Sunday, November 3, 2013
Blogging
I know it has been a long time since I have posted anything but I plan on fixing that. I should have a post up every other week or so from now on.
Monday, July 1, 2013
NSA
What the National Security Agency is doing is awful. Citizens of the United States and foreigners should not have the NSA spying on their internet use unless there is evidence suggesting they may be a threat to national security. The problem here is the NSA is not only spying on people who may be a threat, they are spying on a large portion of the United States population .
The odd thing is there has been no uproar against private companies using a similar technique, except they are not using the information to protect national security they are using it for marketing. It seems as if people should be more upset that companies such as Microsoft and Google have virtually identical information that they glean using data mining, because they are less accountable than the government.
The reason companies can and should be able to do this is because we agree to their terms and conditions. In the terms and conditions we allow them to sell our information for marketing. If we do not want them to do this, we can simply not use the program but the government has never had us agree to anything saying they can spy on us.
We are protected from the government spying on us in this way in the fourth amendment when it says that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This says we are protected against unreasonable searches. What the NSA is doing is searching our internet activity without any warrant or probable cause, which is unreasonable.
Edward Snowden, the person that released the classified documents that brought this information to light, did the right thing, but what he did was also illegal. He stole classified government property which is a crime and should be punished for it. Despite the fact he did the right thing, criminals must be given a fair trial and punished accordingly or else a precedent is set where not all criminals are punished because they did the "right" thing.
The United States Government will continue to hunt Snowden regardless of what the American public wants, as they should, but the NSA and all those involved should be punished for what they have done.
The odd thing is there has been no uproar against private companies using a similar technique, except they are not using the information to protect national security they are using it for marketing. It seems as if people should be more upset that companies such as Microsoft and Google have virtually identical information that they glean using data mining, because they are less accountable than the government.
The reason companies can and should be able to do this is because we agree to their terms and conditions. In the terms and conditions we allow them to sell our information for marketing. If we do not want them to do this, we can simply not use the program but the government has never had us agree to anything saying they can spy on us.
We are protected from the government spying on us in this way in the fourth amendment when it says that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This says we are protected against unreasonable searches. What the NSA is doing is searching our internet activity without any warrant or probable cause, which is unreasonable.
Edward Snowden, the person that released the classified documents that brought this information to light, did the right thing, but what he did was also illegal. He stole classified government property which is a crime and should be punished for it. Despite the fact he did the right thing, criminals must be given a fair trial and punished accordingly or else a precedent is set where not all criminals are punished because they did the "right" thing.
The United States Government will continue to hunt Snowden regardless of what the American public wants, as they should, but the NSA and all those involved should be punished for what they have done.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Syria and Russia
It seems as if the current Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on the rebels. Obama said that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be the "red line". Even though the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons, Obama has not put troops in Syria and for good reason.
Israel, on the other hand, has taken a more direct approach to the use of chemical weapons in Syria with recent airstrikes to weapon caches held by the regime. The main reason they have taken a more direct approach is because they are very close geographically. Israel does not want Islamic extremists to take control of the Syrian government, due to the fact the Islamic extremists would want to take back the territory Israel occupies.
On a different note about Syria, Russia has said that they will sell S-300's to Syria even after much pressuring from other countries. S-300's are advanced air defense missile. This will not help help appease the U.S. after the recent Boston Marathon bombing. The assumed culprits had ties to Russia and it appears that Russian security forces may have known that Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his brother were extremists. Which has increased tensions between the U.S. and Russia.
With the Russians claiming to have caught a CIA agent not long after the Boston Marathon bombing, tensions between the U.S. and Russia are becoming worse and worse. In the next few months, both the U.S. and Russia will try and help ease the tensions, though Russia may be more reluctant now. The U.S. and Russia must approach this delicately, otherwise tensions will only heighten.
On a different note about Syria, Russia has said that they will sell S-300's to Syria even after much pressuring from other countries. S-300's are advanced air defense missile. This will not help help appease the U.S. after the recent Boston Marathon bombing. The assumed culprits had ties to Russia and it appears that Russian security forces may have known that Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his brother were extremists. Which has increased tensions between the U.S. and Russia.
With the Russians claiming to have caught a CIA agent not long after the Boston Marathon bombing, tensions between the U.S. and Russia are becoming worse and worse. In the next few months, both the U.S. and Russia will try and help ease the tensions, though Russia may be more reluctant now. The U.S. and Russia must approach this delicately, otherwise tensions will only heighten.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
North Korea again
Well it seems North Korea is at it again, they once again have threatened the U.S. and South Korea. Not only that, there was a cyber attack on South Korea which is assumed to be from North Korea.
While it sounds obvious that North Korea is the one doing these cyber attacks it is not certain. Another possibility is that someone is trying to frame North Korea for the attacks. There are many people that may want to do this. Though if I were to put money on it I would say North Korea was responsible.
North Korea recently warned that they could not insure the protection of the diplomats from other nations in North Korea in the event of a war. Along with the fact they withdrew workers from Kaesong and the fact they warned visitors to South Korea to be careful shows that they believe that scare tactics will work. Whether or not they will has yet to be seen.
While it is less likely it is always possible that a terrorist group may have been the ones responsible for the cyber attack.
Extremists in the Middle East may be the ones behind it, but because it has not been their style in the past to remain anonymous after an attack, I highly doubt they are the responsible party.The reason they would target South Korea is to make the U.S. retaliate against North Korea and have a war start between the U.S, her allies, and North Korea.
It could very well be a different terrorist group not originating in the Middle East. It may also be that it is a terrorist group that wants to hurt South Korea specifically and has no quarrel with the U.S. If I were to place money on who was responsible I would say North Korea. With the continued threats coming almost daily, it is obvious they wish to at the very least make us afraid that they will attack the world.
While it sounds obvious that North Korea is the one doing these cyber attacks it is not certain. Another possibility is that someone is trying to frame North Korea for the attacks. There are many people that may want to do this. Though if I were to put money on it I would say North Korea was responsible.
North Korea recently warned that they could not insure the protection of the diplomats from other nations in North Korea in the event of a war. Along with the fact they withdrew workers from Kaesong and the fact they warned visitors to South Korea to be careful shows that they believe that scare tactics will work. Whether or not they will has yet to be seen.
While it is less likely it is always possible that a terrorist group may have been the ones responsible for the cyber attack.
Extremists in the Middle East may be the ones behind it, but because it has not been their style in the past to remain anonymous after an attack, I highly doubt they are the responsible party.The reason they would target South Korea is to make the U.S. retaliate against North Korea and have a war start between the U.S, her allies, and North Korea.
It could very well be a different terrorist group not originating in the Middle East. It may also be that it is a terrorist group that wants to hurt South Korea specifically and has no quarrel with the U.S. If I were to place money on who was responsible I would say North Korea. With the continued threats coming almost daily, it is obvious they wish to at the very least make us afraid that they will attack the world.
Friday, March 8, 2013
North Korea
North Korea once again has made a move against the rest of the world, specifically the U.S. and South Korea. While technically still at war, North and South Korea have not had open conflict in many years due to an agreement that was titled the Non Aggression Act. Just recently, North Korea said that they were canceling the Non Aggression Act, which could mean war in the Korean Peninsula. But because North Korea does not have the strength to pose a major threat to the rest of the world, this is likely just a bluff.
Not only have they torn up the non-aggression act with South Korea, they have also threatened preemptive nuclear attack on the U.S. They made this claim right before the U.N. placed further restrictions on them. What the further restrictions will do to change North Korea's attitude is unknown; it could either make them change their policies to embrace more of a western ideal, or become more aggressive. However, the odds are that the restrictions won't change North Korea's attitude toward the rest of the world.
North Korea is still has quite a while to go before it will actually be a threat to the U.S. but the fact that some time in the future they may have the capabilities of shooting a nuclear missile at the U.S. is still something to be worried about.
It is unknown exactly what China will do, but they have made it quite clear that they want peace on the Korean Peninsula. China being North Korea's main ally will play a crucial role in deciding the fate of the Korean Peninsula.
It is unclear what North Korea is attempting to do here. Why North Korea would tell everyone they were canceling the Non Aggression Act is rather mysterious. If they were to go to war with South Korea it makes more sense for it to come completely out of nowhere. That way, they would have the element of surprise on their side. It may be that Kim Jong-Un is trying to show the world that he is a man to be feared, but he still knows he does not have the capability to face off against the Western World and her allies.
Not only have they torn up the non-aggression act with South Korea, they have also threatened preemptive nuclear attack on the U.S. They made this claim right before the U.N. placed further restrictions on them. What the further restrictions will do to change North Korea's attitude is unknown; it could either make them change their policies to embrace more of a western ideal, or become more aggressive. However, the odds are that the restrictions won't change North Korea's attitude toward the rest of the world.
North Korea is still has quite a while to go before it will actually be a threat to the U.S. but the fact that some time in the future they may have the capabilities of shooting a nuclear missile at the U.S. is still something to be worried about.
It is unknown exactly what China will do, but they have made it quite clear that they want peace on the Korean Peninsula. China being North Korea's main ally will play a crucial role in deciding the fate of the Korean Peninsula.
It is unclear what North Korea is attempting to do here. Why North Korea would tell everyone they were canceling the Non Aggression Act is rather mysterious. If they were to go to war with South Korea it makes more sense for it to come completely out of nowhere. That way, they would have the element of surprise on their side. It may be that Kim Jong-Un is trying to show the world that he is a man to be feared, but he still knows he does not have the capability to face off against the Western World and her allies.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Pope resignation
This could be a very good thing for the Catholic religion, and not because Pope Benedict had his flaws, but because it sets a precedent for a pope to resign if they are unfit for duty for the church.
The reason that a pope has not resigned more recently is due to a combination of reasons. One major reason is the idea of tradition. Traditionally, popes have held office until they die. Another reason is because people become addicted to power, and because they are addicted to this power they will try to rule for as long as they can even if they are not fit for the job.
Before people start yelling at me saying the Pope is infallible, we have to see the fact that he is still human. Whether you believe that the pope directly communicates with God, or if you believe in something else, or nothing at all, we all have to admit that past popes have not always been the best people. So even if they do communicate with God, it does not make them perfect. If you want an example, look at Pope Alexander VI.
Before people start yelling at me saying the Pope is infallible, we have to see the fact that he is still human. Whether you believe that the pope directly communicates with God, or if you believe in something else, or nothing at all, we all have to admit that past popes have not always been the best people. So even if they do communicate with God, it does not make them perfect. If you want an example, look at Pope Alexander VI.
What Pope Benedict does is set a precedent for future popes to resign if they are unfit for their service to the church, which is a great step forward for the Catholic church in general. Whether or not you agree with the Vatican, it is good for the entire world if future popes begin resigning after they are unfit for service to the Catholic church.What this will actually mean for future popes and the world as a whole is unclear, but it certainly looks like a step in the right direction.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Women in the military
Very recently women were allowed to fight in some combat military positions. This is a step for true equality among the sexes in the U.S. The fact that women were not allowed to serve in combat roles shows just how sexist our country still is.
The idea that there is equality among the sexes in the U.S. is ridiculous. While women should be equal to men, they are not in the U.S. and it will take a while longer until they are. Women are often times not as paid as much as men simply because they are not men and only recently this has gotten media attention.
It is not just how women are paid or how they are not able to do certain jobs, it is also how they are treated on a more individual level. Many people find women to be delicate and think they are not up to the tasks that men are up to. It is true that some women can't do things men can, but there are also men who cannot do the tasks that the stereotypical man can. Going off that point there are things some men can't do that women can.
While it is not official government policy to have sexist laws, the fact that just now women are able to serve in combat positions in the military show just how sexist the U.S. still is.
The truth is that there are many differences between men and women, but neither men nor women should be treated differently just because they are a certain gender. People should be judged by the skills that they have and the skills that they lack, and not by if they are a certain gender or come from a different ethnic background.
The idea that there is equality among the sexes in the U.S. is ridiculous. While women should be equal to men, they are not in the U.S. and it will take a while longer until they are. Women are often times not as paid as much as men simply because they are not men and only recently this has gotten media attention.
It is not just how women are paid or how they are not able to do certain jobs, it is also how they are treated on a more individual level. Many people find women to be delicate and think they are not up to the tasks that men are up to. It is true that some women can't do things men can, but there are also men who cannot do the tasks that the stereotypical man can. Going off that point there are things some men can't do that women can.
While it is not official government policy to have sexist laws, the fact that just now women are able to serve in combat positions in the military show just how sexist the U.S. still is.
The truth is that there are many differences between men and women, but neither men nor women should be treated differently just because they are a certain gender. People should be judged by the skills that they have and the skills that they lack, and not by if they are a certain gender or come from a different ethnic background.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Gun control
The idea that people should be able to buy any gun they want is one of the worst ideas imaginable, but people should also be able to own some firearms. There is a happy middle ground but people seem to believe that either we should be able to own whatever gun we want or we shouldn't own any guns.
The argument that people make for no gun control is that guns don't kill people people kill people which is true but guns make it easier for people to kill people. Another argument used is that guns can protect people, but guns end up causing more deaths than they prevent.
People that are for gun control bring up the statistics showing countries with more regulations have fewer deaths caused by guns. Even though this is true people still should be able to own guns because if we make that argument it can be used on virtually anything. It just leads to the government taking away more of our liberties.
People should be able to own some guns but there has to be some regulations on it.
The argument that people make for no gun control is that guns don't kill people people kill people which is true but guns make it easier for people to kill people. Another argument used is that guns can protect people, but guns end up causing more deaths than they prevent.
People that are for gun control bring up the statistics showing countries with more regulations have fewer deaths caused by guns. Even though this is true people still should be able to own guns because if we make that argument it can be used on virtually anything. It just leads to the government taking away more of our liberties.
People should be able to own some guns but there has to be some regulations on it.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
In regards to my last post
I am just clarifying a few things about my last post.
North Korea is not stupid; they will not go to war with the world unless there is a possibility of them winning. There is always the possibility that diplomatic relations may change and in that case war may not be certain.
I apologize about how long it took me to clarify my last post but I was in India and was unable to access the Internet.
North Korea is not stupid; they will not go to war with the world unless there is a possibility of them winning. There is always the possibility that diplomatic relations may change and in that case war may not be certain.
I apologize about how long it took me to clarify my last post but I was in India and was unable to access the Internet.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Syrian conflict on Turkey's border
Russia and China originally stonewalled more U.N. and NATO involvement in Syria because Russia was selling weapons to Syria. From Russia's viewpoint, the longer the war went on the more money they would make.
Three day ago NATO moved forward with its plan to have Patriot missiles on the border between Turkey and Syria. NATO insists the only reason these missiles are being installed is to protect their ally Turkey. The main reason they have done this is to make sure Syria does not use chemical weapons deployed through missiles against the rebels. NATO is simply using the excuse of protecting Turkey so they can put more pressure on Syria without China and Russia stonewalling them by blocking the countries that are in the U.N. from taking action, effectively cutting off NATO from doing anything even though they are not NATO members.
Russia said that Moscow would not protest Patriot missiles being put on the border between Turkey and Syria if they were for the defense of Turkey only. The only reason that NATO has the excuse that they are simply protecting Turkish citizens is because five Turkish citizens were killed by a missile that came from Syria, even though most likely that missile was a misfire.
Just hours after NATO set up Patriot missiles on the Syrian border, Russia delivered its first shipment of Iskander missiles to Syria. What NATO did ended up backfiring on them. Its true that there is slightly more pressure on Syria but Syria also now has Iskander which helps the Syrian government immensely.
Iskander missiles are designed to get past missile defense systems. They are of Russian make and are extremely successful at pinpoint accuracy and getting past missile defense systems.
After NATO said that there were signs that Syria would begin to use chemical weapons against the rebels, Russia stated that the Syrian government had assured them that they would not use chemical weapons against the rebels.However, with the Iskander missiles that Russia sold to Syria they now have a very effective way of attacking the rebels with chemical weapons. It remains to be seen if they will or not.
Syria is worried that the U.N. will frame them for using chemical weapons against the rebels. It is very likely that the U.N. is trying to find a way to frame Syria because if Syria uses chemical weapons the U.S. will become directly involved in the conflict there.
Russia delivered these missiles to Syria so NATO would not easily be able to shoot down missiles shot in Syria. Russia and China will now continue to stonewall the U.N. and NATO now that Russia is once again selling weapons to Syria.
Three day ago NATO moved forward with its plan to have Patriot missiles on the border between Turkey and Syria. NATO insists the only reason these missiles are being installed is to protect their ally Turkey. The main reason they have done this is to make sure Syria does not use chemical weapons deployed through missiles against the rebels. NATO is simply using the excuse of protecting Turkey so they can put more pressure on Syria without China and Russia stonewalling them by blocking the countries that are in the U.N. from taking action, effectively cutting off NATO from doing anything even though they are not NATO members.
Russia said that Moscow would not protest Patriot missiles being put on the border between Turkey and Syria if they were for the defense of Turkey only. The only reason that NATO has the excuse that they are simply protecting Turkish citizens is because five Turkish citizens were killed by a missile that came from Syria, even though most likely that missile was a misfire.
Just hours after NATO set up Patriot missiles on the Syrian border, Russia delivered its first shipment of Iskander missiles to Syria. What NATO did ended up backfiring on them. Its true that there is slightly more pressure on Syria but Syria also now has Iskander which helps the Syrian government immensely.
Iskander missiles are designed to get past missile defense systems. They are of Russian make and are extremely successful at pinpoint accuracy and getting past missile defense systems.
Syria is worried that the U.N. will frame them for using chemical weapons against the rebels. It is very likely that the U.N. is trying to find a way to frame Syria because if Syria uses chemical weapons the U.S. will become directly involved in the conflict there.
Russia delivered these missiles to Syria so NATO would not easily be able to shoot down missiles shot in Syria. Russia and China will now continue to stonewall the U.N. and NATO now that Russia is once again selling weapons to Syria.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Gay rights
Homosexual people should have all the same rights that everyone else has for quite a few reasons. It is true that people who are homosexual have a trait that makes them different from the majority of people, but that does not mean they don't deserve the same rights.
There is nothing wrong with being attracted to people of the same gender. It just means you have a trait that is different from the majority of people, but there is nothing wrong with that. Someone who is handicapped is different from the majority of people, but he or she still gets the same right as everyone else. So why shouldn't homosexuals get the same rights as well?
Homosexuality does nothing to hurt us in any way. If anything, it helps society, because gay people cannot reproduce with each other without the assistance of technology. Therefore, they are not adding to the population burden the world is currently facing. If they are not doing anything to hurt people, they deserve all the same rights that everyone else does.
People argue that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because that is not abiding by what God told us to do. Even if that is true, there is still the separation of church and state. Legal recognition of marriage is a civil agreement, not a religious one. There is absolutely no reason that homosexual people should be punished or have different rights from other people.
There is nothing wrong with being attracted to people of the same gender. It just means you have a trait that is different from the majority of people, but there is nothing wrong with that. Someone who is handicapped is different from the majority of people, but he or she still gets the same right as everyone else. So why shouldn't homosexuals get the same rights as well?
Homosexuality does nothing to hurt us in any way. If anything, it helps society, because gay people cannot reproduce with each other without the assistance of technology. Therefore, they are not adding to the population burden the world is currently facing. If they are not doing anything to hurt people, they deserve all the same rights that everyone else does.
People argue that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because that is not abiding by what God told us to do. Even if that is true, there is still the separation of church and state. Legal recognition of marriage is a civil agreement, not a religious one. There is absolutely no reason that homosexual people should be punished or have different rights from other people.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Fiscal cliff
One of the major reasons that there has not been much progress on the fiscal cliff is because the republicans believe that Obama and the democrats will give in to avoid the fiscal cliff. The republicans believe that the democrats will budge because they always have in recent events.
They believe that even though they lost the presidential election they can still act like they won, and can ignore the wishes of the American public. If Obama and the democrats wish to finally convince the American public that they are not just pushovers, they can't give in to the republicans and just cut spending without increasing taxes, even if it means going over the fiscal cliff.
It appears, though, that the republicans might be willing to compromise, which is a step in the right direction because we can't just have tax increases or just spending cuts. Neither is enough to reduce the deficit. What we have to do is make the tax rate for the wealthy the same as it is for the middle class, and we also have to cut unnecessary spending.
They believe that even though they lost the presidential election they can still act like they won, and can ignore the wishes of the American public. If Obama and the democrats wish to finally convince the American public that they are not just pushovers, they can't give in to the republicans and just cut spending without increasing taxes, even if it means going over the fiscal cliff.
It appears, though, that the republicans might be willing to compromise, which is a step in the right direction because we can't just have tax increases or just spending cuts. Neither is enough to reduce the deficit. What we have to do is make the tax rate for the wealthy the same as it is for the middle class, and we also have to cut unnecessary spending.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Tax increase on wealthy
It seems that the republicans are beginning to consider the option of raising taxes on the wealthy. Republican speaker John Boehner stated on Wednesday that one places we will get revenue will come from the top 2% of Americans. What he proposed was to cut the loopholes for the very rich, effectively raising the amount that they pay on income tax. While it is true that that is not raising the taxes on the wealthy, they will still pay more than they currently pay.
A full 22,000 households that made more than $1 million in 2009 paid less than 15 percent of their income in income taxes — and 1,470 managed to pay no federal income taxes on their million-plus-dollar incomes, according to the IRS. This is unacceptable, we cannot allow the very rich to pay a smaller percent income tax than the middle class. Many people want there to be a higher income tax rate on the wealthy than there is on the middle class but we can not let that happen either. If we were to have there be higher tax rates on the wealthy, we would be punishing them by making them pay a higher percent for being successful. We cannot live in a country that punishes success.
A full 22,000 households that made more than $1 million in 2009 paid less than 15 percent of their income in income taxes — and 1,470 managed to pay no federal income taxes on their million-plus-dollar incomes, according to the IRS. This is unacceptable, we cannot allow the very rich to pay a smaller percent income tax than the middle class. Many people want there to be a higher income tax rate on the wealthy than there is on the middle class but we can not let that happen either. If we were to have there be higher tax rates on the wealthy, we would be punishing them by making them pay a higher percent for being successful. We cannot live in a country that punishes success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)