Park Geun Hye, Member of the GNP and Member of the National Assembly of Korea (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The New York Times recently ran a rather informative article on the next possible President of South Korea. Her name is Park Geun Hye. For those who don’t know, she’s the only daughter of South Korea’s most accomplished, and most infamous, President, slash, dictator, Park Chung Hee. Well, I suppose President Chun Doo Won, who ordered the massacre of civilians in Gwangju in the ‘80s, is more infamous, but President Park is notorious nevertheless for his violent crackdown on student demonstrations, just like many other Korean Presidents are, and his near execution of later South Korean President and Korea’s sole Nobel Peace Prize winner, Kim Dae Jung. President Park, though, is also revered by many Koreans for bringing South Korea out of grinding poverty and into international economic prominence as an export driven country, alongside Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore. Despite her obvious relation to her very controversial father, many think Park Geun Hye will win the next election, as the opposition party is in shambles. She has solidified her position within her own party while maintaining a very “clean” and popular image of herself. Does this, however, bode well for South Korea?

The nation has many problems, the main one being a very corrosive political environment, where corruption allegations and violent scuffles in Parliament are exceedingly common. Not to mention the constant ominous cloud of a very belligerent North Korea, the rising might of an ambitious China, and the increasing cynicism towards politics amongst the younger generation, things for South Korea can become even more precarious than they already are within the next couple years. Does Park have what it takes to lead a nation in such a perilous time? I doubt it. She has nothing particularly notable about her and is known for being particularly insular in her leadership style. Her ascendance will only exacerbate the melodrama and pettiness pervasive within South Korean politics. It’s unfortunate that so many South Koreans are so desperate for a leader that they are willing to choose someone not based on her personal merits, but instead merely the symbolic ideas she represents, which in this case is the sentimental glory and prosperity Koreans remember of her ruthless and tyrannical father.

Here’s to hoping that either Koreans will find a better candidate to choose, or that perhaps President Park’s daughter will live up to her father’s legacy in the right way.

The case, which was taken in June of 2011 after the Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari that was put forth for the case, brought light upon the situation in which government law enforcement agencies track individuals using GPS devices. Antoine Jones, a nightclub owner in the District of Columbia, was arrested and charged by police for conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The District’s Metropolitan Police department had conducted surveillance on Jones for an extended amount of time. In particular, Jones’ movements were tracked using a GPS transmitter. The device had been placed on the car Jones was using long after the warrant to place to object had expired.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that such a placement of a GPS device did indeed constitute a search of personal property and, as such, required a search warrant. However, while all the justices did rule unanimously, three separate concurrences were written. The majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, consisted of the jurisprudentially conservative view that the GPS device did not meet the two-pronged reasonable expectation of privacy test that was originally established by Justice Harlan’s concurrence for the case of Katz v. United States. Scalia was joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Sotomayor, and Chief Justice Roberts.

In a concurrence that took aim at the stance of Scalia and the majority, Justice Alito noted that rapidly changing technological trends look to quickly make the traditional response of Scalia and his cohorts into an antiquated relic of the past. With his pointed concurrence, Alito was suggesting that the days of using such a narrow distinction were mostly over, as the immediate future of public surveillance may be able to be characterized by real-time video that is accessed remotely. In this concurrence, Justice Alito was joined by joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan.

Justice Sotomayor also crafted her own separate concurrence in which she took the unusual step of exploring the entire issue of privacy in the modern age, presenting a laundry list of complaints that privacy advocates often have and then urging that these issues soon be settled via the courts.

As for Antoine Jones, his case has been remanded and will again be heard within the District of Columbia’s District Court.

Although Joba had his second consecutive year with an ERA of 4+ in 2010, the 25 year-old hurler pitched a clean inning today in the Bronx. The 8^th inning saw the Yankee debut of Rafael Soriano, last year�s AL saves leader with the Rays. He too, made quick work of the Tigers and handed the ball to the greatest reliever of all-time. No surprise, Mariano Rivera ended the game easily, although he did showoff his new fashion with high socks, a la Alex Rodriguez.

Joe Girardi�s decision to start Russell Martin paid off, as the new catcher compiled a single and two runs scored. However, young stud Jesus Montero should not be forgotten in this equation, as although he was sent to Triple-A, Montero is regarded as the future catcher of the Yankees.

So for Opening Day, the Bombers� pitching looked formidable and its hitting seemed acceptable, after all, Earl Weaver�s philosophy of, �Pitching, hitting and the three-run homer�, seemed to work today.

What I notice more on Aljazeera is a local coverage of the Egyptian people and their struggle for freedom. American coverage has predictably been US-centric, and asking how the outcomes could affect US relations in the Middle East, and how this could affect Israel, our main ally in the region.

Image by Muhammad ?????? via Flickr

While this may be pragmatic, it diminishes the struggle that the Egyptian people have expressed on the streets of Cairo, Alexandria and Suez.� Media pundits have been discussing that the stance of the Obama administration of not

supporting Mubarak, an ally of more than 30 years, and thus have shown support of the protesters.

Israel fears losing an ally in Mubarak and fear the void that his expulsion would leave behind. Yes, it is not known who will lead Egypt next, but that is the cost of democracy. If we truly stand for the principle rather than democr

acy being meaningless rhetoric to spout out when one needs to justify foreign policy choices, than we should support the revolution and not fear it.

The despicable hypocrisy in American foreign policy in supporting democracy whilst propping up friendly d

ictators has to cease! I applaud the Obama administration for treading the fine line between pragmatism and silent support of the Egyptian people. There is cleverness in not supporting the revolution out loud, as some would interpret it as US involvement. I, however, deplore the pundits for trivializing a democratic revolution. How can we promote

democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan and stand against them in the rest of the world?

People have taken inspiration throughout the Middle East after the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. Protests have broken out in Morocco and Yemen. The King Abdullah II of Jordan has dissolved his parliament and ordered to implement changes (though this may only be superficial). Even China has blocked searches of Egypt in fear of a revolution.

While I was thinking about the struggles of the Egyptian people and eagerly anticipating their success, in contrast to the pundits at MSNBC and Fox News, the remembered the powerful words of Bob Dylan, �there�s a battle outside and it�s raging. It�ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls, for the times they are a-changing.�

The revolution is happening now, to oppose it now would be futile and irresponsible.

What this could easily lead to is the ISPs putting certain websites and types of content on one tier and other content on the other. Let�s say content which they or their parent companies own. So while the lower tier of one company allows you to stream video from Hulu, you cannot stream videos from Youtube unless you�re paying for the higher tier of internet.

This will create inequality, something that is shared on the web might be available to some people but not to others, this will be vastly different from the internet we use today where one voice is equal to another and not smothered by the companies controlling major assets in the Internet.

Image via CrunchBase

Recently, Google and Verizon announced that they wish to create such a tier, in order to get Google content (which includes Gmail, Youtube and Google Docs) faster to individuals if they are willing to pay for it. This would start to replicate the Cable subscription model, which has risen in costs since the deregulation that has occurred after the signing of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

You should care because the equality that allows all of us to share our ideas with everyone will fade away and only the ideas that a certain ISPs like will allow to perpetrated to the masses. I want to be able to see Youtube videos, read from the New York Times, check my Facebook, and share things with everyone through this blog. I don�t want that to change even if the Big Media Companies whine that there is not enough bandwidth for it. It�s not true! There is enough bandwidth for it, they just want more money for providing content. This is exemplified by the proposal by Google and Verizon. Let�s take a stand for Net Neutrality and against the corporations trying to take this equality away from us!

Conservative think-tanks have stated that forcing Net Neutrality is unconstitutional as it seems to violate the First amendment, and seeing as how the Supreme Court stated that use of money falls under free speech (Citizens United v. FEC) the equality of the internet could be in jeopardy in the near future.

The FCC has not taken a staunch position for Net Neutrality and with pressures from large media conglomerates it could fall over quite easily and allow Net Neutrality to diminish and endanger our liberty to express ourselves on an equal playing field. Let�s not allow another bill to pass similar to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, what a blunder that is been for the United States.

Unfortunately, all we have now is Fox News, and MSNBC pandering to the left and right respectively. The blogs have followed suit. You either read The Drudge Report, or the Huffington Post, never both. And it�s not if had you read both consistently you would get a the whole picture. Adding parts from the either ends of the spectrum doesn�t make picture whole. Rather it creates a sad picture indeed, a picture in which news reporting ceases to exist but fosters news creating. Creating stories where there isn�t one.

Isn�t that why we had talk of death panels with the health bill? Isn�t that why the Sherri Sherod story took off? Whatever happened to journalistic integrity? Where are the Edward Murrows and Walter Cronkites of this generation?

I don�t wish for all news organizations to become nodes of objectivity. What I wish for is something close to Pirsig�s Quality. I want news to be news, reported and reacted to, not to be incited with emotion and used to blame political opposition at every occasion.

If I have to rely on satirical news shows and obscure blogs for intellectual discourse on the problems our society has to face in the future, I find the future very bleak. However, hopefully� hopefully we (laymen) realize that news organizations when chasing after ratings will always try to create conflict and never properly report the news and that we (in the news business) realize that true discourse and Quality will move this nation forward. Let�s take two steps forward without taking a step back.

The answer is an obvious no. First, the tea-party movement is not as uniform as one may think. Certainly, some groups do communicate with one another and plan gatherings, but there is no single national movement, and most importantly to this debate, no Tea Party political party. So the claim that thousands, if not millions, of Americans are uniting to create a neo-nazi inspired crusade against black America is absurd and insulting.

I will concede however, that some Americans do possess racist beliefs. Whether it is a poster here, or a fiery town hall meeting there, racism is present in our society. We must remember these people are the fringe. So far right, or so far left that they hold no allegiances to political parties. With them, we have little to worry about. They will marginalize themselves and expose everything that is wrong with discrimination.

But there may be more to the racism debate in America. Does anyone remember the 2008 presidentia

l election? Yes. Does anyone remember the voter intimidation exercised by the New Black Panthers? No. Here’s why. If that story �broke two years ago, the liberal movement would have suffered a serious blowback. Organizations like

these, focused on hate and bigotry are the disease rotting away at America. We must do everything we can to push these radicals away from the mainstream and into a region where the public will immediately disregard their actions.

So in the long run, I do not expect to see race wars across the United States. After all, we recently elected our first African American president. As Americans we must remember to retain a bit of skepticism with everything we hear in an effort to prevent misinformation, one of the many reasons for discrimination and wrongdoing. As we expose these radicals it will become more evident to the American people that prejudice is not welcome in a democracy and every effort to isolate it will be encouraged.

Mike and Greg discuss who they think will qualify out of the first round, and then go through their brackets. Listen and find out if you agree with their predictions or think they are foolish. Comment below with your own predictions and upsets.

Don�t get me wrong here, I�m all in favor of confirming well-accomplished and superbly educated individuals to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States).� And I�m sure Obama�s hand picked candidates are hard working men and women, in this case all women, whose lives showcase the upward mobility possible only in America.� The problem though is that all of that simply isn�t enough. �As David Brooks of the NY Times points out, the recent Supreme Court nominees under Obama lack much when it comes to being a member of the highest court in the land.�� He says the biggest issue is the simple fact that both Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are ultimately products of professional American meritocracy, a system where only those who are overly cautious about not stepping on anyone�s toes succeed; one where only the submissive, crowd pleasing, and non-risk-taking rise to the top.� Elena Kagan perfectly fits this description; her collegues report her as being very cautious, especially in her dealings with other individuals, and she really is not known for any remarkable or unique intellectual positions she has held in regards to the law and politics.

So the problem is that I fear more and more Supreme Court nominees in the future will be like Kagan or worse.� Sure they got the credentials, such as an Ivy League education and elite positions within the government and academia, but do they have the right personality and set of experiences that can lead the nation to having a dynamic and truly effective Supreme Court?� This I heavily doubt.