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.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
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.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, October 5, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)