Riot Breaks Out at New Hampshire Pumpkin Festival

Article

 

Many people in the Bay Area are familiar with the annual Half Moon Bay Pumpkin Festival which took place this past weekend. Typically, the only complaint associated with this annual festival relates to the horrible traffic on Hwy 92 and, if that doesn't phase you, the sea of humanity that greets you at the festival itself. Compared to the Keene Pumpkin Festival in New Hampshire this past weekend, I'd say Half Moon Bay doesn't look so bad after all this time of year. The Keane Festival ended with tear gas, street fires, and at least 49 arrests in a quiet town of around 23,000. The annual pumpkin festival is one of the biggest events all year for the town of Keane, drawing as many as 70,000 people. If anything, these riots have certainly given the Keene Police Department something to do and potentially the first real reason to play with their new toy, yes one of these...

which they applied for and received in late 2012 citing "terrorist attacks" on their annual pumpkin festival as the reason that they needed to spend $285,933 on this armored monstrosity. This armored beast, which was ironically made fun of a few months ago on HBOs Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (7:20) for being extremely excessive, proved useful, but still extremely unnecessary. Now rather than focus on the events at the pumpkin festival itself, which amount to little more than excessively intoxicated college students running wild in the streets, I think the real issue at hand here is militarization of the police. Should small towns in New Hampshire be allowed to spend upwards of $285,000 on a military grade SWAT vehicle when, outside of this weekend's events, they have about as much use for them as the Town of Hillsborough (which fittingly has a SWAT vehicle of its own)?

Has police militarization gone too far?

US Drops Supplies to Help Kurdish Fighters in Syria

Article

The U.S. military has delivered weapons, ammunition, and medical supplies to Kurds in the Kobani area of Northern Syria in an attempt to help fend off the Islamic State's attempt to take the city. This came after Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, ""it would be very, very wrong to expect [the Turkish government] to openly say 'yes' to our NATO ally America giving this kind of support. To expect something like this from us is impossible." Additionally, Turkey has begun to stop activists from EU countries to bring supplies, including food and medicine, into the area. But despite this apparent lack of support, Turkey has hosted more than 1 million refugees from the area, including about 400,000 from Kobani. The town of Kobani has been seen as a strategic point in this conflict and could serve as either a major victory for the Islamic State or a huge setback should the US led anti-Islamic State coalition push them back.

What is your opinion on US involvement in this conflict?
Should the US continue to supply the Kurds or give support through other means?
Should Turkey provide more support?

X-37B Lands, Pentagon Currently Quiet

(BBC (2))

After two years in orbit on its 3rd voyage the Air Force's X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle landed back in California on the 17th of October, 2014. This vehicle, "resembling a miniature space shuttle"(1) is the possession of the Air Force's Rapid Capabilities Office and, according to officials from the previously stated organization, was being used to preform '''risk reduction, experimentation and concept-of-operations development for reusable space vehicle technologies'''(1), however the craft's purpose remains a article of speculation. It has been theorized in the past that the craft's real mission was to shadow China's national space station, the Tiangong, as its flight path was closely correlated to that of the Tiangong(2). The craft's mission has come into question for primarily over its designated orbit ,which is lower than that of most satellites and circles "with an inclination of 42.79 degrees with respect to the equator"(2), compared to the usual military craft "orbit that circles the poles"(2). 

Do you feel it is really necessary to question this craft's purpose? If so, what may the military's purpose be for initiating such a project, and why would they feel the necessity to return the craft to Earth if it really was being used for an undisclosed purpose?

The best college admissions essay ever!

A classic of the genre from Paul Rudnick of the New Yorker.

Remember that any comments made in the thread will be read by your admissions officers. A clever, ironically-detached, self-aware, or humble and understanding response might help you. All other comments could become the biggest regret of your young life.

Hong Kong protests: Leader says 'external forces' involved

 Article

In a recent TV interview, Hong Kong leader CY Leung said that the recent protests in his country were "not entirely a domestic movement, as external forces are involved". Mr. Leung did not give any further details such as names of countries he suspects are playing a role in the movement. These statements are in agreement with those last week made by the Chinese Communist Party's official newspaper which ran an article accusing the US of being involved in the protests. The leaders of the protest have denied these claims and many analysts believe that Mr. Leung's comments were more of a warning to foreign government action rather than a response. While the number of protesters has decreased in recent days, this movement is still very much ongoing.

With the United States poor track record of involvement in foreign conflict in recent years, I am doubtful that the US, or any other western power, would want to get involved in this conflict especially because it could risk damaging an economic relationship with China. Though the implications of foreign involvement would be huge, it is most likely that Mr. Leung's comments were simply to try to warn foreign powers or disrupt protester moral and call into question this "grassroots" movement.

What do you think the likelihood of foreign involvement is in these protests? In the future?
How much longer will these protests continue?
Will the Chinese Government or the protesters be the first to concede?

Brittany Maynard's Courageous Choice to Die

Article Link

Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in January (barley a year after she married her husband), finding out that she had about six months to live.  She was told that she would have a very long and painful six months.  So instead of sitting in agony waiting for death, she has decided to take her life in her own hands and commit to a physician assisted suicide.  She has moved to Oregon where PAS is legal and has prepared her last day on earth.  She has decided to pass soon after her husbands birthday, has picked the music, room, and the people she wants to spend it with.  The heartbreaking decision is being taken about as well as it can be from her loved ones.  Although it destroys them that Brittany will be gone soon, they say that she is making the best decision for her.  Living life to the fullest and then ending it when she's ready is better than waiting until the cancer squeezes the life out of her.  Being diagnosed at the young age of 29 makes this story even more tragic, but the promise her mother made her sheds a little bit of light.  Her mother has promised to go to Machu Picchu, a place that she is terrified to go, as long as Brittany meets her there in spirit.  Having the physician assisted suicide has brought peace among the family because they know that she will not suffer before she dies.  Brittany says, "Having this choice at the end of my life has become incredibly important. It has given me a sense of peace during a tumultuous time that otherwise would be dominated by fear, uncertainty and pain."

Physician assisted suicide is only legal in five US states.  Oregon being one of them had 71 PASs last year, almost all of the people being over the age of 70.  To prevent people from abusing PAS, patients must show pain, legitimate depression, and be approved by a physician in order to apply.  Some say that life is too precious to just be thrown away and that PAS is unethical.  I believe that PAS is most ethical option.  We euthanize our pets to "take them out of their misery" so why don't we get the same out?  Life is important but so is liberty.  People have the right to make their own decisions and say when enough is enough.

What do you think of PAS?
Is Brittany Maynard making the right decision?
Is it fair to her family?

Columbus Day or Indig

Article Link

While on college tours on Monday, I was reveling in the fact that there was no school when I came across these neon signs protesting the celebration of the man who had given us a day off.  Columbus was known for sailing the ocean blue and discovering America, but given the fact that he killed Indians and took their land has people weary about celebrating him.  Starting this year, Seattle and Minneapolis are no longer celebrating Columbus Day, but are instead celebrating Indigenous People's Day.  Seattle Council member Kshama Sawant says, "Learning about the history of Columbus and transforming this day into a celebration of indigenous people and a celebration of social justice ... allows us to make a connection between this painful history and the ongoing marginalization, discrimination and poverty that indigenous communities face to this day,".  Berkeley, California celebrated Indigenous People's day in 1992 before it was cool.  Although some people are offended by celebrating Columbus day, others are offended by the thought of not celebrating the holiday.  Italian-Americans are angered that their heritage is not being appreciated.  Lisa Marchese, a lawyer affiliated with the Order Sons of Italy in America says, "By this resolution, you say to all Italian-Americans that the city of Seattle no longer deems your heritage or your community worthy of recognition."  It seems that no matter what happens, it is impossible for everyone to be happy.

I believe that Indigenous People's day should be celebrated.  They have suffered more social injustice than imaginable and they deserve a day of reverence.  According to the United Nations General Assembly, International Day of the World's Indigenous People Day has been on August 9th since 1994.  So let's acknowledge that day and really recognize indigenous people.  That being said, I believe that we should still celebrate Columbus Day as well.  Although Columbus did not have great regard for the Indian people and he was the cause of so much pain, suffering and death among the Native Americans, he also was the cause for so much hope and growth.  Without Columbus, America would not be here today and billions of dreams would not have been made.  Columbus might not have "discovered" the land, but he did discover America.  We owe all of this to him, so why not celebrate him and the indigenous people.

Do you think we should celebrate one or the other?

Supreme Court Clears Way for Texas to Enforce Voter ID Law

  

Article Link

This Saturday, the supreme court ruled that it would permit Texas to enforce its new voter ID law that could prevent up to 5% of the states registered voters from casting a ballot. The court's 6-3 ruling, which failed to rule on the constitutionality of the law, allows Texas to begin enforcing this controversial law as early as the upcoming November elections. This all became possible a year ago after Chief Justice John Roberts nullified the part of the famous Voting Rights Act of 1965 that had prevented Southern states with a history of racial discrimination from changing their voting rules in a way that would make it harder for blacks or Latinos to cast a ballot, citing it as an "affront to states' equal sovereignty." Judge Nelva Ramos, in an October 9 ruling in a Texas Court, stated that , "While this is not an absolute barrier to voting, it could and likely will stand in way of tens of thousands of fully qualified voters."

It will be interesting to see if this ruling will pave the way for other states to enforce Voter ID laws like those in Texas, which many consider to be a violation of the 24th Amendment which abolished poll taxes. In the mean time, the Supreme Court has taken its stance and shown that it will do little to protect the right to vote in the courts.

-Are voter ID laws a violation of the 24th Amendment?
-Do you agree with the Court's decision in the Texas Voter ID law case?
-Should the Supreme Court do more to protect the right to vote?

Texas Hospital: "We are deeply sorry"

Article Link

Dr. Daniel Varga, the chief clinical officer of the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital, has recently released statements about the miss handling of the Ebola situation.  When Thomas Eric Duncan, a Liberian who had taken care of his infected daughter flew to Dallas for treatment, he collapsed and was taken to the hospital.   Two caregivers on the team that treated Duncan, have since been infected by the virus.  One of the nurses traveled on a plane to Cleveland while unknowingly contagious, so many of the other passengers have been isolated and are on observation for Ebola symptoms.  Schools surrounding the area have also shut down as a precaution since many of the students were on the flight to Cleveland with the nurse.  Varga has apologized for the chaos and disorganization, “unfortunately, in our initial treatment of Mr. Duncan, despite our best intentions and a highly skilled medical team we made mistakes.” He added: “We did not correctly diagnose his symptoms as those of Ebola. We are deeply sorry.”  Some nurses say that the symptoms were not diagnosed correctly because they were not given correct training or prep for controlling the situation.  The patient was exposed to other patients for a period of time until he was moved to an isolated space, the nurses were not wearing any shoe, leg or neck covers, and they were only wearing single gloves.  The nurses received optional  or no training at all.   Many nurses have said that Ebola has not been treated seriously enough from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.  A local bridal shop that the nurse went to a couple days before she was hospitalized asked for instruction from the center, but got a seemingly unconcerned answer.  They were told to continue buisness as usual only to be called back a couple hours later with a suggestion to check the staff's temperature twice a day for twenty one days.  The bridal shop owner says that she believes they are not taking a serious threat seriously.  

I believe that although Ebola is only transmittable through bodily fluids, it should be taken seriously and with extra caution.  Hospitals should be providing mandatory training for their staff, nurses should not be allowed to travel on planes right now, and anyone who may have contracted the virus or has been with anyone who has should undergo observation for symptoms.  This virus has a 70% death rate and needs to be treated as a serious threat.  Obama has cancelled multiple trips to oversee the Ebola response.  He continually warns other nations to prepare and protect themselves from the spread of this terrible virus.  

How do you think Texas is handling Ebola?

Do the schools need to be shut down?

Should we just lock ourselves in our homes at this point?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/us/obama-cancels-campaign-trip-to-meet-with-cabinet-on-ebola.html?action=click&contentCollection=U.S.&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/us/ebola-dallas-texas-presbyterian-hospital-apology.html

Holt v. Hobbs: Blades in Beards?

Arkansas Department of Corrections
Link to reading

     The case of Holt v. Hobbs is a peculiar case of religious liberty in the United States, in the context of the justice system. Gregory Holt is a Muslim inmate in Arkansas, jailed for "breaking into his ex-girlfriend's house and slitting her throat." Though the actions that put him in jail may be despicable, they are not the focus of this issue. Holt claims that as a Muslim, he must wear a half-inch beard, something that goes directly against Arkansas, which forbids such actions in fear of things like blades and drugs hiding in such beards. In arguing against Arkansas, Holt brought up the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act which essentially says that any government with federal funding can't really do anything to an expression of an inmate's religion unless it's absolutely necessary.
   At the Supreme Court level, Arkansas' case against Holt seems to not be holding up well, with the justices not seeing on the same level as those from Arkansas. One of the justices, Samuel Alito, had dealt with a similar issue in the past, ruling that two Muslim police officers in Newark could grow their beards for religious purposes. Based on his history and as well as his exchange with state lawyer David Curran in the link, it seems like he is in favor of Holt here.
  This case brings up quite a few interesting questions.
- Is Arkansas really acting fairly in their treatment of Holt? The state already allows quarter-inch beards for those with skin conditions and 43 others allow them for all prisoners, so do you think there may be a sort of overreaction or over-stringency present?
-How do you think this case and other similar ones will help shape how to deal with issues regarding modern definitions religious freedom? Will it make a big impact or will it sort of not really do anything? Could the fact that this case is in the Supreme Court sort of help create a sort of protocol for lower courts to follow?
-Holt committed a most serious crime; under this, should he have the same right to religious freedoms in prison, or should he be limited from them? Are Arkansas' fears really justified? Do they have any right to limit religious freedom for this?

Hong Kong Protests: The Chinese Communist Party in the Modern Age

(The Economist (1))

Even as the protests in Hong Kong edge into their 19th day no resolution or compromise can be seen from either side of the conflict. Protestors are seeking a return to the previously instated democracy which was removed with the imposition of a system which grants the control of elections to officials heavily sided with China's Communist Party. The protests themselves have been relatively nonviolent, however as tensions have mounted so have the efforts of police and government officials to contain the public dissatisfaction brewing in Hong Kong. Methods such as negotiating with wealthy Hong Kong residents and shaming the protestors in the media as well as isolating an uneasy Hong Kong from the rest of mainland China have all been used by the Communist Party in order to maintain control over the city and its interactions with the outside world (1). However, the protestors are far from being silenced, and pressure is building over the city, both within China and in the international community.

As you may know China has a history of covering up dissonance not only with media blackouts but with violence. The 1989 Tiananmen Square protests also began as a plea for citizen representation in a largely authoritarian nation, and ended in casualties estimated to be between 241 to 2,600 (2). This violent reaction to peaceful protests spawned international outrage, with economic and arms embargoes stemming from both the E.U. and the U.S.A. (2). Fear of a repeated incident is well justified as cases of police violence against protestors are becoming more and more common in Hong Kong (3) and the Chinese government grows more desperate for a cure to the civil disobedience found in the city. China, possessing the world's now fastest growing economy, may or may not suffer from possible the possible sanctions which would be imposed if there were to be a government crackdown. Additionally, as we have seen in the Ukraine where economic sanctions imposed by Western nations have had little effect on a Russian invasion, international condemnation and sanctions may not be capable of inhibiting a powerful nation's actions. Do you believe that violent action could be a potential outcome of these protests? Or do you prescribe to the belief that an internationally conscious and modernized Communist Party in China will react differently to this situation than it has in previous decades? If violence does occur, will condemnations and sanctions be enough to effectively inhibit further violence and crackdown? Will more jurassic measures be necessary to protect the citizens of Hong Kong?

- Stephen Schick

Ebola in America: Another Case

John Amis/AP Photo

Article Link

      

      This morning (10/13), the second case of Ebola in the United States was confirmed by the Center for Disease Control (CDC). A health care worker who had treated Thomas Eric Duncan, the person who visited relatives in Texas from Africa and died from Ebola on Wednesday, has been tested positive for Ebola. The CDC Director, Dr. Tom Frieden, claims that the worker was infected through a "breach in protocol," although the details of how that happened are still unsure.

    As we all know, the issue of Ebola is absolutely huge worldwide. With the current epidemic in Africa as well as the mounting fears with the recent death of Duncan and the contraction of it by the worker, the need for a solid response becomes all the more pressing. Do you think the worker's contraction of the disease may have had something more to it? Was it really just a "breach in protocol," or is there a problem with how Ebola is being handled right now? Do you think that we could possibly have an Ebola epidemic in the future? Is enough being done to try to combat this threat?

Ebola on a Plane: A Joke too Far?

                                       

Carlo Allegri/Reuters

Article Link

       Today on a US Airways flight from Philadelphia to the Dominican Republic, a 54 year old passenger allegedly yelled out "I have Ebola. You're all screwed," causing panic amongst all those on the plane. Soon after landing, the plane was isolated and a hazmat team came onboard to check the specific passenger, who was found not to actually have Ebola. 

      

     Even though the comments made by the passenger on the plane turned out to be nothing substantive,  the topic at hand was still serious. The current outbreak of Ebola is the largest ever recorded, significantly influencing public hysteria as people begin to worry about it rapidly spreading elsewhere, causing more casualties. Though it has not been made clear yet that the passenger was either making the joke or mentally ill, we can still question the fundamentals of humor in regards to prevalent issues.  What is an accepted limit for how far humor can go? Cartoonists and comedians can lampoon nearly everything, but where does "everything" begin and end?

    An event like this is an interesting insight into how we, as a general public, react to such things as in this flight. We laugh at caricatures of Kim Jong Un and presidential candidates. We laugh at the racist jokes made by comedians. But do we laugh at the threat of Ebola? I personally see Ebola as a sort of "flavor of the month" in regards to world issues. Just recently, we were concerned over actions Russia was taking, but now we just sort of don't take any heed to it. I'm not saying that Ebola isn't a threat that we should be wary of, but that we need to lighten up a little bit. Just because of what's happening now doesn't mean that we should be oversensitive to it. 

-What do you think of this incident?

-Do you condone the passenger's actions?

-Do you think this could have been handled better in general?

-Is a story like this even worth media attention?

Are Online Drugs a Good Thing?

As many might remember the Silk Road, an online black market in the darknet, was shut down in October 2013 when the FBI could finally hack through the site themselves and arrest vendors as well as the creator of the site who was in San Francisco at the time. While this was perceived as a large victory against the growing corruption in the virtual world in truth it was barely even a speed bump in the sales of illegal substances and products online, and if anything it raised crime. With almost a year since the incident, there have been almost 18 other sites to take the place of the silk road, with the top grossing site of the Silk Road 2.0 offering a whopping 47,000 different drug listings from vendors. To give a little insight towards the amount of sales that are being made on this site it is estimated that a quarter of the profit is approx 20 million. As this shows, while the name of the site may change or be disbanded the market has not budged a bit and will continue to be strong. But while names come and go, many have thought about keeping the Silk Road 2.0 stay around due to the key aspect of being able to rate each product. By being able to rate each product, it has ensured a quality product, as shown by FBI testing, leading to a safer market and less deaths due to drugs. In addition sites like the Silk Road 2.0 take drug trades off the street and reduce crime levels across the nation. So is it right to uphold the law when it may hurt society in the long run, or do they make and exception and help end both deaths and crimes due to drugs?

The Students' Call for Democracy: Hong Kong Responds

Tomohiro Ohsumi/Bloomberg Bloomberg Article       So, by now, we should have a fairly good idea about what’s happening in Hong Kong regarding the students and the government. If you want to see sort of a preface to what’s this article is talking about, check out Jimmy Lynde’s post from September, linked here. To summarize, China wants to place some stricter restrictions on Hong Kong, formerly held by Great Britain, in regards to how candidates will be chosen for elections there as well as some other specific changes. The public, led by the students didn't like this, so they began to protest, an act that the Chinese government reacted rather sourly to.  This conflict had hit sort of a high point, with militarized vehicles (thanks again Jimmy) being sent in to sort of intimidate protestors. However, conflict is in sort of a lull right now, due to the Hong Kong city government willing to talk with student protestors over the general constitutionality of political changes. This may not be a general solution to the initial problem, but I believe it is a sort of step in the right direction, as discussion may foster some sort of realization for the Hong Kong government; this is sort of extremely hopeful and idealistic though, given the state of the Chinese government as a whole. Based on how these talks go, two radically different results could come out. The first is if the talks do succeed, then protests will quiet down and the public (especially the students) will be happy. The other result is if the talks fail, then protests could continue, and we could see greater, possibly even more forceful government intervention. This whole story brings to mind a few interesting questions: -As the students are an extremely vocal group in pushing for change, are they really reflective of all of Hong Kong? Is this accurate public opinion? -Are there possible dangers with allowing the public to choose their own candidate? Yes, it's more democratic, but is that always necessarily the best thing? Could a government-chosen candidate even be better for Hong Kong? -If protester demands are met, what happens from there? If they are able to get what they want, would they try for more? What if they don't get what they want? Would they try harder or just give up? -If protests were to continue, what do you think China might do? Could we possibly have something reminiscent of Tiananmen Square?

Hacking: A Modern Sex Crime?

                                                (Gage Skidmore via Wikipedia Commons)

                                                         Jennifer Lawrence Article CNN
   
     
            As background to this story, on August 31st, 2014, on the notorious internet imageboard known as "4chan," nude pictures of celebrities were publicly posted for the world to see and subsequently share. News regarding this incident, popularly referred to on the internet world as "The Fappening," spread like wildfire, with news sources and individuals alike eager to their hands on they mystery that was surrounding this issue. How were the pictures even accessed in the first place? Why now? As more details came to light in the coming weeks since the initial release of the pictures, it became clear that the pictures came from hacking into targeted celebrities' iClouds.

           Now, more than a month after the issue first came up, the dust is finally starting to settle around this whole leak, with the release of pictures slowing down as well as tighter internet control with helping stop the spread of them. Just today, a cover story interview by Vanity Fair with Jennifer Lawrence, one of the targeted celebrities, was released. In this interview, Lawrence firmly stated that "it is not a scandal. It is a sex crime," condemning both the hackers who released the images and the people who looked at the images of both her and other celebrities.

         This is interesting on a few different levels. First, it is interesting to see how Lawrence is drawing the line between a "scandal" and a "sex crime." In all honestly, I personally agree with her, as the complete infiltration of privacy that comes from the inherent nature of hacking as well as the sharing of these images by the internet community transcends that of what a mere scandal is. A scandal is something that is more alleged or sort of sketchy. In this situation, Lawrence's private pictures are being completely exploited for money (as they were initially bought) and personal pleasure. Though there may not be a category of sex crime that can currently fit this exact situation, the premise of exploitation still lays inherent. Another thing to keep in mind is being able to trust modern security and storage on the internet. Cloud-type storage systems are quite common now, with such being usually default on lots of current technology such as the smartphone. However, is it really alright for us to put so much faith into something that we don't really know much about? In trying to integrate "bigger and better" technology more and more quickly into our daily lives, we may be sort of failing to see its shortcomings and vulnerabilities.

Anyway, here's a couple questions for you guys to think about:
-What do you think about Jennifer Lawrence's statement regarding the issue. Is is a scandal, sex crime, or something else?
- What do you think of media and public response in regards to the issue? I didn't totally go into it here, but I know that celebrity bloggers like Perez Hilton had shared images (but censored) to his site. Websites like Reddit had entire sections dedicated to sharing the images (though this page eventually banned).
-How does public perception play into this issue? Just because the nudes are of specific celebrities, why does that have to make them any more special than those of non-celebrities? Do we place too much faith into the image of the modern celebrity?
-Do we rely too much on the espoused (and assumed) merits of technology? Do we need to pay more attention to its shortcomings? Is modern technology just an entire market of spin?

the mystery of North Korea

North Korea’s history has always confused and horrified many as it is filled with illogical decisions and inhumane actions, but once again they manage to confuse the whole world. On Friday, top officials from North Korea went to visit the South Korean government with no communication prior to their arrival, as South Korea was only able to even broadcast the North Korean’s arrival one hour prior to arrival. Among the North Korean delegation, was Hwang Pyong So and Choe Ryong Hae, two of the most influential men in North korea whom are thought of as the right hand men to Kim Jong Un himself. While there, the two governments discussed the possibility of increased communication between the two countries. As if this was not odd enough, Kim Jong Un has also not been seen for an entire month and was last shown in a weakened state due to illness.

What does this mean for North Korea and what were their true intentions? Does this reveal Kim’s current weak and vulnerable state, or an achievement for still managing delicate communications with South Korea while feeling under the weather.Is this an event to mark a beginning towards piece, or are there more cynical motives?

(Photo credit given to ABC News)

Is Obama a Misogynist?

Article

Summary of the Incident

Just today, October 3, 2014 Obama came out as hating women. Saying that his wife, of twenty-two years today, had to "be very patient with him," because men just "[aren't] as smart." Obviously he thinks that he's superior to her. The way he "supports" her in her claims about sexism. Obviously his sole goal, as he systematically destroys America is to perpetuate stereotypes about women in the home. He started by supporting his wife in her efforts to help America be healthier. Then sealed the deal by signing a federal mandate requiring equal pay for women on April third of this year. By allowing women to become equal to men he's just trying to highlight the fact that they aren't equal yet and that men should take advantage of that while they still can. Because simply complimenting, and honoring your wife on your anniversary? Ha, nice try Obama, you're not gonna pull this over on me. I still want to see your birth certificate!

This was my bad attempt at satire. Let me know what you think and how I can improve in the future! My point is Obama has actually done so much for women. He mandated, not asked mandated, that women be paid equal to men. And if you think someone who's been married to a woman who has advocated and fought for women's rights almost eight years doesn't think that women are equal in every way shape and form is kidding themselves. Could you see Obama's words as perpetuating the stereotypes of society. Yes, you could if you refused to look at the context and decided only to see Obama telling a woman she has to do something. I think this ties in with my article about over-sensitivity in media really well. I'm not perfect with sexism. I love to joke, and sometimes, many times I don't understand anything. My sister has actually physically beaten me over it, and I'm learning. One could say, "it's not her job to teach you. It's your job to learn." Yeah, and I try. I generally get it wrong, but I try. People who know me know that I believe that women are equal to men, even my sister who said I was a misogynist for thinking Kristen Stewart is a bad actress(she has zero emotion). If one took even a milli-second to see. He's not trying to offend anyone. He has fought as hard, if not harder for women, than Kennedy for signing the equal pay act, , and he was a complete womanizer who said he needed to have sex three times a day to avoid headaches from not having sex. Obama has no such problem that I, or anyone is aware of. I think that while not everything should be said; in no way do I believe that, but I think it is important to see that President Barack Obama isn't assigning another job that women have to perform as their duty as a woman, but being lighthearted with a bride about to go through the biggest change of her life. Leave your comments below. I'm not perfect please let me know where my argument falls short, and how it should be.

How Safe are we???

In today's day and time, we entrust our devices to store almost every piece of information about ourselves, from our name to our social security numbers and addresses. Most recently,  the U.S. has been making large strides in the tech industry further integrating society into technology. Current examples of this would include, further automation of wall street as well as the push in the pentagon for online voting. First, as far as wall street goes, the government now has almost 50% of trades for the US government debt in bonds to give traders a more competitive edge, leaving the prosecution of millions of orders left to a machine. To continue, the pentagon now is investing millions on online voting, giving a voice to those who may be unable to reach a voting poll such as our soldiers in other nations.

But is it really safe? We like to think that our government is impenetrable from any attack, living up to the superpower image that has been created for our nation, but it simply is not true. As of recently, it was made public that JP Morgan Chase-the largest bank in the US- was hacked and that the information of 76 million was breached releasing addresses emails and banking information. While this is one of the largest and most frightening security breaches for America in a while it represents a trend of hacking that is becoming too common in our society. Large companies such as Target, Home Depot, and many more name brands are now being targeted with little to no defense. With so many Issues of security it brings to question, is the government doing enough. Are they providing enough protection for the private sector? Is it right to move forward with integrating society into technology with so much uncertainty in privacy?

Anti-Semitism in America? No Way!?!?!?

Article

This week a coffee shop owner's annti-semitic rants went viral. Yeah, anti-semitic, in the twenty-first century, in America. Basically this man blames "greedy Jews," who function "via greed and dominance," for trying to buy out Bushwick, New York. His rants go on, and I won't post them here so as to not spread his seeds elsewhere, but my main question is; while we should definitelly take offense, and in no way condone such behavior, is it the right thing to do to blow it up? While this is crazy, I hardly think that it's worth front page news, and merely gives him the fifteen minutes of fame he's looking for. It might even be better to ignore it all together. The chance of changing his belief is slim to none. People, especially those willing to put up long facebook essays about his disdain for a group of people is going to need a life altering event in order to change his mind, but blowing him up serves to merely spread what he is saying to where people who can identify with his issue might be subversed into understanding his stance, and possibly believing his beliefs. I think that, especially on a national level, and even a state level, this kind of news should not even be reported on. Should it condoned? No. Should it be stopped? Heck yeah, but I think the way society has been going about it, villifying and shaming for all to see doesn't get the job done. If people have a problem, boycott the store, drive him out of business. Force him to make a formal apology. I would love to read an article about how people came together to fight anti-semitism as opposed to opps there's another racist with a big mouth who figured out how to work Facebook. What do you guys think? How should society deal with people like this Bushwick coffee vendor?

What is Appropriate Anymore?

The Article

This article is a double-whammy. First it hits you with overprotection in our schools. In North Carolina The Bluest Eyes by Toni Morrison was banned from East Wake High School as parents complained that it is too explicit and was compared to Fifty Shades of Grey in that it promotes sex and pornography. While I don't doubt the talent of the author of Fifty Shades of Grey, I highly doubt that the book offers any insight into the America's history of racial and social injustice; and I, without any hesitation, and having read Beloved by the same author, which dips into some of the same topics about ugly humanity, racism, and sex, as well as the added bonus of beastiality, would say that there is no way that this novel read by bored moms in bookclub compares in any way with the pure genius, intricate plots and symbols, or sheer purposeful insanity of Morison's Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winning masterpiece, and anyone trying to banned it from their school for that comparison is ignorant. For a more arguable idea. Should Toni Morrison's works, which could easily be considered innapropriate, be banned? Do their genius and relevance overpower the topics which might not be for kids? I believe that there is too much protection in society. Obviously parents want to protect their children from what they see is bad, but on some level these kids(look at me saying kids when I'm practically/actually their age) need to figure out what they think is okay. For me, reading Beloved taught me a lot about who I am and what I think is okay. While some of the actions in the book are greusome and unbearable, as well as hardly understandable, the work taught me the lesson it wanted to teach about the greusomeness of slavery and the dehumanizing affects of slavery. I won't get too far into my experience with Beloved, but what do you think? Should possibly morally wrong books, with actions deemed wrong for kids be allowed in schools if they have been deemed literary genius? Where is the line drawn? The second part of this article talks about Common Core. Our favorite form of testing. Do you like Common Core? Why or why not?