The story of James Kim tragic. Him and his family, on their way back from visiting family in Washington, became stranded in a remote part of the Oregon mountains. Two weeks after James Kim and his family became stranded in the climate Mountains, his body was found on Wednesday in a creek bed where he had succumbed to hypothermia. The Kim's tragedy could have been prevented if the logging roads that the Kims got lost on would have been shut down or effectively blocked. The Kims were not the first family to get lost on these logging roads. A spoksman for the the rescue group of Curry County said that others have died on the secluded roads the Kims were on. In March a family was rescued after being stranded in their RV for 17 days. Something needs to be done about this in order to prevent further tragedies.

The Dallas Cowboys played horribly yesterday. I was embarrassed to be a Cowboys fan for the first time in a long time. After scoring first on a Julius Jones run, the Cowboys could not get their offence in sync. The Saints, led by the Drew Brees, had no problem getting their offence into a rhythm. They completely humilliated the Cowboy's defense by scoring at will. Tony Romo, the Cowboy's former back-up QB, was flustered and frustrated with the lack of offence. The Saints, whose defense is average, shut down the Cowboy's high powered offence. Dallas wide reciever Terrel Owens was contained for most of the game and caught a fluke pass that should have been intercepted. The Cowboys placed too much pressure on Romo by abondoning the run early in the game, and forcing the offence to rely on passing. A critical weakness in the Dallas defense was exploited by the Saints, and it is now a template for other teams to use when plaing the Cowboys.

What ideas on political theory were present in Asia? After taking a few Ken Peter classes, I developed a great interest in political philosophy. I have always taken particular interest in Eastern philosophy and enjoy reading Mencius, Confucius and Kautilya works. One could write volumes on the different views on governance and politics in Asia, so to narrow this blog I chose to write on two prominent Asian philosophers: Mencius from China and Kautilya from India. Comparing and contrasting their views gives insight into Indian and Chinese Political theory, but I want to be cautious that I don’t imply that these philosophers represent the entirety of Indian or Chinese theory because there were differences in their societies as well. So the views of these philosophers influenced their society, but they shouldn’t be thought of as representing the philosophy of their civilization. Mencius held the common people in a very high esteem because he believed that human nature was inherently good. He believed that all men were born with a sensitive heart, and that the Kings of the past ruled with a compassionate government. Because human nature was inherently good, a ruler should treat his citizens kindly. “A good ruler is always respectful and thrifty, courteous and humble, and takes from the people no more than is prescribed.” He talked a lot about the “benevolent” ruler and “the way”. This was somewhat vague to me, but I think he meant that a ruler who practiced good moral government would be following “the way” and thus be “benevolent.” . I don’t think Mencius would believe in the notion that a ruler should do whatever he could to stay in power even if it was for the purpose of maintaining order. On the other hand, the famous Indian political theorists Kautilya had a very, what we call today, “Realist,” or “Realpolitik” point of view. He believed that the ends justified the means. The widely studied text Arthashashtra, which explores political and economic theory, is compared to Machiavelli’s The Prince. “It describes a repressive civil and military bureaucracy sustained by spies, soldiers, and bureaucrats, where one fourth to one half of all crops were paid into the imperial treasury. Kautilya’s theory on using power was very cold and calculating.

Social Darwinism comes to mind everytime I recieve the results from my practice Lsat. I am struggling to get above a 150, and have come to the realization that social darwinism explains my situatation. My highest score thus far has been a 150, and I have taken 4 practice Lsats. My goal since senior year of highschool has been to become a lawyer; however, at the time when I was pondering the thought of becoming a lawyer, I was unaware that my mental ability would be dismal and stagnant. The cool thing about this situation is that I will have the opportunity to prove that hard work can overcome any obstacle.

"Violent crime is down in New York and many other cities, but there are two big reasons to keep the champagne corked. One is that murder, rape, robbery, and assault remain at historic highs: the streets of Manhattan, like those of Houston, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, and Los Angeles, remain much less safe today than in the 1950s and 1960s. Worse, though policing and prison policies matter, nothing affects crime rates more than the number of young males in the population—and by the year 2010, there will be about 4.5 million more males age 17 or under than there were in 1990: 8 percent more whites and 26 percent more blacks. Since around 6 percent of young males turn out to be career criminals, according to the historical data, this increase will put an estimated 270,000 more young predators on the streets than in 1990, coming at us in waves over the next two decades. Numerous studies show that each succeeding generation of young male criminals commits about three times as much serious crime as the one before it: the occasional fatal knife fight of 1950s street gangs has given way to the frequent drive-by shootings of 1990s gangs."


This little snippet caught my eye; it is a serious problem that is going to plague our society. Building prisons and housing inmates costs a great deal of money. As it is, California prison's are overcrowded, and the statistics point to an increase of prisoners within the next five to ten years. How are we going to afford such a burden? When faced with such a puzzling question I look to the Greeks for answers. I’d have to say that we need to ‘expose’ some of the prisoners. Although, I think the Greeks did that with babies, so maybe it is too late to do that. I think the answer would be in finding a way for them to help pay their debt to society. As a tax payer I want to get some return from the money that is taken from me. Sure I’m benefiting from criminals being off the streets and in prison, but I should at least be entertained. I think a prison reality show would be a great way of making money. 'Jeopardy Prison Edition’ would be amusing, or 'Making The Band San Quintan'.
In California, some people argue that our 'three strikes law' needs to be revised, and the parole system needs to be altered. Educational opportunities and drug treatment programs need to be well funded inorder to reduce the amount of repeat criminals. I think we need to build more prisons. We should focus our attention toward our children and do everything possible to educate them. Instead of spending money on rehabilitating criminals we should spend that money on creating programs for impoverished children.

My friend Kirk and I always joke about being economic slaves. We try to find the humor in our situation because it helps alleviate the sadness. It is funny to us that our jobs sometimes require us to do menial things, such as, cleaning out a trash can with a toothbrush or serving 200 eager baby boomers a caffinated beverage in the morning time. I am sure most people can relate to situations of the average proletariat, at least to an extent.I consider myself a modern proletariat because I do not own the means of production and I do not earn the profit of my labor. Proletariats are everywhere, and sometimes I ask myself if they are aware of their situation. Most of the time I will come to the conclusion that very few are aware of the economic system and situation that they are a part of, but I am sure nearly all of them hate what they do. I think Aristotle would call these people slaves because many of them are unable to see a day ahead of themselves. This ties in to my belief that slavery still exists, but it has taken a new form. Economic slavery is everywhere, but since slavery has such negative connotations, the word is rarely used. Let us face the truth, and that is that if you live in a capitalist nation and do not join the economy you will not be part of society. So that leaves us with the option to either start a business or work for someone. Too often we choose to work for someone and thus become proletariates, which typically means low wages. I imagine that it is extremely hard to live on such low wages, and I realize that although I am one of them, my life is a little easier because my parents still help me. In life if you do not learn a skill or you do not start a business, you are destined to be a bitter proletariat. Since many people hear Kirk and I jokingly complain about the exploitation of proletariats, they think we are against capitalism. In fact, it is quite the opposite. We fully embrace capitalism. Our only concern is that we find a way to be part of the bourgeoisie, so that we could own the means of production. Exploitation is wonderful as long as you are the exploiter and not the exploited. That is what makes capitalism the greatest economic system thus far. A business owner understands that economic slaves will always be around because there will always be people who can't see a day ahead of themselves. And if you can't see a day ahead of your self then it is not wrong to exploit your labor. Do people in my generation ever ponder these questions? I would guess that the majority of them do not but I am sure some do. Is my point of view a strange argument in favor of capitalism? Can you sense the honesty and satire?

I'm taking an international diplomacy class and we are currently studying sanctions as a tool of international diplomacy.So far I've come to understand that sanctions are a means of international diplomacy used to influence the policy of sovereign nations. Sancitons lack consistency with many of them providing meager results. They are diplomatic tools that have become increasingly relied upon. Between 1945 and 1990 the U.N. Security Council used multilateral sanctions only twice: a 1966 trade embargo against Southern Rhodesia’s white minority government and a 1977 arms embargo against South African apartheid regime. However, in the 1990’s, sanctions were used in 16 cases, which generated meager results. In the latter half of the decade, weaknesses with the policy instrument were found and widespread dissatisfaction inspired a search for more effective sanctions. Smart sanctions were the product of think tanks, research institutions, U.N. agencies, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and they were supposed to be the answer to the weaknesses of conventional sanctions. Smart sanctions differ from conventional sanctions in two major ways: they more effectively target and penalize-via arms embargoes, financial sanctions, and travel restrictions- the political elite committing violations in the international community, and they protect vulnerable groups such as children, women and the elderly. The only problem with smart sanctions is that they lose their effectiveness because of exemptions that minimize the effects on government leaders. Sanctions are less severe than war and stronger than mere rhetoric, so they do serve a needed purpose. Although they serve a valuable service, we should not rely so heavily on them because they can only do so much.

Why do we give Israel such a large amount of aid? The United State’s relationship with Israel is peculiar for several reasons. Israel’s population is 6 million people and it is ranked as one of the 16th wealthiest countries in the world. Israelis enjoy a per capita income higher than Ireland, Spain, or oil rich Saudi Arabia, and their combined GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. Israel is able to take care of itself, and it should not be such a high priority for the U.S. lawmakers and especially the taxpayers. Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $84,854,827,200. It is hard for me to fathom the amount of taxpayer dollars that has unnecessarily went to aid a capable country. How come it is so upsetting when financially able individuals collect welfare, and not upsetting when financially able countries collect welfare. The total cost to U.S. taxpayers for this financial aid is 23,340 per Israeli.

What I am about to write could come back to haunt me if I ever run for office. What is up with church and the bible? I am a skeptical Catholic who attends mass several times a year. I have attended protestant church masses as well and have made several observations of Christianity. Most people who read the bible know very little about it. For example my grandma reads the Bible every day, yet knows very little about who wrote it. We know that there are two distinct parts, the Old Testament and the New Testament. I take particular interest in the New Testament because I am a Christian, and the New Testament introduces Jesus. Sure the New Testament has valuable, insightful information, but I am interested in who wrote it. Many people believe that the Bible is the exact word of God, but they are unquestioning of who physically wrote it. It turns out that the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were written several decades after the Jesus’ life. The exact date of when the Gospels were written is unknown; there are several theories that are able to give educated guesses.

Abraham Lincoln slept with men-Joshua Speed and Capt. David Derickson. Could our 16th president have been bi-sexual? In my search for controversial issues to write about, I discovered the peculiar topic dealing with Abraham Lincoln’s sexuality. Apparently, Lincoln had several intimate male friends that he shared his bed with, and some scholars have speculated he may have had sexual relations with them. One of the individuals whom Lincoln had shared his bed with was named Joshua Speed, who he met in Springfield, Illinois in 1837. They lived together for four years, shared a bed, and maintained a life long friendship. Another man that Abraham Lincoln slept with was David Derickson, who was his bodyguard and intimate companion between September 1862 and April 1863. They allegedly shared a bed during the absences of Lincoln’s wife, until Derickson was promoted in 1863. Many people would say that it does not matter whether he was gay or not, but I believe that is an important factor in determining his presidency. For instance, if Abraham Lincoln was bi-sexual, we would be able to lend his endorsement for same sex marriage. Since he is such a popular president, his endorsement would surely be valuable. However, there is the little problem of interpreting what a dead person would have endorsed, and there is also the problem of evidence and cultural norms. Some critics of the “Gay Lincoln” theory claim that during Lincoln’s time there was no social stigma against sharing a bed with another man. Bed sharing between men did not necessarily mean homosexual activity, so in order to interpret this occurrence we would need to judge it, not by our cultural norms, but with the cultural norms of his time. With that said, I believe there is not enough evidence to confidently say that Abraham Lincoln was bisexual, and it does not really matter if he was. Sure I jokingly said Lincoln’s sexuality mattered, but the reality is that such a discovery would be interesting yet unimportant.

Democrats will hopefully bring positive change to our government. This is a crucial time in American politics, and the decisions made by this congress and president should focus on foreign and domestic issues that affect our society. After 9/11, I thought the Democrats, in my lifetime, would never win a majority in the house and senate. The republican trend after 9/11 seemed strong and enduring. An opposing voice to republican policy did not exist and I thought it was because Americans agreed with the GOP. I was afraid that Americans were more conservative than I once assumed. On Tuesday Americans proved me wrong by voicing their opposition to GOP policy. The democrats, if they wish to maintain control of congress, need to learn from republican mistakes and maintain a moderate stance on issues.

The question that I pose is whether this election was won because of voter disapproval of President Bush or because the republicans have alienated moderate voters. It is probably a combination of many factors, but I think that it was mostly the fault of President Bush’s policy. If the democrats wish to maintain power they must create a clear message and agenda. They should not be afraid to oppose the president. It is clear that the American people are dissatisfied with his job performance, so I think the democrats should put pressure on him, which is something they have not done since he has been president. They need to press the issues and force the president to either cooperate or defend his unpopular decisions. Congress needs to focus on uniting issues instead of divisive ones; issues such as, the budget deficit, minimum wage, the war in Iraq, and alternative energy. Issues such as gay marriage, prayer in school, and flag burning should take a back seat to the more important issues.

I recently read an article about a class action suite of Blind people against Target. The party was suing because Target’s web site made it nearly impossible for the Blind to use. In order for blind people to use the internet the must use programs specially designed to turn text into speech. Companies such as Best Buy and Amazon, aware of the potential for a larger costumer base, have designed their websites to be compatible with the text to speech programs. The blind are suing under the people with disabilities act; they claim Target has an obligation to make their website accessible to the Blind.
I think that Target as a business has a duty to satisfy all of its costumers; however, they should not have a legal obligation to create a website that is ‘Blind friendly’. I think Target will eventually create a website that is better suited to incorporate Blind users who operate text to speech programs, but they should do so willingly. The government should not play a role in this decision, because lazier fare will fix the discrepancy. Let the record show that I am not against government intervention; I have a moderate political and economic ideology. In this situation, if Target does not make their website blind friendly they will lose potential costumers to competitors such as Best Buy, Amazon, and Walmart. I doubt that Target is intentionally discriminating against blind people. The Internet is vast and products sold at Target can be found elsewhere with the click of a button. Inhibited mobility is not the issue at hand, as it was when the people with disabilities act was passed. I hope I do not come off as being against blind people and their causes. They are valuable members of our society who deserve to be treated with respect.

this is a test