UNInvolved in the Internet

This past week, the UN met to discuss a potential treaty. This treaty would give the governments and the International Telecom Union more control over the internet. However, as explained in this article, the treaty failed to be signed by numerous governments. The  US refused, saying that "The internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social benefit during these past 24 years. All without UN regulation." The US delegates argued that the UN intervention was unnecessary. Governmental control of the Internet would also be harmful. The internet, as it stands now, is free and uncontrolled by any authority. Laws still apply to those who use the internet, but other aspects, such as speech are unabated. Handing over this freedom to the government would  go against the very freedom the US is built upon. 

On top of this, most of these meetings were held "behind closed doors." This means that the meetings were closed off to the public or anyone else who would have anything to say about the treaty. This undemocratic way of going about the treaty seems to  indicate that the UN would try to regulate the Internet in a similar fashion.

What are your thoughts? Do you think that the government should have any control over the Internet? Is there any way for governments to regulate the Internet without overstepping their bounds? Post your thoughts in the comments. 

Ad Infinitum

During a visit to the Internet, I came across a photo album depicting Chinese factory workers and the toys they make. Jakey Witz also made a post about some of the photos. As I was looking through the album, I found one picture that I thought encompassed the conditions in the factories quite well. 

The thing about this particular photo that struck me was the repetition. Almost every worked is dressed the same: they all wear the same hats and shirt. The only difference is the colors of two of the workers. The items they are working on are also mostly the same. I counted eight bins filled with identical toys. It seems like the entire factory looks like this. The line of tables goes far  into the distance, seemingly forever. Or at least to the back wall. On the left and right, you can see other long tables, with more workers in the same uniform, all probably working on similar toys. 
These workers probably sit there almost all day, performing the same action on the same toy for however long it is in production. And that length of production depends on us. As long as we keep buying the toys, they keep making them. This cycle will continue infinitely until we change something. How do you think we can bring that change? Do you have any other thoughts about these factories? Post your comments below. 

Justification

After the class discussions,  I decided to look into the Downing Street Memo. While reading through it, I came across a line that seemed to fit the narrative of the Iraq war quite well. The original text from the memo can be found here.  
The line that caught my attention went as such: "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." Hold on, Saddam wasn't threatening people? But this ins't what the government told us. They said that he could use them on us (and other), and they're admitting that this isn't the case? Furthermore, Iraq's weapons capabilities were less than North Korea's? I don't know what North Korea had at the time, but I remember their failed nuclear test back in April. Given their current position, I don't see any way that North Korea could have WMDs years before that. If Iraq had less capability than North Korea, I don't see any problem. 
I don't think that the narrative the government gave us was fair. The whole conflict turned up no WMDs, yet we were told that there were. What do you think about this? And what do you think could be done to stop this in the future? Post your thoughts below. 

Black Wednesday

This past Wednesday, I happened to pass a Best Buy and saw something I didn't expect. There were people already camped out in front of the store. I found it amazing that people would miss spending Thanksgiving with their families to instead wait on the street to buy a TV or something. It seems like they value savings over their own family. I only saw this in one place, but I imagine that people were doing the same thing across the US.
I think that a lot of people's eagerness to skip a holiday to shop comes from the hype we get about it. For weeks before Thanksgiving, we hear about upcoming sales from all sorts of stores. Even after Black Friday, I still heard ads about extended sales. Everyone seems to be pushing people to go out and shop. 
What does this say about us? To me, stores seem to be using holidays to capitalize, and people seem to be responding to that. However, I think that people are responding too well to this. Holidays become commercial shopping events. I think that this commercialization has shifted people's values.
Personally, I don't think that this shift is very good. People holding sales and savings higher than their families isn't a good thing. I'm not saying people shouldn't shop and be frugal, but there is a point where it gets to be too much. What do you think? Post your thoughts below. 

Foreign Policies

Over the past week, Mr. Bolos posed the question of whether terrorist groups and the like were really opposed to our freedoms, or our involvement in their countries. I was thinking about this question when I came across this video. In it, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks about the world's view of the struggle with Palestine. 

Around :38, the Prime Minister says how easily America is moved. What he means is that he can attack Palestine, and most people won't question it because they support Israel. While it may not be true that all of America will side with him, he has a valid point. According to this document, "Israel... receives approximately 60% of all U.S. Foreign Military Financing."

I really don't like this situation. I don't understand why we are funding this conflict to the point where we can be relied on for unwavering support. Netanyahu's attitude seems to make him think that he can do anything because the US will back him no matter what. Personally, I find the  conflict unnecessary, and I don't see reason to be involved. What are your thought about this? What are your reactions to Natanyahu's words? Do you support American support in this war? Post your comments below.

Predicting Paths

I thought that this last week's discussions about the elections were very interesting. One thing that really stuck with me was how the media tried to make this election seem close when it wasn't. 
I went back to the New York Times results page and clicked on a few things that we didn't look at in class. One of these things was the Scenarios tab. I posted a picture below for convenience. 

Despite the media's efforts to make this race seem close, Obama had a clear advantage. All Obama had to do was win two other the listed states, and he won. Furthermore, Obama had over 5 times as many ways to win as Romney did. There is a very clear difference between the likeliness of the outcomes. This was no where close. Yet numerous sources tried to convince us that either could win. Why? Probably to keep us interested in what they were saying. 

I don't think that this type of behavior is appropriate. While some people would be able to distinguish between facts and fabrication, most others can't. I would like to believe that news sources are being honest and providing facts. However, this clearly isn't always the case. 

Enough of my opinion, what do you think? Should news sources be able to skew results? Post your thoughts in the comments below. 

Rough Draft

In the Vietnam presentation, we learned that the government never formally declared war. Regardless, many people were drafted to go fight. Also during the presentation, we talked about what we would do to protect our rights. For instance, some people said they would burn their draft cards, while others would not. However, I had a different though about the draft situation.  How many of us would actually go fight?

Personally,  I wouldn't. I'm not saying I'd go and burn my draft card, but I would find some other way to get out. I understand that the people who said that hypothetically burned their draft cards would not go, but what about the others? Would you go fight a war you had no say in? Would you go to fight a war that the US wasn't even formally involved in? I'm interested to see what you think. Post your thoughts in the comments below. 

Strike Out

The discussions about civil liberties that we've been having in class made me think of how things are today. Awhile back, I remembered hearing about internet service providers planning to implement new anti-piracy measures. More recently, I came across an article which describes the Six Strikes plan.
Basically, the ISPs monitor users and check their activity to see if they are illegally downloading copyrighted material. If they catch someone, they send that person a "strike." At first, the strikes are like warnings, but if the offending user continues to do the same thing, more drastic measures are taken. 
This may seem like a good idea to some, but others are worried about their privacy. This plan requires users' internet activity to be monitored. What do you think about this? Is it fair for ISPs to basically spy on users? Post your thoughts in the comments below. 

Washed Out

A little while ago, Paul Ryan went to a soup kitchen to supposedly help wash dishes. The event can be seen here in this video. Just from the video itself, we can see that the kitchen is mostly empty, and not a lot seems to be going on. also, the few dished we see him washing don't seem to be all that dirty. Furthermore, this article I found says that the soup kitchen has lost donors from this incident. 

I don't think this is fair to the organization that runs the kitchen. It isn't their fault that the visit got all of the backlash mentioned in the article. I think this would be a good example of a politician only caring about his image at the expense of others. He tried to look good by helping a soup kitchen, but he started what could eventually be its downfall. Do you think that politicians should be allowed to do this kind of thing?Also, how do you think this will affect Paul Ryan? Other thoughts? Post them in the comments below.

Iconoclasm

During the class presentation about the Pilgrims, Mr. Bolos told us a bout how we haven't been told the truth about many of things during the early years of school. Because of this, he said, college classes have to spend time removing false preconceptions. Of course this would waste the school's resources and the students' time. 
This got me thinking, why do we teach kids the wrong things? Shouldn't we tell them the truth from the start? Wouldn't it be better if we taught them what actually happened? I get that kids in first grade might not understand what happened, but at least they could be told the truth earlier than college. Mr. Bolos said that many people are taught the simplified stories in elementary school, and end up believing them for most of their lives. Do we want our citizens uneducated about our history?
What do you think? Do you think that the current system works, or should kids be exposed to a more harsh reality? Do you see any problems with either of those? Is there something else that could be done? Share your thoughts in the comments. 

Debate and Switch

In the days following the first presidential debate, I heard many people saying how Romney "won" the debate. They cited how Romney pushed his points more, and how Obama was much more passive. However, the points that he made didn't seem to be his own. This article mentions a few of the things Romney said, and how it matches up to his previous promises. I won't go into too much detail about what he said, but the article compares Mitt's words in the debate to his actual policies. For example, Romney said he didn't want to cut taxes for the rich. However, most of his plans would end up benefiting the rich, such as cutting the estate tax. 
Even when he lied, Romney still seemed to manage to "win" the debate. But how meaningful ifs a win if he wasn't honest? What happens when people like one version of him, but then changes? I don't think that it's fair to voters who watch the debates. People are trying to make a decision, and they can't make a good decision using bad information.
What do you think? Should presidential candidates be allowed to lie in debates? What could we do to make sure that people are getting facts? Share your thoughts in the comments below. 

A Speech About Freedom of Speech

For weeks, people have been enraged by a terrible video on the internet. Some have called for blasphemous things like this to be censored. However, President Barack Obama addressed the UN assembly about the freedom of such speech. 

Specifically, Obama makes his stance on the issue very obvious: "I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech." (11:16 in the video). He opposes any thought of restricting any speech. This would include even hateful opinions. This might seems odd, but he cites the Constitution as protecting all speech. He says that even banning expression as vulgar as this would go against what America stands for. Personally,  I agree with him. I think that censorship laws would be unwieldy: too much would be up for interpretation as for what is considered offensive. Anything that could remotely make someone upset could be censored. 
In another part of the speech, Obama related himself to the situation, saying that " I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so." (11:48 in the video). Obama, the most powerful man in the world, doesn't have a problem with slander against him. This form of speech would fall under the same protection as before: the first amendment. Basically  what he is saying is that if people can speak freely about him, they should be able to speak freely about anything. 
However, this is only one man's opinion. What's your opinion? Sure, we already answered this in class, but do you think disparaging speech is protected? How do you think America's ideal and right to free speech compares with the ideas of others?

Not the White House

At the art exhibit the other day, I got the chance to look at a few if the pictures in the 1600 Pennsylvania Ave gallery. While all I the photos were interesting, one of them really caught my eye.
Instead of the businesses or empty lots that the other pictures, this one had a house. The house looks to be about one story tall. It has a small yard and a fence. There's also a car out front, but that could be anyone's.

The picture of this house contrasts completely with pictures of the White House: a tall black fence, a huge front lawn, and the giant house itself. Someone could easily say that the difference between these houses shows how disconnected the president is from America. Someone could say that the president doesn't care how people live such small houses while he gets to live in a mansion.
Is this difference so bad? Sure, this house no where near as big as the White House. Not everyone can live in a mansion.
But America is supposed to be the land of diversity. This usually means racially and culturally diverse. Does this mean that financial diversity would fall in with the others? I believe that it would. I'm not saying that some people are destined to be poor when others are to become rich. But Diversity like this has always been around, and I don't think that it's going to be gone anytime soon. However, I'm interested in what you think? How do you react to the financial diversity in America?

An Opportunity for Life on Mars

Several weeks after Curiosity landed on Mars, one of the older rovers, Opportunity, found small balls of hematite on the surface. The article states that the iron balls, or "blueberries," indicate the presence of water. However, these blueberries were formed by microbes. This discovery lends further proof for life on Mars. 

Due to the small size of these orbs, it is obvious that anything that isn't on the planet's surface would not be able to see them. This is why we needed those rovers: to look for the hard-to-find stuff. To discover more about the universe, and our immediate solar system, we need to focus on space exploration. Exploration of space will continue to answer many questions that were previously unable to be answered. 

Sadly, the funding for NASA has been cut dramatically. Instead of focusing on scientific advancement, our government is spending money on wars that we don't need to be fighting. I honestly think that the US needs to reconsider its budget. As mentioned in class, America has a tendency to play the "reluctant hero" and get involved with conflicts that it doesn't need to. this attitude keeps us engaged in wars across the world, wars which only seem to bring death and debt. The government needs to put more money towards things that will help us, not cause problems for everyone.  However,  I do not know if anyone else thinks the same way. Do you think that space exploration is important enough to invest in it more?

Domesticating Terrorism

During a discussion earlier this week, Mr. Bolos brought up the shooting at the Sikh temple. I recalledan article from The Atlantic about reactions to this shooting. 

Last month, Wade Page walked into a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and opened fire on those inside. While this shooting happened a bit after the Colorado theater shooting, the general public's reception to this was very different. While many people where outraged at the Colorado shooting, not many people seemed to show acknowledge the tragedy. 

The article points to one very specific reason that people reacted less to this shooting: " The key factor isn't that they're Sikhs; it's that the apparent homegrown terrorist." While that author says that the identity of the shooter as the reason for the lack of response, I don't believe this is the case. I think the reason people seemed to ignore this tragedy is that this shooting appeared to reverse the roles of the shooter and victim. While it's no where near politically correct, many people associate terrorists with Muslims. Sikh's are probably lumped in with that group, even though they are much different. 
When people have their idea of terrorism, no matter how flawed, ingrained so deeply in their head, they don't know how to react if the opposite happens. Because of this, a terrible incident of an white American being the attacker is ignored.  People  refuse to consider that terrorists don't come from one place: they are extremists who can derive form anywhere. 
How do you think people's ideas of terrorism affect their views towards this attack and others? Post your thoughts in the comments. 

Obama Crashes Reddit

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama made a post on a popular website, Reddit. There, in a post called an AMA, he invited viewers to ask him questions about anything. The sheer number of activity this drew caused the site to temporarily go down.

Even though this was most likely a major PR move,  I believe that this event really makes a point about our President. Mr. Obama reached out to citizens through the Internet, a medium many politicians do not understand. This shows that in an era of constant developments, he has been able to keep up with innovation instead of trying to destroy it. So far, the opposing party hasn't had the best record with regards to keeping up with advancements, so this demonstration of ability is promising.

In his AMA, the President promises funding for the space program, keeping taxes low for small business, and support for Internet Freedom. Despite whether he upholds these promises, this shows how his views are much more progressive than the GOP's. If he keeps this up, he should be able to again hold the interest of the younger generation.