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.