monitoring system using something called PM 2.5 readings, which, according to Li, prompt the government and people to act against pollution. Also, Li said the government will focus on "issues involving people's livelihoods."
Detailed Analysis:
In reading the wikipedia article on the National People's Committee, I found that the NPC was the main legislative body of China. It meets every year and has certain responsibilities like choosing the President of the People's Republic of China. I also read that it does not have much power and is mainly just a puppet of the Communist Party in China. Given that the Communist Party is in control, it must be okay with the fight against pollution that these legislators are greatly focusing on. If any major changes are going to be made, they will first have to be approved or instigated by the Communist Party. It is interesting that China has several different political institutions and bodies, but only one has the real power.
Friday, March 7, 2014
Jang Denies Federal Government's Bribe to Governors - Nigeria
Jason Cannon
3/7/14
Nigeria
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/03/jang-denies-fgs-n2bn-bribe-govs/
Synopsis:
Jonah Jang, a Nigerian state governor and a leader of the Nigeria Governor's Forum, accused Governor Kwankwaso of being the cause of the current divide among Nigerian governors. He claimed that Kwankwaso's dishonesty and corruption were the cause of the divide. Some governors had previously been accused of accepting a bribe from the National Government to divide the Forum. Jang said that Kwankwaso would have been the one that took the bribe if there was such corruption going on. He said ". . . this act of dishonesty aided by a few other governors sowed the seed of discord amongst the governors and that Kwankwaso and his group are now finding it difficult to live with the consequences of their action . . ."
Analysis/Comments
This issue perfectly demonstrated the issues Nigeria is facing politically. Nigeria has many similarities in government structure to the United States, but because of corruption and fighting it operates completely differently than the United States. It would not surprise me if some governors did accept a bribe to divide the Forum. It would also not surprise me if Jang was corrupt himself. Corruption and greed is rampant in Nigeria, and many of the politicians are trying to stay in power instead of helping the country. Nigeria is also greatly divided in many areas of life, including the political side of life. These divisions are caused by factors such as greed and ethnicity.
3/7/14
Nigeria
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/03/jang-denies-fgs-n2bn-bribe-govs/
Synopsis:
Jonah Jang, a Nigerian state governor and a leader of the Nigeria Governor's Forum, accused Governor Kwankwaso of being the cause of the current divide among Nigerian governors. He claimed that Kwankwaso's dishonesty and corruption were the cause of the divide. Some governors had previously been accused of accepting a bribe from the National Government to divide the Forum. Jang said that Kwankwaso would have been the one that took the bribe if there was such corruption going on. He said ". . . this act of dishonesty aided by a few other governors sowed the seed of discord amongst the governors and that Kwankwaso and his group are now finding it difficult to live with the consequences of their action . . ."
Analysis/Comments
This issue perfectly demonstrated the issues Nigeria is facing politically. Nigeria has many similarities in government structure to the United States, but because of corruption and fighting it operates completely differently than the United States. It would not surprise me if some governors did accept a bribe to divide the Forum. It would also not surprise me if Jang was corrupt himself. Corruption and greed is rampant in Nigeria, and many of the politicians are trying to stay in power instead of helping the country. Nigeria is also greatly divided in many areas of life, including the political side of life. These divisions are caused by factors such as greed and ethnicity.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
U.S. Scolds Russia as It Weighs Options on Syrian War
Jason Cannon
2/18/14
Russia
This article is focused more on the United States views than Russia's views, but still gives some good information about Russia's stance on the Syrian crisis and their relationship with the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/world/middleeast/russia-is-scolded-as-us-weighs-syria-options.html?hpw&rref=world
Synopsis:
Both Kerry and President Obama are critical of Russia's actions in the Syria crisis and have recently expressed their frustration. Kerry said that the Russian government was "contributing so many more weapons" to the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. He also said they are "enabling Assad to double down, which is creating an enormous problem." When speaking about President Obama, one Western Official said, "I've never seen him more frustrated . . ." Russia does support the Syrian government while the US supports the Syrian rebels. Previously, Russia and the United States had made agreements to sponsor peace talks as well as to get rid of the chemical weapons Syria possessed even though they both took a different stance on the issue. Any positive relationship between the US and Russia on this issue is falling apart as demonstrated by the comments of Kerry and President Obama.
Comments:
This issue highlights how different the United States and Russia are. They both have taken very different sides on this issue. I have a hard time understanding why Russia would support Assad in his violence against the people, but I am sure that their reasons would be just as good as the reasons of the United States in previous situations. I think Assad's actions are completely wrong and that the current Syrian government should not be in power, but I acknowledge that Russia might find it beneficial to keep them in power. They probably have economic and political ties to this issue that are not seen by many in the US. It is amazing how complicated foreign relations are and how difficult it is to compromise.
2/18/14
Russia
This article is focused more on the United States views than Russia's views, but still gives some good information about Russia's stance on the Syrian crisis and their relationship with the United States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/18/world/middleeast/russia-is-scolded-as-us-weighs-syria-options.html?hpw&rref=world
Synopsis:
Both Kerry and President Obama are critical of Russia's actions in the Syria crisis and have recently expressed their frustration. Kerry said that the Russian government was "contributing so many more weapons" to the Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. He also said they are "enabling Assad to double down, which is creating an enormous problem." When speaking about President Obama, one Western Official said, "I've never seen him more frustrated . . ." Russia does support the Syrian government while the US supports the Syrian rebels. Previously, Russia and the United States had made agreements to sponsor peace talks as well as to get rid of the chemical weapons Syria possessed even though they both took a different stance on the issue. Any positive relationship between the US and Russia on this issue is falling apart as demonstrated by the comments of Kerry and President Obama.
Comments:
This issue highlights how different the United States and Russia are. They both have taken very different sides on this issue. I have a hard time understanding why Russia would support Assad in his violence against the people, but I am sure that their reasons would be just as good as the reasons of the United States in previous situations. I think Assad's actions are completely wrong and that the current Syrian government should not be in power, but I acknowledge that Russia might find it beneficial to keep them in power. They probably have economic and political ties to this issue that are not seen by many in the US. It is amazing how complicated foreign relations are and how difficult it is to compromise.
Friday, February 7, 2014
Scottish independence: Seven months to save UK, Cameron says
Jason Cannon
2/7/14
Great Britain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26071166
Synopsis:
Britain Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech recently trying to get UK citizens to encourage Scotland to not vote for independence. Scotland citizens will vote on whether Scotland should break from the UK in September when the Scottish National Party puts forward the referendum. Prime Minister Cameron talked about his Scottish heritage and how the issue was "personal". He also mentioned the "four compelling reasons" for Scotland to not break from the UK. The reasons, as stated by the article, were "the economic benefits of being a bigger country, greater international clout, connections between people, and the cultural impact of the UK." The leader of the Scottish National Party, Alex Salmond, ripped on Cameron for being unwilling to comply to his requests for a publicly televised debate in Scotland. A spokesman for those in favor of Scotland independence stated, "In September, we have a chance to put Scotland's future in Scotland's hands and ensure that we always get the government we vote for."
Detailed Analysis/Comments
I think that Cameron's desire to keep Scotland a part of the country is a good one for the UK. The reasons Cameron stated seem valid and logical. The article expounded on the cultural side of the issue, basically saying that Scotland was a very important element of the British culture. If Scotland were to leave it would take a big chunk out of the culture, economy, and power of the UK. I do think that Cameron should accept the proposed debate though. If he really thinks he as good reasons and logic behind his arguments, he shouldn't be afraid of presenting his arguments in front of the Scottish public in a debate.
The article emphasized to me how important the regional differences are in the UK. The region that they have roots in is a major part of their identity. They see Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and England as very different places with different cultures. Obviously Scotland sees themself as different and separate if they want to become independent.
Although I don't know much about the situation, I assume that Scotland has some valid reasons as to why they want to become independent. My gut reaction would be to tell them to stick with Britain and not be so rebellious, but in thinking about America's history I might reconsider. The Britains probably thought the same thing as me when America rebelled and fought for independence. Looking at America's past helps me to respect the stance of Scotland.
2/7/14
Great Britain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26071166
Synopsis:
Britain Prime Minister David Cameron gave a speech recently trying to get UK citizens to encourage Scotland to not vote for independence. Scotland citizens will vote on whether Scotland should break from the UK in September when the Scottish National Party puts forward the referendum. Prime Minister Cameron talked about his Scottish heritage and how the issue was "personal". He also mentioned the "four compelling reasons" for Scotland to not break from the UK. The reasons, as stated by the article, were "the economic benefits of being a bigger country, greater international clout, connections between people, and the cultural impact of the UK." The leader of the Scottish National Party, Alex Salmond, ripped on Cameron for being unwilling to comply to his requests for a publicly televised debate in Scotland. A spokesman for those in favor of Scotland independence stated, "In September, we have a chance to put Scotland's future in Scotland's hands and ensure that we always get the government we vote for."
Detailed Analysis/Comments
I think that Cameron's desire to keep Scotland a part of the country is a good one for the UK. The reasons Cameron stated seem valid and logical. The article expounded on the cultural side of the issue, basically saying that Scotland was a very important element of the British culture. If Scotland were to leave it would take a big chunk out of the culture, economy, and power of the UK. I do think that Cameron should accept the proposed debate though. If he really thinks he as good reasons and logic behind his arguments, he shouldn't be afraid of presenting his arguments in front of the Scottish public in a debate.
The article emphasized to me how important the regional differences are in the UK. The region that they have roots in is a major part of their identity. They see Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and England as very different places with different cultures. Obviously Scotland sees themself as different and separate if they want to become independent.
Although I don't know much about the situation, I assume that Scotland has some valid reasons as to why they want to become independent. My gut reaction would be to tell them to stick with Britain and not be so rebellious, but in thinking about America's history I might reconsider. The Britains probably thought the same thing as me when America rebelled and fought for independence. Looking at America's past helps me to respect the stance of Scotland.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Israel shares concerns as peace talks advance
Jason Cannon
Unit 5
1/4/14
The initial article I read was from CNN, but I looked at a few other sources to try to understand the topic a little bit better. On PBS there was a discussion by a few guys about the Palestine - Israel relations and the US trying to get a peace treaty between them. They also discussed how Iran was playing into that peace proposal. On the CNN link there is a video I would recommend that explains the article fairly well. I also went on Wikipedia to try to find more information on Israel, Palestine, and Iran. From that I understand that they are located close to each other, they disagree, and the statehood of Palestine is controversial. Also, Iran promotes Palestine's statehood and thinks Israel land should belong to Palestine.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/03/politics/kerry-mideast-peace-plan/index.html?hpt=po_c2
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec13/mideast2_11-13.html
http://en.wikipedia.org
Synopsis:
The US secretary of state, John Kerry, traveled to Israel and met with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister in an effort to get Israel and Palestine to sign a peace treaty. A State Department official said, "It is an effort to provide agreed guidelines for a permanent status agreement; that is to say, a full and final peace treaty between the parties." Kerry had previously spoken multiple times with both Netanyahu and the Palestinian leader in his effort to bring peace to the two groups. Just before Kerry spoke with Netanyahu, 3 US Republican Senators spoke with him. Senator Graham from South Carolina said that Israel's concerns with signing a peace treaty are the nuclear danger of Iran and the actions of Palestine to become a state. The article said, "The trio of Republicans said they support a lasting peace process, but not one that puts Israel at a disadvantage."
Comments:
I don't completely understand the relationship between Israel, Palestine, Iran, and the United States, but from what I got from the conversation on PBS, they are all interrelated. The PBS article mentioned that the US is working with Iran right now on nuclear issues, and so I could see why Israel might be nervous about how the Iran issue works out. I don't understand exactly how that fear relates to the peace treaty with Palestine, but I am sure there are connections there. Kerry mentions in the video that both sides will need to compromise. Also in the PBS video it mentions that the peace "framework" proposed by Kerry includes "borders, security, refugees, Jerusalem, mutual recognition, and end of conflict." This seems like a very complicated issue that will be hard for Kerry to work out.
This article has to do with foreign policy which we just covered in unit 5. The US is friends with Israel for various reasons, and so I can see why the Republican Senators don't want to give Israel the short side of the stick in this peace treaty. I think that Kerry's actions to bring peace to the contentious Israelis and Palestinians are commendable, but I think that it will be very hard to do. The US has great interest in the Middle East and so this issue is important, especially because of our friendship with Israel. Hopefully something gets worked out.
Unit 5
1/4/14
The initial article I read was from CNN, but I looked at a few other sources to try to understand the topic a little bit better. On PBS there was a discussion by a few guys about the Palestine - Israel relations and the US trying to get a peace treaty between them. They also discussed how Iran was playing into that peace proposal. On the CNN link there is a video I would recommend that explains the article fairly well. I also went on Wikipedia to try to find more information on Israel, Palestine, and Iran. From that I understand that they are located close to each other, they disagree, and the statehood of Palestine is controversial. Also, Iran promotes Palestine's statehood and thinks Israel land should belong to Palestine.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/03/politics/kerry-mideast-peace-plan/index.html?hpt=po_c2
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec13/mideast2_11-13.html
http://en.wikipedia.org
- "Iran-Palestine relations"
- "Israel"
- "State of Palestine"
Synopsis:
The US secretary of state, John Kerry, traveled to Israel and met with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister in an effort to get Israel and Palestine to sign a peace treaty. A State Department official said, "It is an effort to provide agreed guidelines for a permanent status agreement; that is to say, a full and final peace treaty between the parties." Kerry had previously spoken multiple times with both Netanyahu and the Palestinian leader in his effort to bring peace to the two groups. Just before Kerry spoke with Netanyahu, 3 US Republican Senators spoke with him. Senator Graham from South Carolina said that Israel's concerns with signing a peace treaty are the nuclear danger of Iran and the actions of Palestine to become a state. The article said, "The trio of Republicans said they support a lasting peace process, but not one that puts Israel at a disadvantage."
Comments:
I don't completely understand the relationship between Israel, Palestine, Iran, and the United States, but from what I got from the conversation on PBS, they are all interrelated. The PBS article mentioned that the US is working with Iran right now on nuclear issues, and so I could see why Israel might be nervous about how the Iran issue works out. I don't understand exactly how that fear relates to the peace treaty with Palestine, but I am sure there are connections there. Kerry mentions in the video that both sides will need to compromise. Also in the PBS video it mentions that the peace "framework" proposed by Kerry includes "borders, security, refugees, Jerusalem, mutual recognition, and end of conflict." This seems like a very complicated issue that will be hard for Kerry to work out.
This article has to do with foreign policy which we just covered in unit 5. The US is friends with Israel for various reasons, and so I can see why the Republican Senators don't want to give Israel the short side of the stick in this peace treaty. I think that Kerry's actions to bring peace to the contentious Israelis and Palestinians are commendable, but I think that it will be very hard to do. The US has great interest in the Middle East and so this issue is important, especially because of our friendship with Israel. Hopefully something gets worked out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)