My astute colleague, Mr. Jordan Call, challenged us to answer the question of whether or not Lady Liberty still embodies the American attitudes toward freedom and liberty. He believes, in short, that she does not. He argues that our country has no interest in taking care of its own people, let alone welcoming outsiders. Mr. Call even suggests giving Lady Liberty a "21st century makeover," a more colorful representation, if you will, that accurately reflects America's new "hallmarks" of "intolerance, fear, and xenophobia." He draws from the rampant poverty of our own people and the desire Americans have to keep others out of the U.S. to validate his claim. I absolutely agree with his points.
To add to Mr. Call's argument, I will focus on "intolerance, fear, and xenophobia." I believe that fear is what has driven this nation to the point of no return. And what are we afraid of? Plenty, it would seem.(1) But a major fear many Americans have is the threat of terrorism. Yes, terrorists exist. Yes, they do unspeakable things. Yes, they need to be stopped. However, we have given into fear so much that they have accomplished their goals. We are terrified. So terrified, in fact, that we allow the government to violate our Constitutional rights to keep us "safe." (Shout out to the NSA) Even as our liberties disappear, we feel comforted. This is fantastic news for the powers that be. A fearful public cannot truly be free, and as such, is at the mercy of its "protectors." It is in this way that Lady Liberty no longer represents freedom.
Fear naturally leads to intolerance and xenophobia. Mr. Call made an excellent point when he stated "politicians gain traction and followers by suggesting huge walls or mass removal of Muslims." It is a truth that causes me great dismay. Americans no longer desire to be a "melting pot" of culture. Instead, we want to be a nation closed off from outside influence (they could be terrorists or rapists!), allowed to bask in the glow of our own ignorance. We wish to hide from anything different, because different means dangerous. We selfishly claim we are merely holding onto what is rightfully ours. (Jobs, religions, etc.) But the truth is, we cannot see past our own interests long enough to realize that all human beings deserve liberty, no matter where they may come from. So, again, no, Lady Liberty does not exhibit that which gives her a name.
I propose that it would not be enough to give Lady Liberty a makeover. Tear her down. Walls? Not enough. Build a dome. No one gets in; no one gets out. 'Merica! Land of the cowardly, self-imprisoned, and willfully ignorant.
(1)http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/Most-Important-Problem.aspx
Friday, April 8, 2016
Saturday, March 26, 2016
Free Community College-No, Thanks
President Obama proposed the concept of free community college last year, and I have to admit that this sounded fantastic, at first. Essentially, the plan is this: tuition will be free of charge to those enrolled in school at least half-time, provided they are working towards a four year degree and maintaining a 2.5 GPA. And, the government is going to foot most of bill, covering a massive 75%, while leaving the remaining 25% for the states. (1) Sounds like a brilliant idea, at least until you think about it for a while. I find it highly unlikely that this plan will actually ever see the light of day, and to that, I say, good.
Now, why would a 34 year old community college student with a mortgage be against free tuition? Well, for starters, nothing is free. The federal government would have to put up $60 billion in the next ten years just to get the ball rolling. The states would have it easy, at a mere $20 billion.(2) I am not very good at math, but how exactly does this work for a nation that has a debt of over $18 trillion?(3) Let that number sink in for a minute. Now think about this number- "57,803,468 – That’s the number of new homes you could buy, given that the average American home costs $311,400" with $18 trillion.(4) We, as a nation, simply cannot afford to do this.
Even if we had a surplus of $18 trillion, I still say we should not offer free tuition. I am a firm believer that if you want something, you have to work for it. Education is expensive, without debate, but tuition at a community college is not unreasonable. On average, the cost of tuition per year is $5,023.(5) If a full-time job does not cover the cost, there are a multitude of scholarships, grants and work-study programs available to those that prove a financial need, not to mention student loans. (though this is a less than desirable option) Many of these programs require effort, as they should. One may have to make high grades, work when it is inconvenient, or even go without luxury items. One just has to be willing to take advantage of the resources already available to them, and perhaps be willing to make some personal sacrifices. It is much harder to give up on a goal when one has worked so hard for it versus when it is simply handed to them.
Let us ponder something else. Community colleges have low success rates as it is. Consider statistics from Austin Community College. "ACC’s four-year average graduation rate is 6 percent, the transfer-out rate is 34 percent, and the retention rate is 56 percent, according to the Integrated Postsecondary Data System of the National Center for Education Statistics".(6) If learning here became tuition-free, the numbers would certainly drop, as those attending for the sole purpose of it being "free" would not be properly invested in their education. And why should they be? It would cost them nothing. Even if they were to graduate or transfer, the GPA requirement almost guarantees minimal effort. 2.5?! I find it almost insulting that people could coast through school, for free, aspiring to be nothing more than average. We would be breeding a nation of (even more)laziness and entitlement.
Now let us pretend the money is not an issue and all that attend go on to graduate. What will this do to the "value" of the degree they obtain? Supply and demand will be gone. It would no longer be enough to just have a degree for a job, because everyone would have one. This will only compound the issue of graduates fresh out of school without a paycheck in sight. (But the degree will look nice in a frame!) Since 2013, the employment rates for recent grads has been improving (except for journalism and communication), but were just anyone able to go to college, it would surely result in another bout of massive unemployment.(7) Can we not focus on job-based training for high school students instead of touting that college is for everyone? You know, put people in jobs where they cannot only be successful, but support themselves?
While the idea of free community college seems very appealing, it can only hurt our nation. Spiraling debt, laziness, entitlement, and unemployment are only a few issues that would result. I think it is admirable that people want to better themselves and choose college as a means to do so. However, it makes little sense to offer free tuition. Work for it, like so many others have done before.
(1)https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/09/fact-sheet-white-house-unveils-america-s-college-promise-proposal-tuition
(2)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-siebold/obamas-americas-college-p_b_6510592.html
(3)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-siebold/obamas-americas-college-p_b_6510592.html
(4)https://generationopportunity.org/articles/2014/12/04/much-18-trillion-worth-really/)
(5)http://www.communitycollegereview.com/avg-tuition-stats/national-data
(6)http://www.austincc.edu/graduation-retention-and-transfer-rates
(7)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/23/unemployment-journalism-major-college-graduate_n_6737496.html
Now, why would a 34 year old community college student with a mortgage be against free tuition? Well, for starters, nothing is free. The federal government would have to put up $60 billion in the next ten years just to get the ball rolling. The states would have it easy, at a mere $20 billion.(2) I am not very good at math, but how exactly does this work for a nation that has a debt of over $18 trillion?(3) Let that number sink in for a minute. Now think about this number- "57,803,468 – That’s the number of new homes you could buy, given that the average American home costs $311,400" with $18 trillion.(4) We, as a nation, simply cannot afford to do this.
Even if we had a surplus of $18 trillion, I still say we should not offer free tuition. I am a firm believer that if you want something, you have to work for it. Education is expensive, without debate, but tuition at a community college is not unreasonable. On average, the cost of tuition per year is $5,023.(5) If a full-time job does not cover the cost, there are a multitude of scholarships, grants and work-study programs available to those that prove a financial need, not to mention student loans. (though this is a less than desirable option) Many of these programs require effort, as they should. One may have to make high grades, work when it is inconvenient, or even go without luxury items. One just has to be willing to take advantage of the resources already available to them, and perhaps be willing to make some personal sacrifices. It is much harder to give up on a goal when one has worked so hard for it versus when it is simply handed to them.
Let us ponder something else. Community colleges have low success rates as it is. Consider statistics from Austin Community College. "ACC’s four-year average graduation rate is 6 percent, the transfer-out rate is 34 percent, and the retention rate is 56 percent, according to the Integrated Postsecondary Data System of the National Center for Education Statistics".(6) If learning here became tuition-free, the numbers would certainly drop, as those attending for the sole purpose of it being "free" would not be properly invested in their education. And why should they be? It would cost them nothing. Even if they were to graduate or transfer, the GPA requirement almost guarantees minimal effort. 2.5?! I find it almost insulting that people could coast through school, for free, aspiring to be nothing more than average. We would be breeding a nation of (even more)laziness and entitlement.
Now let us pretend the money is not an issue and all that attend go on to graduate. What will this do to the "value" of the degree they obtain? Supply and demand will be gone. It would no longer be enough to just have a degree for a job, because everyone would have one. This will only compound the issue of graduates fresh out of school without a paycheck in sight. (But the degree will look nice in a frame!) Since 2013, the employment rates for recent grads has been improving (except for journalism and communication), but were just anyone able to go to college, it would surely result in another bout of massive unemployment.(7) Can we not focus on job-based training for high school students instead of touting that college is for everyone? You know, put people in jobs where they cannot only be successful, but support themselves?
While the idea of free community college seems very appealing, it can only hurt our nation. Spiraling debt, laziness, entitlement, and unemployment are only a few issues that would result. I think it is admirable that people want to better themselves and choose college as a means to do so. However, it makes little sense to offer free tuition. Work for it, like so many others have done before.
(1)https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/09/fact-sheet-white-house-unveils-america-s-college-promise-proposal-tuition
(2)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-siebold/obamas-americas-college-p_b_6510592.html
(3)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-siebold/obamas-americas-college-p_b_6510592.html
(4)https://generationopportunity.org/articles/2014/12/04/much-18-trillion-worth-really/)
(5)http://www.communitycollegereview.com/avg-tuition-stats/national-data
(6)http://www.austincc.edu/graduation-retention-and-transfer-rates
(7)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/23/unemployment-journalism-major-college-graduate_n_6737496.html
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
The NSA Knows..What Exactly?
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution." ~Thomas Jefferson
My esteemed colleague, Mr. Jordan Call, discussed the National Security Agency's ability to collect information on American citizens in his article "The NSA know when that hotline bling." Mr. Call argues that the NSA is a "necessary evil" that we must accept in the name of security. He makes a thought-provoking argument, yet, I am inclined to disagree with him.
Mr. Call opens his argument by stating that "our rights have been trampled for quite some time now," citing The Patriot Act and the fact it allows the government to spy on us. He also says that he is fine with this intrusion, since he has no criminal record and it could potentially prevent a crime from occurring. I do not have a criminal record, either. That does not mean I have nothing to hide. It is no business of anyone, let alone a government agency "my taste in music, what type of porn I like," or anything else one could glean from my internet history or phone conversations. Mr. Call is right, Americans are not special. We are, however, entitled to the rights afforded to us by the Constitution.
Mr. Call goes on to admit that statistics on actual crime prevented because of this "spying" are hard to find. Funny how that works, is it not? The government does not have to make information easy to access, yet we are expected to sit back while they sift through our lives. Well, while I could not find actual numbers either, it could not have been enough to validate the intrusion. The Patriot Act has expired and been replaced with The USA Freedom Act (oh, the irony of these names!). This comes after President Obama's Presidential Review Group and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board revealed that the information gained from the Patriot Act was not essential to preventing attacks.(1) So, in essence, the ends did not justify the means. The USA Freedom Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act), is intended to correct the issue of privacy violation while still allowing surveillance.(2) Or so "they" say. I wholeheartedly believe this is just another intrusion made to appear less menacing.
Another point made by Mr. Call is the potential for abuse by the "watchers." He does not defend this behavior, instead calls for punishment, but it is not enough for him to discredit the system. He draws a comparison from the police, stating we should "punish those who abuse the system, and realize it is there for our benefit." On this point, I absolutely agree with Mr. Call. The police are there for our benefit. And yes, there are those that take advantage of their position. The same could be said of many professions, from teachers to doctors. It has happened, and it will continue to happen. That is the problem with humans; we can be monstrous creatures. Regardless, I think the police are doing more good than harm, despite what the media would have us believe. Is the NSA? "Spying on current or former significant others" or listening to "sexually explicit" phone calls may not seem like such a major abuse of resources in the grand scheme of things, but what else could they be doing? I am certain we will never know the extent of their capabilities. Another thing to question is whether or not something seemingly innocent can come back to haunt someone later. If there are records of phone calls in which I may have made a comment(either in jest or completely innocent) and someone I have known or know does something deemed criminal, could I be held accountable, an accessory? It seems unlikely, but if the NSA wants to pin you for something, I am betting they have enough information on you to do it, perhaps "10 years" worth. To use Mr. Call's comparison, the cops have the ability to do it all the time. Sometimes it is not even the actual information they have, but the lack thereof. (As a side note, check out this link: Don't Talk to Cops) The police, however, do not have the ease to access data that the NSA has, making it much easier for the NSA to manipulate the facts in which ever way they seem fit.
Ultimately, Mr. Call made me question whether this type of intrusion is justified. If the NSA came to me claiming "you could save a child's life if you would just give us your phone records," I would probably do it. However, I do not believe the intention of the government is to protect. I believe is to control. They use fear as a means to have the American people give up their rights. Sure, it may seem innocuous on the surface(the road to hell is paved with good intentions), and for all I know, it is, though I highly doubt it. Not to mention, anytime data is stored, it can be hacked. I hate to imagine the kind of damage that could be done were this to happen. Despite Mr. Call's efforts, and he did a damn good job, I am not convinced that slowly giving up my civil liberties in the name of safety is the way to go.
(1) ps://www.rt.com/usa/264005-freedom-patriot-act-surveillance/
(2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act
My esteemed colleague, Mr. Jordan Call, discussed the National Security Agency's ability to collect information on American citizens in his article "The NSA know when that hotline bling." Mr. Call argues that the NSA is a "necessary evil" that we must accept in the name of security. He makes a thought-provoking argument, yet, I am inclined to disagree with him.
Mr. Call opens his argument by stating that "our rights have been trampled for quite some time now," citing The Patriot Act and the fact it allows the government to spy on us. He also says that he is fine with this intrusion, since he has no criminal record and it could potentially prevent a crime from occurring. I do not have a criminal record, either. That does not mean I have nothing to hide. It is no business of anyone, let alone a government agency "my taste in music, what type of porn I like," or anything else one could glean from my internet history or phone conversations. Mr. Call is right, Americans are not special. We are, however, entitled to the rights afforded to us by the Constitution.
Mr. Call goes on to admit that statistics on actual crime prevented because of this "spying" are hard to find. Funny how that works, is it not? The government does not have to make information easy to access, yet we are expected to sit back while they sift through our lives. Well, while I could not find actual numbers either, it could not have been enough to validate the intrusion. The Patriot Act has expired and been replaced with The USA Freedom Act (oh, the irony of these names!). This comes after President Obama's Presidential Review Group and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board revealed that the information gained from the Patriot Act was not essential to preventing attacks.(1) So, in essence, the ends did not justify the means. The USA Freedom Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act), is intended to correct the issue of privacy violation while still allowing surveillance.(2) Or so "they" say. I wholeheartedly believe this is just another intrusion made to appear less menacing.
Another point made by Mr. Call is the potential for abuse by the "watchers." He does not defend this behavior, instead calls for punishment, but it is not enough for him to discredit the system. He draws a comparison from the police, stating we should "punish those who abuse the system, and realize it is there for our benefit." On this point, I absolutely agree with Mr. Call. The police are there for our benefit. And yes, there are those that take advantage of their position. The same could be said of many professions, from teachers to doctors. It has happened, and it will continue to happen. That is the problem with humans; we can be monstrous creatures. Regardless, I think the police are doing more good than harm, despite what the media would have us believe. Is the NSA? "Spying on current or former significant others" or listening to "sexually explicit" phone calls may not seem like such a major abuse of resources in the grand scheme of things, but what else could they be doing? I am certain we will never know the extent of their capabilities. Another thing to question is whether or not something seemingly innocent can come back to haunt someone later. If there are records of phone calls in which I may have made a comment(either in jest or completely innocent) and someone I have known or know does something deemed criminal, could I be held accountable, an accessory? It seems unlikely, but if the NSA wants to pin you for something, I am betting they have enough information on you to do it, perhaps "10 years" worth. To use Mr. Call's comparison, the cops have the ability to do it all the time. Sometimes it is not even the actual information they have, but the lack thereof. (As a side note, check out this link: Don't Talk to Cops) The police, however, do not have the ease to access data that the NSA has, making it much easier for the NSA to manipulate the facts in which ever way they seem fit.
Ultimately, Mr. Call made me question whether this type of intrusion is justified. If the NSA came to me claiming "you could save a child's life if you would just give us your phone records," I would probably do it. However, I do not believe the intention of the government is to protect. I believe is to control. They use fear as a means to have the American people give up their rights. Sure, it may seem innocuous on the surface(the road to hell is paved with good intentions), and for all I know, it is, though I highly doubt it. Not to mention, anytime data is stored, it can be hacked. I hate to imagine the kind of damage that could be done were this to happen. Despite Mr. Call's efforts, and he did a damn good job, I am not convinced that slowly giving up my civil liberties in the name of safety is the way to go.
(1) ps://www.rt.com/usa/264005-freedom-patriot-act-surveillance/
(2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Donald Trump...No, No, No
Oh, Donald. Your drama never ceases to amaze. Donald Trump frequently makes remarks about punching people or having them carried out on stretchers. It's kind of his "thing." So, it should not be surprising that Trump almost encountered a punch himself during his rally in Dayton, Ohio. This is following a cancellation in Chicago due to a potential for violence. And that cancellation comes after one of Trump's supporters punched a protester in North Carolina. His protesters and his supporters apparently cannot play nice. Even though Trump seems to approve of such nonsense, this type of behavior is disturbing. Marco Rubio called it "chaos"and "anarchy." Perhaps Donald Trump is just a little too punk rock to be president.
A man that seemingly advocates bullying is not fit to run any country, let alone the U.S. Now, I understand that people are fed up with the way things are. I assume those that support him do so because they believe he can shift the direction in which we are heading. They are entitled to their beliefs. I, however, think that if this man is elected president, our nation will be divided. There will be an "us versus them" mentality, and it could become ugly. Much of this is pure speculation on my part, but if the past events are a sign of things to come, well, then, it does not seem so far-fetched.
This recent outbreak of hysteria is not the only reason I think Trump should not be elected. He likes the "shock factor" of what he says. He prides himself on not being politically correct. Well, to each their own, but what will this do for our country? Sure, everyone will feel they can say exactly what they are thinking. And if someone doesn't like what another says, they can just knock them in the head, right? Wrong. This is a publicity stunt, plain and simple. Make no mistake, the average American will not be held to such low standards. Why Trump is getting away with it, I do not know. But, I do know that I want a president that shows a little respect to those he wishes to govern. I do not want a president that advocates violence, claims those coming into our country are only drug dealers and rapists, or outright brags about his womanizing. It is in poor taste to say such things when you are representing a nation. Comments like these will not "make America great again."
I could be wrong. Trump may be just what this country needs. He is, after all, rich. Let us not forget he had a popular reality T.V. show. These two attributes should trump the fact (pun intended) that he has never actually been elected to public office. Not to fear, however, he would be in good company were he actually elected president. Former President Hoover did just the same, though he was at least a high ranking government official. And what difference does it make that Hoover is considered one of the top ten worst presidents in U.S. history? Surely history will not repeat itself.
Maybe I come across as too sensitive and easily offended. I'm not. I just feel that our nation deserves a president that can offer to 'make America great again" without turning his campaign into one that rivals an episode of "Jersey Shore." One can make a point without being degrading. But what the hell do I know? Trump appears to be doing great in the polls. Obviously, people see something in him that I do not. Perhaps it is his vast wealth or his great plans that he "cannot discuss the details" of. Whatever it is, I sincerely hope the American public wakes up and demands more for themselves and our nation than what Trump is offering.
A man that seemingly advocates bullying is not fit to run any country, let alone the U.S. Now, I understand that people are fed up with the way things are. I assume those that support him do so because they believe he can shift the direction in which we are heading. They are entitled to their beliefs. I, however, think that if this man is elected president, our nation will be divided. There will be an "us versus them" mentality, and it could become ugly. Much of this is pure speculation on my part, but if the past events are a sign of things to come, well, then, it does not seem so far-fetched.
This recent outbreak of hysteria is not the only reason I think Trump should not be elected. He likes the "shock factor" of what he says. He prides himself on not being politically correct. Well, to each their own, but what will this do for our country? Sure, everyone will feel they can say exactly what they are thinking. And if someone doesn't like what another says, they can just knock them in the head, right? Wrong. This is a publicity stunt, plain and simple. Make no mistake, the average American will not be held to such low standards. Why Trump is getting away with it, I do not know. But, I do know that I want a president that shows a little respect to those he wishes to govern. I do not want a president that advocates violence, claims those coming into our country are only drug dealers and rapists, or outright brags about his womanizing. It is in poor taste to say such things when you are representing a nation. Comments like these will not "make America great again."
I could be wrong. Trump may be just what this country needs. He is, after all, rich. Let us not forget he had a popular reality T.V. show. These two attributes should trump the fact (pun intended) that he has never actually been elected to public office. Not to fear, however, he would be in good company were he actually elected president. Former President Hoover did just the same, though he was at least a high ranking government official. And what difference does it make that Hoover is considered one of the top ten worst presidents in U.S. history? Surely history will not repeat itself.
Maybe I come across as too sensitive and easily offended. I'm not. I just feel that our nation deserves a president that can offer to 'make America great again" without turning his campaign into one that rivals an episode of "Jersey Shore." One can make a point without being degrading. But what the hell do I know? Trump appears to be doing great in the polls. Obviously, people see something in him that I do not. Perhaps it is his vast wealth or his great plans that he "cannot discuss the details" of. Whatever it is, I sincerely hope the American public wakes up and demands more for themselves and our nation than what Trump is offering.
Monday, February 29, 2016
Is Donald Trump The "Modern Day Wizard Of Oz"?
"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
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
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)