"We're off to see the Wizard..." Is Donald Trump our "Wizard"? Geoffrey Dunn of The Huffington Post argues that Trump is indeed the man behind the curtain. Should we listen to Mr. Dunn? I say, absolutely. Not only is he an award-winning author and filmmaker, he has a B.A. in politics, an M. A. and PhD in sociology, and "has over three decades experience in investigative journalism."(1) In other words, he knows a thing or two about the way our country and politicians operate. Because he is a contributor to the Huffington Post, Mr. Dunn appeals to a left-leaning audience. However, it is more than possible that this particular piece will catch the attention of more than just the typical readers that frequent this site. Why? Because if nothing else, it's entertaining. Be that as it may, it is most likely an unconvincing argument to those who do not already view Donald Trump in a negative light.
Mr. Dunn first points out that The Wizard of Oz was more than just a classic children's movie. It was, in fact, based off of a series of books by L. Frank Baum, and "is riddled with political references and served as an allegory for American populism in the 1890s." Mr. Dunn cites Mr. Henry M. Littlefield for first taking "note" of these "political metaphors." Mr. Littlefield was a high school teacher that wrote a thesis for the American Quarterly, which was published by John Hopkins University Press. In this thesis, he claimed each character represented either a specific person or group of people, as well as the issues Americans were faced with at that time. Mr. Dunn takes this idea and applies it to Donald Trump.
Mr. Dunn states that Trump has "become the modern-day version of the Wizard, hiding behind a phalanx of curtains and screens...to create a fraudulent illusion of power and influence." He backs up his statement by referring to Trump's "racist rants on immigrants, misogynistic attacks on women, vicious lies about Muslim's, and vague economic sophistries." Mr. Dunn provides links to validate these claims, including sites such as The Washington Post, The Guardian, and Salon. Mr. Dunn then goes on to compare Trump's supporters to the Munchkins, who, according to Mr. Dunn, feel "dispossessed and disempowered." Are they falling for Trump's antics because they have been fooled by the "illusion?" Mr. Dunn even presents Marco Rubio as a possibility for our "modern-day Dorothy", fighting to expose the Wizard for what he truly is, since Rubio told his own supporters "what we are dealing with...is a con artist." It is quite clear that Mr. Dunn believes Donald Trump is a fraud, and has only garnered support because of his grand "smoke and mirrors" act.
Again, this was an entertaining read. Does that make it a valid comparison? I think so, but I am certainly biased, as I have a great distaste for Donald Trump. Mr. Dunn is a credible author, and so his view is worthy of attention. He uses a wide range of sources to support his stance, however, these sources are obviously biased when it comes to Donald Trump. It would have made for a more powerful argument to include objective sources(if there is such a thing) that confirmed Mr. Dunn's points. Overall, even with the biased sources, knowing what I do of Mr. Trump makes this argument seem logical to me. However, Mr. Dunn disappointed me by taking multiple jabs at Mr. Trump's appearance. At one point he refers to Donald as "literally cartoonish." I see no point in attacking one's outward image to make a point. Mr. Trump has given plenty of ammunition to his opposition. His looks should be a non-issue. Another point to be made is that this comparison could be made of any man or woman seeking the presidency. Certainly Trump is not the only one to create an "illusion." Perhaps this changes the strength of the argument for some, perhaps it does not. Despite the biased sources and the fact that this could be a favorable comparison for a number of people, I think Mr. Dunn is spot on when it comes to Trump. What do you think?
(1) http://us.macmillan.com/author/geoffreydunn
Monday, February 29, 2016
Saturday, February 20, 2016
Should Apple Comply With The FBI?
Should Apple comply with the FBI? An opinion writer for the Washington Post, Bruce Schneier, says "you should side with Apple, not the FBI, in the San Bernardino iPhone case." He claims that "either everyone gets security, or no one does." Apple has been ordered to assist the FBI in gaining access to an encrypted iPhone that was owned by one of the now deceased San Bernardino shooters. Apple plans to appeal this order.
Mr. Schneier appeals to an audience that is against further government intrusion into the lives of American citizens. This is apparent in his statement that "what the FBI wants would make us less secure" and that "powerful governments...want access to user data for both law enforcement and social control." His positions as a security technologist and CTO of Resilient Systems, Inc., a cyber security company, give him seemingly impressive credibility where this issue is concerned.
His argument is forthright. He views Apple's compliance as a major security risk for the American public. He acknowledges that, for now, the FBI is only interested in one particular iPhone and they are only requesting a rewrite of software to help them "hack" the phone. This would enable them to acquire the data that would be lost after 10 incorrect guesses of the passkey. However, Mr. Schneier points out that this software, because it is not encrypted, could work on any iPhone that happened to be of the same "model." He goes even further to claim that this current demand will lead to decreased security on "smart phones and computers, as well as" decreased "security of cars, medical devices, homes, and everything else that will soon be computerized." This appears to be a logical assumption, however, there is absolutely no evidence to support his assertions. He provides no proof that this type of software would work on other phones, nor does he acknowledge that it may be possible to avoid that issue altogether. He also alleges that "there's nothing preventing the FBI from writing the hacked software itself, aside from budget and manpower issues." Again, there is nothing to substantiate this claim. Overall, in regards to this being a sound argument, Mr. Schneier is lacking the proper information to be empirically persuasive. In fact, his entire argument sounds emotional and fearful of government intrusion.
Regardless of Mr. Shneier's approach, I happen to agree that Apple should not be forced to cooperate in this instance. However, it is not due to an irrational fear that the government, or anyone else, will soon be hacking my refrigerator. This is most likely because I don't think we are all that secure in the first place. If it can be hacked, it will be hacked. This is not to say that we should ignore possible security issues, but that this should not be the focus of the argument. My view is that the government should not be able to force a business, that is not criminally responsible, to comply simply because a suspect used one of their products. Apple is simply not liable. I also believe that searching this phone will not lead to some fantastic discovery that will save our nation from terrorists just in the nick of time. Furthermore, I am no advocate of big business. I do not believe Apple is simply looking out for the security of its customers. I think, ultimately, they are protecting their greatest interest: the almighty dollar. After all, the publicity they are receiving from "standing up" to the government is monumental. Despite this, I believe they are in the right to contest this order.
Mr. Schneier appeals to an audience that is against further government intrusion into the lives of American citizens. This is apparent in his statement that "what the FBI wants would make us less secure" and that "powerful governments...want access to user data for both law enforcement and social control." His positions as a security technologist and CTO of Resilient Systems, Inc., a cyber security company, give him seemingly impressive credibility where this issue is concerned.
His argument is forthright. He views Apple's compliance as a major security risk for the American public. He acknowledges that, for now, the FBI is only interested in one particular iPhone and they are only requesting a rewrite of software to help them "hack" the phone. This would enable them to acquire the data that would be lost after 10 incorrect guesses of the passkey. However, Mr. Schneier points out that this software, because it is not encrypted, could work on any iPhone that happened to be of the same "model." He goes even further to claim that this current demand will lead to decreased security on "smart phones and computers, as well as" decreased "security of cars, medical devices, homes, and everything else that will soon be computerized." This appears to be a logical assumption, however, there is absolutely no evidence to support his assertions. He provides no proof that this type of software would work on other phones, nor does he acknowledge that it may be possible to avoid that issue altogether. He also alleges that "there's nothing preventing the FBI from writing the hacked software itself, aside from budget and manpower issues." Again, there is nothing to substantiate this claim. Overall, in regards to this being a sound argument, Mr. Schneier is lacking the proper information to be empirically persuasive. In fact, his entire argument sounds emotional and fearful of government intrusion.
Regardless of Mr. Shneier's approach, I happen to agree that Apple should not be forced to cooperate in this instance. However, it is not due to an irrational fear that the government, or anyone else, will soon be hacking my refrigerator. This is most likely because I don't think we are all that secure in the first place. If it can be hacked, it will be hacked. This is not to say that we should ignore possible security issues, but that this should not be the focus of the argument. My view is that the government should not be able to force a business, that is not criminally responsible, to comply simply because a suspect used one of their products. Apple is simply not liable. I also believe that searching this phone will not lead to some fantastic discovery that will save our nation from terrorists just in the nick of time. Furthermore, I am no advocate of big business. I do not believe Apple is simply looking out for the security of its customers. I think, ultimately, they are protecting their greatest interest: the almighty dollar. After all, the publicity they are receiving from "standing up" to the government is monumental. Despite this, I believe they are in the right to contest this order.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Act of Protection or Concealment of Guilt?
Ah, America, defender of liberty and justice! Sounds nice, does it not? But is it actually true? Those who have suffered torture at the hands of Americans may argue otherwise.
An article by Justin Worland, of Time magazine, tells of almost 200 photos released by the Pentagon depicting abuse of detainees held by the U.S. Their release comes as a result of the legal battle between the national government and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). However, there are still some 1800 photos that the government is fighting to keep under wraps. A federal judge ordered these pictures to be released last March, and yet the government is stalling with appeals. Why? They claim the release of the photos would put American soldier's lives at risk. The ACLU is continuing to push for the release to uncover long-reaching abuse of detainees in both Afghanistan and Iran.
I think this article is worthy of reading for a few reasons. First, Americans should know how detainees held by our country are being treated. Now, there is no mention of what these detainees did to be put into holding, but is this how it should be handled? With abuse and torment? I feel this is an unacceptable approach to gaining intelligence or whatever it was the U.S. was after. Second, why only release photos that show minor injuries? Do the other photos show similar injuries or some that are worse? The government acknowledges that punishments, some severe, have been allocated to those responsible, so why hide what they did? I certainly would not want the publication of the photos to cause harm to any Americans, and yet, I feel this issue needs to be addressed and brought to the attention of the American public. Lastly, there is a federal order to release the pictures and the government only feigns compliance by releasing what they choose. I ask you, is this just?
An article by Justin Worland, of Time magazine, tells of almost 200 photos released by the Pentagon depicting abuse of detainees held by the U.S. Their release comes as a result of the legal battle between the national government and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). However, there are still some 1800 photos that the government is fighting to keep under wraps. A federal judge ordered these pictures to be released last March, and yet the government is stalling with appeals. Why? They claim the release of the photos would put American soldier's lives at risk. The ACLU is continuing to push for the release to uncover long-reaching abuse of detainees in both Afghanistan and Iran.
I think this article is worthy of reading for a few reasons. First, Americans should know how detainees held by our country are being treated. Now, there is no mention of what these detainees did to be put into holding, but is this how it should be handled? With abuse and torment? I feel this is an unacceptable approach to gaining intelligence or whatever it was the U.S. was after. Second, why only release photos that show minor injuries? Do the other photos show similar injuries or some that are worse? The government acknowledges that punishments, some severe, have been allocated to those responsible, so why hide what they did? I certainly would not want the publication of the photos to cause harm to any Americans, and yet, I feel this issue needs to be addressed and brought to the attention of the American public. Lastly, there is a federal order to release the pictures and the government only feigns compliance by releasing what they choose. I ask you, is this just?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)