Blog's I have commented on:

http://icantrememberwhatthisbitwasmeanttobe.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/manga-as-form-of-literacy.html?showComment=1369030386485#c6502398854130733598

Hey Mala,
Interesting topic you've presented here. Awesome. I don't think I've come across an issue on the use of Manga in an educational institution. First of all I think the awareness you presented through your sources and the statistics that supported your argument on this issue was quite persuasive. It actually brought about a good deal of questions in regard to this argument, why it isn't used and weather or not it should be introduced into the education system. Coming into this blog my perception on visual resources to help with learning supported this issue, the way I looked at if it's beneficial to the learner then I don't why not.
However, I think some considerations need to be accounted for. For instance I think educational institutions in the west are quite used to the system that they have applied over many years. So to introduce this medium might go against some methods that have been introduced and have 'worked' thus far. Having said that perhaps you could have compared and contrasted the pros and cons of having manga introduced into the education system. In doing so, present statistics on western teaching methods that don't work. Rather than present a set of sources that support the use of manga. One other aspect I'd like to address is manga, it was introduced and formed by the Japanese for the Japanese, so one could argue that this eastern medium might not work in western cultures. Anyway this was thought provoking. I still think the use of any medium, in this case manga, that is beneficial to the learner, is good.

http://visualdesensitization.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/is-use-of-visual-media-desensitizing-in.html?showComment=1369027745963#c4427567878485340487

Hi Courteney,
I thoroughly enjoyed this. The fact that you've presented your argument in a persuasive manner made it quite enjoyable. Okay so here are a few points that I agree with. The exposure of certain issues with the use of media. I totally agree with you on this one. Especially when you mention the social awareness, that allows for people to become more comfortable with the issue over time. I guess it has worked in western cultures where there has gradually been a change in ideology and acceptance through time. Especially with the heavy presence and influence of media in this generation. I think desensitization has worked wonderfully in western society where politically our views have shifted towards some acceptance and where the influence and use of media has been effective more then any other time in history. I mean with this generation we're a lot more accepting with social issues, and your right media does play an important role. Here's one issue, could this have worked 20 years ago... Another thing I'd like to commend you with is the use of resources that you presented to support your argument, that was very well done.
Now some aspects I found questionable was that the argument seemed to emphasize one side of the social issue. Which leads me to one major hang up I had the blog, it wasn't argumentative. After reading it you don't end up questioning your beliefs on this issue, rather you come out feeling quite assured. So there's no debatable stance here. I think Christina brought up this issue as well. Other than that, brilliant read.

http://brief2-socio-political.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/10-links-related-to-my-topic-capital.html#comment-form

Hi Christina I think your argument on Capital punishment is quite controversial, given that in my opinion I would actually support Capital punishment towards child molester's and repeat offenders. I actually think given their sick nature, they don't contribute anything to society except inflict hurt and harm to innocent children and effected citizen's. So I would whole heartedly support the death penalty, for child molester's, globally. That's my personal opinion. 
In terms of the legal systems in other countries, it's quite hard to oppose this social issue given that some institution's are determined either by religion, like you stated with Saudi Arabia. With Saudia Arabia it's understandable that this governmental institution would have support for capital punishment; being a secular country, religious persecution is ingrained in their culture and society. I support in this stance.
However when it come's to those countries such as the U.S, China and Singapore where their is support, it's quite hard to justify this action. The support for Capital Punishment is basically a reflection on their constitution and ideologies of the citizens. I wouldn't agree with that stance because their are some who may oppose this, hence the argument weather to support this social issue. Put simply, these countries should vote on weather the system work's for them so that the use of capital punishment in their country is on par with their personal ideologies. That's just my opinion, in this particular case.

http://dahaerachelkim.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/argument-1-some-have-strong-belief-that.html#comment-form

Hi Rachel I actually think there are some aspects in your social issue which I support. So it's interesting to see how people convey graffiti in general. Reading through your Introduction the first thing that came to mind with graffiti, was actually vandalism, and this isn't my reflection on art but the consequences that vandalism has with society. The cost's for tax payers, to fork out for cleaning and restoring property, is an issue I strongly support. 
You mention the youth involved "adolescents are very vulnerable to get involved in graffiti vandalism for many reasons..." this is a problem we can curb by creating more artistic opportunities in recognizing this form of art, just like you said. Also the permission that these artists should get before applying "graffiti" to private property, because other wise it becomes plain out right vandalism, in my opinion. Regardless if it were an amazing art piece  because then law comes into the equation and at the end of the day it's vandalism.
I also think that with graffiti public opinion varies on how they perceive graffiti as an art form. Once permission is obtained. In public spaces I support graffiti as an art form, it works here in Auckland. Presumably in Ponsonby and Grey Lynn where I reside. I think the graffiti on the electric booths on the roadsides actually make use of the space. Most notably the graffiti on the Berlin Wall comes to mind, it's an expression of an individual and it relates intensely with their political ideals. Regardless of who they were, these were ordinary citizens. Weather your an artist or not, I found the form of communicating through art, as a medium, (graffiti) quite strong. Hence why I support graffiti in this stance.

http://abrown83.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/decriminalise-drugs.html?showComment=136835705242

Yeah regardless of the strong economic case supported in this argument I actually don't think decriminalizing drugs would work in present-day New Zealand. My main concern are the social implications that would arise in regards to the psychological welfare of drug users. I mean you could argue that this would effect largely a certain demographic, in particular those who are vulnerable from lower social economic backgrounds. Then the effect it will have on their families. I think in order for this to work we should change our behavior towards drugs, for instance, take a look at our behavior with alcohol consumption. It's legal, but still we find ourselves as a country struggling to tackle the binge drinking culture. Especially among the young. I think to some extent the social aspects out weigh the economic benefits, should we consider to entertain the thought of normalizing drug use behavior, by decriminalizing drugs. Put simply, I don't think financial reasons would be strong enough to push forward decriminalizing drugs, particularly in New Zealand.
However I do agree with some aspects surrounding this issue. I wouldn't entirely agree with legalizing drug use in New Zealand but I support taking a mixed approach which focuses on the rehabilitation of drug users and educating them back into society. Only in compliance with harsher sentences. That I agree with.

http://restrictingabortions.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/blog-essay.html?showComment=1369031975574#c8348877960834785102

Hi Rosalie,
I actually agree with you on your argument, I mean my perception hasn't changed coming into this issue, but it does create some insight on a deeper analysis surrounding abortion. You actually brought about quite a few details on why people would oppose this argument, and with that, I think you created more awareness and exposure in this debate. I think the variety of sources in terms of its origin made this argument more compelling. Personally I found some of the data you presented quite informative, I didn't realize some of these practices were done in these countries. Especially when it includes self harm on the women in question. This essay was actually quit easy to follow, I think the structure or you data presented was done well. The analysis on them, didn't create any major fallacies which made the issue questionable because you also mentioned the repercussions which addressed another side of the argument. I think as far as perception goes it comes down to the rights of the individual and freedom of choice. If anything I think I came out with a stronger viewpoint on abortions.

http://maxrogersbrief2.blogspot.co.nz/2013/05/money-and-greed.html?showComment=1369033978026#c244360382425842871

Hey Max,
Personally I strongly agree with your stance on the church and it's abuse towards power and it's influence on the religion. Ethically and morally the fact that religious institutions hold so much power over individuals and the uneven distribution of the wealth church accumulates, just baffles me. The reason behind my stance is that I've seen this practice in my community. I mean from my experience, in some cultures, a large amount of income goes to church and I for one don't support that, because the 'corruption' or lack of distribution of wealth back into the community. I'm not religious but I come from a religious background. You make a good point with Brian Tamaki, that hits close to home, because the role he has, the power he is given and the influence he has over people in the church. The fact that his lifestyle rather than the good deeds he has done, has made more presence in the media, makes question religion. These practices makes me question the religious institutions and religion in general. Like you said, corruption deviates the purpose of the church , which is to allow the practice of religion.
I mean I think you bringing the topic of corruption in the church,makes me question the awareness that people have towards this social issue. The structure of your blog was easy to follow. Perhaps you could have introduced corruption in other religions. Coming into this argument my perception hasn't changed. If anything, personally, I think it has created more drive towards awareness and the exposure of corruption in church.

Introduction

If anyone has seen the news lately you'll be familiar with the conflict and tensions in the Korean peninsula. Lately the tensions in the Demilitarized zone have created a lot of international media attention. If anyone were to suggest a solution to creating some stability in the region one might suggest in intervention from the United Nations.

But what would the answer to stabilizing the tension between North Korea and it's counter part in the South, in order to avoid a potential risk of war, the answer could lie in the United Nations imposing tougher military sanctions toward's North Korea's military and missile program's. But just what will the implication's of these sanction be?

This argument will discuss whether the United Nation's should impose tougher military sanction's on North Korea in order to restore some stability in the region, which I oppose. Most importantly it will outline implications which could arise, such as the threat of continual conflict in the region due to the "threats" of Korea's missile program. 

It will also discuss the effects that these sanction's could have on humanitarian aid and economic aid to North Korea. Finally, the long term implication's that these sanction's could have on potential peace talks between neighboring countries. These points all support my argument opposing sanctions from the United Nations.

The influence of the United Nations...

Sanction's, Which Do Not Work.

Regardless of the tough stance the international community has taken towards North Korea the message to tone down "threats" in the region seems to fall on deaf ears. Lately, there has been a push towards the continuous actions on imposing further military sanction's on North Korea, from the United Nation's, led by the United States. Has it worked? In February Korea confirmed the launch of it's third missile test, creating escalating tension in the region. It just goes to show that even though you deal with the situation heavily you risk pushing the North Korea into a corner. During the past month's international media have focused intently on the tension's in the region, by shining a spot light on North Korea, it created more pressure on the dictator to react brashly.

The answer from the West has been passive with it's call to further sanction's.So just what implication's have arisen due to these sanction's imposed on North Korea.

• The move to deploy nuclear-capable bombers and fighter aircraft to South Korea have added to tensions, as a retaliation of the missile testing conducted by DPRK, this in turn has been a result of the UN sanction's. A call to respond by sending out military drills around the region isn't a solution towards easing tension in the Korean peninsula.

• Action's imposed from the United Nation's have created a halt to negotiation . As a result of further expanding UN Sanction's, from the international community,  banning Pyongyang from further military test's.

In the past the push for sanction's on North Korea has led to further military rhetoric."North Korea has acquired what it needed for weapons, and every North Korean nuclear test has been in part a response to U.S.-led sanction efforts at the United Nations (Charbonneau, 2013)." You could say that these actions have failed to work so far. 

Maybe there should be an emphasis towards negotiation. I think that in order for there to be negotiation, leaders from both parties should meet on peace talks, the United States in particular. These factors come into play when discussing the likely hood of escalating tensions and a solution for peace talks.

Humanitarian Aid for North Korea

So just who will be effected by these sanction's? Many have seen the ramification's that have trickled down to the most vulnerable in this conflict, those are, the citizen's of North Korea. Those of us who are familiar with the Korean famine in the 90's  will know that this issue still exist's to this day. So, how will aid, assistance and support to North Korea be effected by the sanction's imposed?

Humanitarian aid to North Korea has been a vital source of aid to it's poorest citizen's. One aspect, that media seem to cover, which continues to cloud the topic on food aid, are the tension's between Democratic People's Republic of Korea, neighboring countries and the United State's . Due to North Korea's missile program imposing sanction's on the DPRK has further isolated to the country and effected humanitarian aid.

In the past month's international sanction's on DPRK have hit humanitary funding according to five United Nation's agencies. This indicates that a stem to food aid funding to North Korea could threaten the humanitarian operations in the country. Last year the UN reported that nearly a third of all children in North Korea are showing signs of dwarfism due to malnutrition and that only 40 percent of the $198 million they require for their humanitarian activities had been donated. The UN also estimates that about one-third of North Korean children under five are chronically malnourished.

Impact on Korean Peninsula

On the record, the Korean Peninsula remains technically at war because the conflict stopped without a peace treaty, the armistice still remains valid despite the recent "withdrawal" of North Korea.

The economic impact, recently the closure of the South Korean border into the North was closed. So what this mean? Economically, this deal is detrimental to North Korea, given that it relies on the $80 million in wages for North Korean workers.  So we know that this could be temporary, however, this has created more problems and has further tethered relations between North-South Korea. This reaction comes after the United Nations imposed tighter restriction on Pyongyang's financial dealings, and including names into UN sanctions blacklist.

Evidence outlining previous implications from research, show a pattern of behavior from North Korea and it's counterpart's, whether it's military or economical. If there is a reaction from one country it is usually met with a harsher response  which does nothing to ease tensions. Perhaps there needs to be more emphasis in engaging North Korea into peace talks, rather then acting on rhetorical's  Which leads to a solution suggested by some through China, as a mediator in negotiations, given their influence on DPRK.

Conclusion

In conclusion to my argument, sanction's imposed by the United Nation's on North Korea, do more harm to creating a solution towards easing escalating tensions. A large amount of evidence garnered in support of my social issue, suggest that the tactical stance of the United Nation's does nothing but fuel the provocative threats from North Korea. It isolates the country and draws attention away from pressing issues such as humanitarian aid. There needs to be less heavy handling on North Korea, through military sanction's, and a push towards engaging in peace talks from the international community.

Links & Summaries

Initial Research on the Social Issue of Tougher Military Sanctions Imposed on North Korea

This blog will analyse evidence to suggest the implications of tougher military sanction's forcibly put in place on North Korea, which brings forward the social issue I would like to examine... 

Should the United Nation's Impose tougher military sanctions towards North Korea's Nuclear and Missile program's

Evidence suggest's various implication's towards support to push towards a a tougher stance on North Korea.

Here are the Links for this surrounding Social Issue -          

            

UN Sanction's and North Korea
Supporting Tougher Military Sanction's
Website: Council on Foreign Regulation's
Summary: This covers the measures that have been taken against North Korea, and the continuing question that pops up frequently, will China be prepared to implement these measures. The reaction from North Korea stems from the military activities that the US have been composing around the DPRK. Perhaps this rhetoric is a sign of paranoia. The US supports the idea of being more 'tactical' should North Korea continue with threats.

North Korea says it will boost nuclear deterrent after UN rebuke
Opposing Tougher Military Sanctions
Website: Global Policy
Summary: This mentions the military program of North Korea and the nuclear testing it has conducted. Secretary Susan Rice talks about the new UN sanctions imposed because of the nuclear testing. It discusses the resolutions from the six parties' talks. It refers to China's stance against North Korea's misile program. So it's evidence which supports the sanctions and the ramifications that DPRK, face if they were to lose.

All Cranked Up
Supporting Tougher Military Sanction's
Website: The Economist
Summary: So this news article covers the threats that have been issued by North Korea. It outlines their nuclear program and the missiles that are used by DPRK military. It supports my theory on sanctions, the article mentions tighter sanctions from the UN. This also mentions the response by US military from John Kerry and their actions against DPRK. It mentions the response of South Korea, should the tensions escalate. 

Sanction's Don't Work on North Korea: Opposing View
Opposing Tougher Military Sanction's
Website: USA Today
Summary: This is an opposing view as to why the sanctions on North Korea will not work. It discusses the responses that the DPRK military have been retaliating with since the US have conducted military missile test's in the Korean peninsula. It stresses the importance of negotiations with North Korea and it states the reasons why North Korea might be responding in such a manner.

Korea crisis high on agenda at London G8 talks.
Supporting Tougher Military Sanctions
Website: BBC
Summary: This video link discusses the stance that the G8 have on the issue. It explains that further sanctions would be imposed by UN members towards the DPRK. It also covers the response from North Korea since the UN imposed new sanctions. The approach that North Korea has taken towards US and South Korea have come under fire from the UN security council.

Opinion: Kim Jong Un is not crazy
Opposing Tougher Military Sanction's
Website: CNN
Summary: Tension in the Korean peninsula. This refers to the UN sanctions imposed on North Korea since the satellite launch in December. A video refers to Kim Jong Un as an 'immature brat'. There is also a link which goes on to explain the military advantages that North Korea has in East Asia. Japans involvement is mentioned and the precautionary measures they are taking to protect themselves and South Korea.

Coping With North Korea: Korean Roulette
Supporting Tougher Military Sanction's
Website: The Economist
Summary: This article focuses on the ramifications should US and South Korea not take DPKR seriously. It mentions the vast amount of people who could potentially be killed, due to a break down in talks between the conflicting countries. It discusses a push for change from within the country if DPRK were to change politically. It mentions the support from China and the sanctions imposed on aid for humanitarian reasons.


UN Sanctions May Play into North Korea Propaganda
Opposing Tougher Military Sanction's
Website: New Zealand Herald
Summary: This suggest's that the sanction's which have been imposed thus far on North Korea have done nothing to deter their demise towards a nuclear strong military. It high lights the sanctions imposed from the US and the lack of military action that North Korea has shown against the US. However it does stress the consequences which these sanctions have had economically and towards the food aid program that feed impoverished citizens. These sanctions have so far, according to analyst's, imposed threats towards the dictatorship; it also creates a cause to move towards a peace plan. China is addressed in this article, like so many other links I've posted, it refers to the role China has in mediating the situation and conflict in the Korean Peninsula.

The Next Korean War
Supporting Tougher Military Sanction's
Website: Foreign Affairs
Fallacies imposed in this article suggests the fear of war might be upon us. A consequence should the tension in Korea Peninsula escalate  This is a theory on what would happen should there be an out break on war between South Korea and US against the DPRK. The amount of casualties and the military numbers are estimated here. It compares a potential fall of the DPRK to that of Iraq and Libya, under Saddam Hussein and Muammar al-Qadaffi. 

Pyongyang's Nuclear Logic
Opposing & Supporting Tougher Military Sanction's
Website: Foreign Affairs
This article makes an assumption on whether nuclear test conducted by North Korea are just tests. It states whether or not these tests are used on as a morale booster for the DPRK civilians and not for military conflict. It then goes on to describe the nuclear tests that other nations have conducted in the past, such as US and Russia. It debates on the reasons behind North Korea's nuclear testing. It describes the attitude on missile testing but doesn't mention any sanctions imposed towards North Korea.

North Korea keeps it's pledge to conduct nuclear test
Supporting Tougher Military Sanction's
Website: Stanford Center for Security and International Cooperation
Summary: This is a discussion between two Stanford experts who weigh in on North Korea, they place there perspective on why North Korea is testing their missiles now, what message they are trying to send and the concerns that arise should the continue down this path. There are two theories as to why they have conducted the tests; as a threat towards the South and a celebration of Kim Jong Il's birthday. The message being sent is; due to past experiences with the North we should take them seriously. It stresses the importance of China and the role it has as a mediator.

North Korea and US must break the cycle of sanction's and bluster
Opposing Tougher Military Sanctions
Website: Guardian UK
Summary: The importance of China and US play a vital role in breaking down the UN sanctions that have been imposed. Although China has signed the UN sanctions it hasn't been tough on North Korea. The move to deploy nuclear-capable bombers and fighter aircraft to South Korea have added to tensions, since the sanctions on North Korea. The retaliation of this is the missile testing on behalf of the DPRK.

North Korea Hint's It Will Soon Launch a Missile
Supporting Tougher Military Sanction's
Website: TIME World
Summary: Rhetoric from North Korea and the aggressive threats they have been making since the Newly imposed sanctions. A statement from the Eight Nation's opposes the 'aggressive rhetoric' which supports the fact that this behavior would only further isolate North Korea. A response to these threats have been an increase in military training between the US and South Korea in the Korean peninsula. North Korea's actions seem provocative but should this behavior be taken seriously given that they have retaliated in the past by conducting missile launches and a satellite launch - that is the cause of these new sanctions.

Why North Korea Get's Away With It.
Supporting Tougher Military Sanction's
Website: Foreign Affairs
Summary:This is an interesting read which suggests why the approach or sanctions imposed on North Korea should be met with some binding rules. These rules however struggle to get the support it needs from China a key player in negotiating with North Korea. There are statement from the US which call on China to stop turning a blind eye on North Korea. Maybe then the UN wouldn't need to implement more sanctions.

North Korea Country Profile: Overview
Opposing & Supporting Tougher Military Sanction's
Website: BBC
Summary: Very good brief and in depth coverage on the history of North Korea. It may have some evidence that support the behavior in which the leader of the nation, Kim Jong Un, may result in. There is some detail on the tensions in the Korean peninsula and the history behind it.

These links are posted on Del.icio.us as well..