The Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK) confirmed Tuesday that it conducted its third nuclear test in an underground testing facility after South Korean monitors detected seismic activity coming from the north.

The test came just two months after North Korea angered international powers over a successful ballistic missile launch that landed a weather satellite into orbit and sparked even more United Nations sanctions on the self-proclaimed “self-reliant” state.

The U.N. Security Council denounced the test and is planning future sanctions, but their actions will continue to be in vain unless all of the Security Council’s member states can uniformly sanction North Korea, isolating it from international aid until it ceases nuclear programs.

The problem is that, though most of the world’s powers are allied in efforts to ostracize the DPRK and its antics, China has continued an economic relationship with Pyongyang, despite the fact that it has voted in favor of implementing the last three sanctions. Any international trade with North Korea strengthens Kim Jong-un’s regime and his desperation for making a name for himself — not the impoverished North Korean population that has an abysmal GDP of $40 billion as of 2011, according to the CIA World Factbook.

North Korea has made it abundantly clear that sanctions, embargoes or any other international actions will not deter its plans of developing weapons of mass destruction.

Even after the missile launch in December, the DPRK boasted their actions were posed to create a nuclear warhead capable of traveling as far as the U.S.

When a government as oppressive and ill-advised as North Korea continually ignores international stability the way it has since the end of the Korean War, there needs to be serious and relentless pressure placed on it until it complies.

Ignoring the severity of the DPRK’s persistence toward nuclear weapons by only suggesting U.N. sanctions that it continues to ignore is shameful.

Though nobody wants the events of the Korean War to be repeated, the ineffectiveness of U.N. sanctions needs to be considered when thinking about future plans regarding North Korea.

If China is unwilling to participate in implementing the sanctions, perhaps it is worthy of consideration to implement sanctions upon bystander, but enabling, nations.

As U. Minnesota students reach for condoms to prevent pregnancy, one professor is on the verge of creating a male contraceptive similar to the female birth control pill.

The College of Pharmacy’s Department of Medicinal Chemistry head Gunda Georg is working with a team of scientists to develop Gamendazole, a drug that may give males an alternative to condoms and vasectomies.

The drug has shown effectiveness in tests on rats, rabbits and nonhuman primates, Georg said.

The research team will soon begin requesting approval from the Food and Drug Administration to test the drug in a clinical setting.

Georg said the drug will be a “reversible” alternative to permanent vasectomies because men will be able to take the pill to temporarily minimize fertility and can regain it if they stop taking it.

The drug would give people another option to plan pregnancy, she said.

Gamendazole faces a long road to the pharmaceutical market because it’s designed for healthy individuals, Georg said. Because of that, the pill is required to be completely free of side effects, like potential sperm damage, before being released onto the market.

“Usually when you develop a drug, it is for a disease, and certainly fertility is not a disease,” she said. “This drug has to be absolutely clean, and that’s a very high hurdle to take.”

Developing new male contraceptives has been historically slow because it’s much more difficult to block sperm than eggs, Georg said.

Every milliliter of semen produced has 15 to 200 million sperm, she said.

“That gives you an idea [of] how difficult that might be to control as opposed to controlling one egg.”

While there’s a perception that men will not want to use a contraceptive pill, Georg said, many men have responded to studies saying they would want to take it.

“I think that men are actually more willing to do this than a lot of people think,” she said.

Some UM students said releasing a male birth control pill into the market could have a positive effect.

Mechanical engineering freshman Dan Sherman said men would probably take the contraceptive as another option to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

“It would make everything safer and better,” he said.

Another UM student, Katie Hanson, said it would be more practical if both genders could take a pill.

“I think it makes sense for guys to take birth control,” she said.

Other students showed concern about how people would respond to a new male contraceptive after years of having only the female birth control pill available.

UM student Tegan Martin said though she thinks male birth control pills are a good idea, she’s not sure if people will change their contraceptive habits.

“I don’t know how easily it will catch on,” she said.

Shane DeGroy, a student in the College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, said having another option to minimize accidental pregnancy would be helpful, but it would work best if both genders took responsibility for birth control.

“If a guy still thinks it’s the woman’s job to do it,” DeGroy said, “I’m not sure [men will use it].”

Condoms for now

While researchers continue developing the male birth control pill, University students turn to condoms as their main source of contraception.

Among sexually active University students, almost half reported using a condom the last time they had vaginal intercourse, according to Boynton Health Service’s 2010 College Student Health Survey report.

Condoms are the most common method used by University students to prevent pregnancy, followed by the birth control pill, according to the report.

“Sexual health is an important part of health care,” Student Health Advisory Committee member Lauren Beach said. “It’s important that we raise awareness over ways that people can protect themselves.”

Health and wellness junior Amy Whitburn said it’s important to educate students on sexual health care products because not every student comes to college aware of them.

“A lot of people come from high schools or places that they don’t have comprehensive sex [education], and in college people are starting new experiences,” Whitburn said. “If they haven’t had a condom demo or they haven’t have some sort of experience with sexual health … that can lead to a lot of issues.”

Whitburn works as a coordinator for Sexual Health Awareness and Disease Education, a Boynton-sponsored group that works to inform students on sexual health.

During 2011-12, SHADE handed out more than 100,000 condoms to students on campus.

“The fact that it’s that popular of a program demonstrates that it’s an incredibly important part of public health outreach and services on campus,” Beach said.

For the past four years, Americans have been waiting for the solution to the economy they thought would have come sooner. Four years ago, in his first State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said that Americans had to “answer history’s call” in the light of a potential “second depression.” This time, as he entered the House chamber and looked in the television cameras for a fifth time, he focused on the idea that creating middle class jobs must be the “North Star that guides our (economic) efforts.”

While there are many important issues that face this country, I was pleased that the president brought up manufacturing. He said that Washington must “guarantee that the next revolution in manufacturing is made in America.” With the Republicans reeling and looking to find support, Obama must strike a bipartisan agreement on the fiscal issues facing this country. Now is the time for Congress to finally make America a “magnet for jobs and manufacturing.”

Though there have been signs of erosion, the American manufacturing industry is still one of the largest in the world. A Jan. 2012 Congressional Research Service report found that America’s share of global manufacturing activity has decreased in recent years. China’s manufacturing sector is almost as large as in the United States, valued at $1.814 trillion and $1.756 trillion respectively. In Dec. 2012, the manufacturing sector made modest gains in manufacturing activity and factory hiring.

One of the common arguments related to manufacturing thrown around recently is that American companies are outsourcing jobs to other countries because their labor laws allow manufacturing operations to be more profitable. However, this is not as big of an issue as most Americans think it is. As the Bureau of Labor Statistics has found, the effect of outsourcing has been minimal. In the third quarter of 2012, when more than 100,000 workers were laid off, firms told BLS that less than 1 percent of these workers had their jobs moved to another country.

An article from The Atlantic reported that American companies are seeing the economic benefits of keeping jobs in America and have, in fact, started to “insource” jobs. China’s Foxconn, the Chinese manufacturing giant, is actually planning on increasing their operations in the United States. American companies are realizing the benefits of keeping jobs in the U.S., which will limit the effect that outsourcing will have on the economy.

On the other hand, what’s preventing companies from producing in the United States is the attractiveness of production in other countries. Part of the issue is that the value of the dollar made producing goods in the United States less attractive than other countries with cheaper labor and production costs and lower marginal tax rates. If America wants to become more competitive in this regard, the federal government must be willing to create a plan that provides subsidies and “lowers tax rates for businesses and manufactures that (will) create jobs right here in America.” This would help reduce the costs of production in the U.S., which would make companies more willing to attract new jobs without having to reduce workers’ salaries.

One point that President Obama has been stressing is that increasing our focus on alternative energy will make America a stronger manufacturing country. According the Department of Energy, in Aug. 2012 the wind sector was employing “75,000 American workers, including workers at manufacturing facilities up and down the supply chain, as well as engineers and construction workers who build and operate the wind farms.” People are now feeling the benefits of alternative energy manufacturing. On top of providing jobs, it will help Americans save money on energy consumption. This is the direction the manufacturing sector is going. If we fail to recognize the importance of alternative energy, America will fall behind.

Manufacturing is what has driven America over the past century. If we plan to give up on manufacturing, we are throwing the future of this country away. But words can only go so far. This plan will not completely revive the American car industry or the steel industry. While it’s not complete, President Obama’s plan will make American manufacturing industry more competitive that it is today so that we can be authors of the next great chapter in our American story.

U.S. President Barack Obama addressed the nation Tuesday night in his fifth State of the Union speech, focusing on growing the middle class, expanding domestic clean energy production and enacting stricter gun control laws.

Obama opened his speech reflecting on the last four years, saying the nation had come a long way economically.

“Together, we have cleared away the rubble of crisis, and can say with renewed confidence that the state of our union is stronger,” he said.

Then the economy took center-stage as Obama spoke of continuing job growth, recognizing that employment numbers are  coming back to America.

“Our economy is adding jobs — but too many people still can’t find full-time employment,” he said. “It is our generation’s task, then, to reignite the true engine of America’s economic growth — a rising, thriving middle class.”

Proposing a partial solution the economic struggles of the middle class, Obama turned to the minimum wage, advocating for a large jump from the current $7.25 limit.

“I want to raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour,” he said. As expected, Obama addressed the deficit, assuring Americans that progress is being made to reduce the national debt.

“Both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion — mostly through spending cuts, but also by raising tax rates on the wealthiest one percent of Americans,” he said. “But deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan.

We must continue growing an economy that creates good middle-class jobs.”

Obama then shifted his speech toward the environment, stressing that recent climatic events like Hurricane Sandy and nationwide water droughts were not freak incidents, but signs of climate change.

“We must do more to combat climate change,” Obama said. “We can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science — and act before it’s too late”.

Obama said growth within the clean energy industry is crucial, not only to secure a healthy environment for future generations, but also to keep America globally competitive.

“Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America,” he said. “Solar energy gets cheaper by the year — so let’s drive costs down even further.  As long as countries like China keep going all-in on clean energy, so must we.”

In light of the numerous gun tragedies that have occurred across the country in recent months, Obama closed his State of the Union with a focus on gun control.

“I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence,” he said. “But this time is different. Because in the two months since Newtown, more than 1,000 birthdays, graduations, and anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a bullet from a gun.”

Reactions to the address were mixed across the aisle, with certain talking points energizing opposing parties.

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, of Florida, spoke on behalf of the Republican Party in an issued rebuttal to the address, taking issue with many of Obama’s proposed plans.

“In the short time I’ve been here in Washington, nothing has frustrated me more than false choices like the ones the President laid out tonight,” he said. “The choice isn’t just between big government or big business. What we need is an accountable, efficient and effective government that allows small and new businesses to create middle class jobs.”

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts released a statement in strong support of the president and of his plan to reform the education system and increase gun control.

“President Obama made clear tonight that he will continue fighting to create jobs, rebuild our economy and strengthen America’s middle class,” he said. “All of us should work together to reduce gun violence in our communities and invest in our future — in education, infrastructure and research.”

Obama made several comments asking for congressional cooperation, but Boston U. Professor Graham Wilson, head of the Political Science department, said future successful bipartisan cooperation was unlikely.

“Obama has learned that the notion that the Republicans want to compromise is fundamentally displaced,” he said. “He has learned that building bridges and cooperation is not going to happen.”

Despite the looming challenges in the months ahead, Obama closed the address with a call for unity among all Americans.

“We are citizens,” he said. “It’s a word that doesn’t just describe our nationality or legal status. It describes the way we’re made.”

While researching for her biography All In: The Education of General David Petraeus, Paula Broadwell spent months in Afghanistan with General Petraeus, then-commander of the International Security Assistance Force, to fully understand America’s most prominent general of the last decade. The now-infamous affair that ensued between Broadwell and her subject during that time shed new light on the complicated relationship between the media and the military. The scandal demonstrated how contemporary media coverage of the military may lead to the disclosure of sensitive material and also how it causes reporting bias. As the nation winds down over a decade of war, it is time to analyze the complex relationship between journalists and soldiers.

The relationship between the press and the armed forces has not always been as close as today’s. After journalists relayed overtly negative stories to the American public during the Vietnam War, the military increasingly distanced itself from the media. Even as late as the Persian Gulf War, journalists were strictly managed and generally kept separate from American servicemen and women. This policy changed during Operation Iraqi Freedom, when the U.S. Department of Defense allowed 600 journalists to embed with the troops.

The intimacy provided certain advantages. On the one hand, the military was reported in a more favorable light, since journalists wrote about men and women they knew and interacted with on a daily basis. On the other, reporters received detailed knowledge and information about their subjects, and the public became better informed. Embedded journalists received an added benefit: protection. Of the 150 media workers killed on the job in Iraq from 2003 to 2011, only 26 were not Iraqis. Essentially all foreign journalists employ security — for those embedded, this safety is free and guaranteed.

The close relationship, however, has several disadvantages. First, the media may be granted too much access to the military, depending on your views regarding freedom of information. Nonetheless, it is true, despite our opinion on the legitimacy of this freedom and whether it pertains to all state information (as Julian Assange and his followers would believe), the media may reveal information that is clearly not in the interest of the military.  The 2010 Rolling Stone interview with General Stanley McChrystal, for instance, revealed serious personal divides within the defense organization. As a result of his public comments, General McChrystal was relieved of his command, and soon after the incident then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates issued a memo to officials urging caution in interactions with the media.

Second, when journalists act closely with troops, they tend to exhibit bias in favor of the military. (A notable counterexample to this trend is the behavior of the media during the Vietnam War, when journalists were biased against the American military.) From the two World Wars to Iraq, the closer reporters are to soldiers, the more agreeable the relationship. While the journalist-soldier embrace may be beneficial to the armed forces, it deprives the public of a truly accurate picture of the situation on the ground.

It is dubious to assert any piece written in a war zone, however, would be impartial, yet the information embedded journalists glean is unsurpassed. Biased reporting is not necessarily an evil. Neutrality is certainly valuable, but writers and reporters should also be able to convey their perspectives. Doing so provides a more accurate picture of their experiences. If we accept the premise of biased reporting though, it is important we recognize it when we read it — something the public may not do. The problem is bias is often reported and interpreted as fact, so we believe we gain a neutral standpoint on a topic when the opposite is true.

Attempting to destroy media bias is neither realistic nor appropriate. Instead of trying to change how journalists tell their stories, we should recognize that although there are certainly many pieces with a pro-military bent, there are also reports with opposing viewpoints. We should train ourselves to more accurately identify this partiality, and in doing so pro-military media bias would become simply another perspective from which we read the news.

Pope Benedict XVI announced his retirement Monday, becoming the first Pope in nearly 600 years to take such a step. The announcement was met with widespread and wide-ranging emotions across the US, with virtually every news outlet providing a story on the event. As the news cyclone swirled Monday, facts forwarded and explanations grasped at, I couldn’t help but become utterly stuck to one simple question that seemed to sink like a stone amongst a sea of more complex and elaborate queries:  Why?

Why does this matter? Why does it matter that a Pope whose most notable steps have been the further alienation of an already alienated, archaic religion is stepping down? Indeed, when all is said and done, I do believe Pope Benedict’s most notable action in his eight year Papal tenure will be his termination of that tenure. That statement’s meant as a backhanded slap, to be sure, but also as a serious critique of a man who, among other things, ignored increasing cries to allow women into the priesthood, accept gay Catholics into the church, and unite more closely and harmoniously with other world religions. Given these actions, I believe Benedict XVI will go down as a weak Pope. However, this does not mean, unfortunately, that I hold any great hope for Benedict’s successor.

The antiquated and immovable moral foundations of the Catholic Church — and all world religions for that matter — are increasingly at odds with the largely secular moral framework of our country. An example of this would be the great strides our country has taken in the areas of gay rights and gender equality, the biggest obstacles to which have come from organized religion, both in the Catholic Church and various fundamentalist Protestant sects.

The heyday of Catholicism, and of Christian religion in America, is dwindling. Polls and statistics show that increasingly younger generations are abandoning the religions in which they were raised. If they are anything like me, they are doing this not as a matter of theological objection or a rejection of the sense of community the church provides, but from an awareness of the ever-widening gap between their own ideals and the Church’s. Catholicism’s failure to adapt and solve — or at the very least hear out — issues concerning gay rights, contraception and gender equality may be winning them points with the older, conservative generations. But these are not the people the Catholic Church must win over if it wishes to survive in the U.S. and globally. The church must win a young following, and to do this they will likely have to do something very difficult for an organization founded on the teachings of historical figures: They will have to look to uncharted territory.

I write this column not as a militant atheist. I was raised Catholic and am no longer. I have doubts, certainly, about the absolute guarantee of a greater power beyond that which I can see and hear myself, just as I have doubts about most things that are told to me in black and white and with absolute conviction. I am, however, open to the possibility of a God. Heck, I may even want one. If I am to become a religious adherent in my adult life, however, the Church is going to have to meet me half way. They are also going to have to admit, hard as it may be for them, that there are some things they are not sure about, theologically, morally and socially. As it stands now, the Church equates all uncertainty with weakness, and anything less than iron conviction with fallacy. This may have worked for our parents’ generation, serving a rock on which to lean, but we are the generation of uncertainty, and we do not mind if our leaders show themselves to be human.

I mentioned before that I hold no great hope for the next Pope. Indeed, I am a cynic, and it may be hard to fully please me unless the next Pope is Barack Obama. I am aware, and not entirely pleased, that the next Pope will be someone who has spent his entire life in abbeys, churches and monasteries, doing work which though morally sound is hardly connected with most people or issues of today. But supposing I can accept this, may I ask in return for a religion that accepts — or at least acknowledges — the social values I have clearly chosen in my own personal life? Why must I choose between being a Catholic and being a Liberal? I shouldn’t have to, and nobody should have to choose between practicing their religion and practicing anything else they damn well want.

Young people are on the verge of abandoning this God advertised as infinitely accepting and loving, all because his representatives on Earth are not infinitely accepting and loving enough. The Church is no longer needed as a moral framework on how to live our lives. For that we are doing just fine on our own. What it can provide is a sense of community, a sense of shelter and warmth for those who have otherwise been cast out, rather than a barrier against those same people. After all, Jesus’ earliest followers included prostitutes and street thugs, beggars and outlaws. Perhaps the Catholic Church needs to look no further than this for its lesson in diversity.

The next Pope best understand all of this. He best understand the superfluous nature of God in our modern society, best know the thin ice that he walks on and the fog which surrounds him. Then, and only then, can he make his light shine through.

Harvard Divinity School professors reacted with surprise—and, in some cases, comprehension—to Pope Benedict XVI’s historic announcement Monday that he will resign as head of the Roman Catholic Church at the end of this month.

In an announcement delivered in Latin to a crowd of cardinals, the 85-year-old German pontiff said that he no longer has the strength to carry on in his position. He will officially step down on Feb. 28, ending an eight-year papacy that was often rife with controversy.

For many, including Divinity School professor Kevin J. Madigan, the news came as a shock.

“I do not think anyone saw this coming, including bishops and archbishops around the world,” Madigan wrote in an email.

Yet other faculty members were less surprised. Divinity School professor Francis S. Fiorenza, who is a former student of the pope, said that her old teacher had “dropped hints” of an impending resignation in previous public statements.

“In several interviews, he said if he felt he was too frail or too sick to do the job that he would resign… So for him to retire at 85 makes perfect sense,” Fiorenza said.

Divinity School professor Francis X. Clooney wrote in an email that, although Benedict’s decision to step down seems shocking and novel, the act of resignation was “not in itself very significant.”

“There was/is no rule that a pope has to serve for life. Benedict is a sober and sensible man; we all live longer these days, and he seems to have recognized his mortality, and the limits of his strength,” Clooney said.

Though Benedict is the first pope to have stepped down in almost 600 years, many—including Benedict’s late predecessor Pope John Paul II—have faced deteriorating conditions in their final years. Madigan speculated that this history may have influenced Benedict’s decision.

“I am sure that, having witnessed John Paul II’s slow physical and mental decline, even as he continued to hold the office of pope, he did not wish to decline in the same way, publicly and while holding the highest office in the church,” Madigan wrote.

Professors also said that Benedict’s resignation inevitably raises questions about the path of succession.

While Fiorenza voiced doubt that an American will fill the position, saying he believes that the next pope will be someone who has had extensive Vatican experience in the last few years, Clooney suggested that the transition could prompt renewal.

“It is always notable when there is the prospect of a new pope coming into office, since this makes possible new ideas and change in the Church,” Clooney wrote.

Clooney added that he expects that the swiftly approaching selection process, which slated to be complete before Easter Sunday on March 31, will leave the Vatican in flux.

“That the election of a new pope will happen on relatively short notice, without much preparation, creates an uncertain situation, possibly a dramatic one,” Clooney said.

Anwar al-Awlaki, who became a radical Muslim cleric and leading figure of al-Qaida, was killed September 2011, by a drone strike launched from a U.S. aircraft. He was also a United States citizen.

Al-Awlaki’s death isn’t necessarily a truly senseless one — even if he is technically an American. What is senseless, however, is the refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge the occurrence and sweep it under the rug.

Al-Qaida is an organization responsible for the death of thousands of Americans as well as our current involvement in the Middle East. Few would criticize the loss of one of its top agents. But what many could, and should criticize, is the silence from the president on the situation.

The Obama administration’s continued silence on the issue screams hypocrisy, considering he, as well as other democrats, slammed Mitt Romney all throughout the election for not opening up or being transparent enough in foreign policy.

Every head of state has secrets. That’s an obvious component of the job. Classified files, inherently, don’t get released to the public and, as private people, we are not privy to certain conversations. That’s fine. What isn’t fine is the secrecy running rampant in Obama’s administration at the present time.

More specifically, the administration refused to release a summary of arguments about why the executive branch is within its power to order a killing of an American citizen without any other form of approval. This summary was unclassified but eventually discovered and published by NBC News. As Americans, we are affected by the government’s haziness on arguments especially during war times.

Let’s avoid the argument that Obama could order any of our deaths on the fly, and we still have stake in the issue. Why does a president, or one specific branch, get to make such a decision without the approval of the other branches? Checks and balances are in place for a reason, and bypassing them opens up a can of worms disastrous for everyone — especially the American people.

The circumstances surrounding the summary is reminiscent of the Pentagon Papers save for one key detail. Unlike the Pentagon Papers, this summary was an unclassified file. No enormous breach of American security should be expected thanks to the release. What comes as a result of the leak is a better understanding of who our president truly is.

Obama has proven himself a successful candidate after being re-elected following an economic recession. We put our faith in him as our leader, but that can quickly change if his actions

continue to be so secretive and surreptitious.

The president blasted Romney for behaving in that specific manner, yet it seems Obama behaves similarly. Why should the American people put stock in a leader who not only follows a “do as I say, not as I do” policy on leadership, but is also unwilling to be transparent to the public he serves? Our last president, who we blindly trusted, sent us on a wild goose chase for weapons of mass destruction, gave us illegal wiretapping and indefinite detention. One would hope we learned from our mistakes.

Although Obama has proven that he can be trusted, these recent instances of secrecy and deception cannot. Transparency was one of the best points of Obama. Sadly, it seems things have begun to shift. The American people cannot allow that to happen. Accountability in our president is a must.

We cannot condone the acts of a head of state who puts his branch in absolute power. And we cannot condone the actions of a president who does not hold up to the expectations he sets for the opposition.