Regarding the very prominent privacy commentary lately, I couldn't have put it better than Mr. Pinion did in his blog posting "The Cost of Anonymity." While I admittedly resign to the fact that my data is being collected and catalogued and I protest that fact very infrequently (I like having an iPhone way too much), it does cause my hairs to raise on end when I imagine the possibility that all of that data could be held against me in the future—for whatever cause. We have a right to privacy, and I think it's horribly sad that we can't enjoy the benefits of having the Internet and cool gadgets without signing our names in blood and accepting the terms of having our every action recorded.
But it's not only about the gadgets. It's in human nature to feel a little creeped out when you know you're being spied on. This is supposed to be a country of freedom. We should be able to do what we want (within reason) without feeling like there's a Grand Overseer watching our every move. I think the government has crossed the threshold of necessary prying. True, the data analysis may be useful for preventing crimes from taking place, but there's a certain limit to divination that we as humans should just accept. Perhaps we should make an amendment for fixing our nation's "Cruel and Unusual Peeping Problem?"
Monday, December 9, 2013
Monday, December 2, 2013
Don't Feed the Animals
Once again, I ironically find myself siding with the Republicans on an issue. I believe I have mentioned before in other posts that I tend to be Democratic in thought, but on some issues, I can’t help but consider the Republicans’ side a more reasonable one. Regardless, this particular topic is a difficult one for me to choose a definite side on, but I shall write from the side of the Republican since that is where I feel most certain.
On NPR, I came across this article about an issue that’s causing a lot of trouble amongst the unemployed in the U.S. Congress has once again dead-ended themselves at another due date, and this time, it is the expiration of the extended unemployment benefits program that was started when the recession first hit. While Democrats are arguing that the program ought to be extended further, Republicans are insisting that the program has been extended long enough, and as Republican Rob Woodall of Georgia put it, “It was intended to be a very temporary solution to a very temporary crisis.”
I find it interesting that Congress “intended” the program to be a mere bandaid over the wound that is unemployment and yet inevitably extended it in the past. I understand why they did it. Obviously, the recovery of the economy had not gone as well as they had hoped and people were still vastly unemployed. And I completely understand that finding work in this economy still proves to be difficult. But by now, I myself am beginning to wonder if people still on the unemployment program are simply using it as an excuse to not bother finding work at all.
One reason for long-term unemployment is fatigue from those seeking it. Many try very earnestly and for a very long time to find work, and when none comes, they simply give up. That is an unimaginably discouraging and despairing situation, but by receiving checks in the mail and ceasing their search for work, they are being incredibly dishonorable and ungrateful. Our nation—our people—are providing those checks in hopes that it sustains them until they can support themselves, and by giving up and not working, they’re using all of our daily hard work to take an indeterminately long holiday.
Reading about Linda Sandefur in NPR’s article, a receiver of both Master’s and Bachelor’s degrees accompanied by 20 years of work experience and still searching for work, I do fully comprehend how dire and difficult the situation is. However, I am not certain many other people like her are out there. I think there are less people like her with similar accomplishments looking for jobs than there are people who don’t have as high an education or as much work experience. John Boehner’s statement at the end of the article, “We think it would be better for them to focus on helping get our economy moving again so more of the unemployed can find jobs,” was something I completely agree with.
At one point or another, the unemployment program will have to come to an end, and people are going to be upset. If it didn’t end, people would consistently rely on it even after we’ve pulled out of the recession (if that ever does happen). We need to take the training wheels off before the people become completely incapable and unmotivated to look for work themselved. It’s similar to feeding wild animals. It’s easy to feed them to appease their hunger and initial trepidation, but sooner or later, they keep coming back for more, and eventually, they’ll be unable to obtain food on their own.
On NPR, I came across this article about an issue that’s causing a lot of trouble amongst the unemployed in the U.S. Congress has once again dead-ended themselves at another due date, and this time, it is the expiration of the extended unemployment benefits program that was started when the recession first hit. While Democrats are arguing that the program ought to be extended further, Republicans are insisting that the program has been extended long enough, and as Republican Rob Woodall of Georgia put it, “It was intended to be a very temporary solution to a very temporary crisis.”
I find it interesting that Congress “intended” the program to be a mere bandaid over the wound that is unemployment and yet inevitably extended it in the past. I understand why they did it. Obviously, the recovery of the economy had not gone as well as they had hoped and people were still vastly unemployed. And I completely understand that finding work in this economy still proves to be difficult. But by now, I myself am beginning to wonder if people still on the unemployment program are simply using it as an excuse to not bother finding work at all.
One reason for long-term unemployment is fatigue from those seeking it. Many try very earnestly and for a very long time to find work, and when none comes, they simply give up. That is an unimaginably discouraging and despairing situation, but by receiving checks in the mail and ceasing their search for work, they are being incredibly dishonorable and ungrateful. Our nation—our people—are providing those checks in hopes that it sustains them until they can support themselves, and by giving up and not working, they’re using all of our daily hard work to take an indeterminately long holiday.
Reading about Linda Sandefur in NPR’s article, a receiver of both Master’s and Bachelor’s degrees accompanied by 20 years of work experience and still searching for work, I do fully comprehend how dire and difficult the situation is. However, I am not certain many other people like her are out there. I think there are less people like her with similar accomplishments looking for jobs than there are people who don’t have as high an education or as much work experience. John Boehner’s statement at the end of the article, “We think it would be better for them to focus on helping get our economy moving again so more of the unemployed can find jobs,” was something I completely agree with.
At one point or another, the unemployment program will have to come to an end, and people are going to be upset. If it didn’t end, people would consistently rely on it even after we’ve pulled out of the recession (if that ever does happen). We need to take the training wheels off before the people become completely incapable and unmotivated to look for work themselved. It’s similar to feeding wild animals. It’s easy to feed them to appease their hunger and initial trepidation, but sooner or later, they keep coming back for more, and eventually, they’ll be unable to obtain food on their own.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Burning Cash
Though I think I identify mostly as liberal, I must say, I completely agree with Brandon Lien’s article entitled “Drug Benefits?” Especially as a student, working and living on my own, I feel I’m being pulled every which way by taxes and payments. I believe it would really benefit everyone in the long run if we weren’t spending money on people who don’t earnestly deserve it. Truthfully, if I were to be taxed to benefit others, I would prefer it to go to other hard working students who are experiencing the worst financial strains if anyone at all. People who take the money of the people and do nothing with it to improve their lives are plainly despicable, in my opinion.
That being said, while I still agree that background and subsequent tests should be done to determine those who should qualify for aid, I also wish there were actual statistics I could look at to tell me just how many people are taking advantage of working citizens’ tax payments. It could very well be that only a few people are low enough to throw that money in the fire and waste their life away. In that case, we would have to analyze the actual expenditures of screening people and what is actually irresponsibly used. If the money wasted by drug addicts is less than the cost of doing tests, it pains me to say it, but it would be in our best interest to simply cry as the money is burned on the streets, in dark alleyways, and behind curtained windows.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
The 28th Amendment: Freedom of Marriage
From the moment we gain true cognitive ability and become sensitive to the world around us, we learn who our parents are, who our siblings are, and what our house looks like. If we’re raised in a good environment, we quickly come to love the sanctuary of that place and the safety of its people. We cherish this family life and the ability to receive support from those around us; especially our parents. And it is not long before we start dreaming and imagining being able to provide for our own children with our own husband or wife. This is the typical family dream. Almost everyone has it, and in society, getting married and having a family is encouraged. That’s the natural way of life.
However, here in the United States of America, there are people who don’t have the freedom to marry the ones they love. They are told that their love is improper and that they cannot take the next step to express their emotions purely because of ancient beliefs that have been preached for thousands of years. The argument about same-sex marriage in this country has created a battleground between people who only want to love and zealous religious followers who can’t accept any other method but their own way of life. This country was founded with the freedom of religion, and that means that Jews, Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, and anyone else all have equal liberty and freedom to celebrate their own way of life. It is this aspect of the argument against gay marriage that I cannot comprehend. There are people arguing that same-sex marriage is offensive to their religious views, yet they have nothing negative to say about their Jewish or Muslim neighbors. If they can get along so well with those guys, why can’t they just respect our country’s purpose of freedom for all and let same-sex marriage be?
I’d like to note that the option for non-religious weddings has been around for decades, and should thusly be entirely unoffensive to anyone who practices a particular faith. This country is supposed to be secular, and was born of people who came to create their own sanctuary. The citizens of the United States who have graciously inherited it from their forefathers forget that the reason many of the colonies were founded was because of religious persecution in Europe. The colonists (though there was some high tension between those of differing religious views in the very beginning) came to understand that they all commonly lacked religious freedom. That is why our first amendment grants us that right. And because all of this, the national government must recognize marriage civilly in order to grant marriage benefits to everyone whether they had a traditional Japanese wedding or a Bedouin wedding.
Now, I must state that I am not particularly religious in any way. I associate myself with Christianity because my family has done so for years. But I honestly don’t go to church on Sundays nor do I pray before dinner. And if I’m being true to myself, I would almost say that I am atheist. So why do I make the argument for gay marriage in terms of religion? Because if it weren’t for the religious people arguing that gay marriage is an attack on their religious beliefs, the United States would have recognized it long ago! Don’t get me wrong, though. I’m not saying that believing in same-sex marriage should be considered a religion. I’m merely asking for the same respect we give those of different religious affiliation to be applied to marriage so that maybe—one day—those of us who aren’t allowed to realize our dream of being a happily married couple just might be able to. If that means adding an amendment for the Freedom of Marriage, I’m all for it!
I’d like to note that the option for non-religious weddings has been around for decades, and should thusly be entirely unoffensive to anyone who practices a particular faith. This country is supposed to be secular, and was born of people who came to create their own sanctuary. The citizens of the United States who have graciously inherited it from their forefathers forget that the reason many of the colonies were founded was because of religious persecution in Europe. The colonists (though there was some high tension between those of differing religious views in the very beginning) came to understand that they all commonly lacked religious freedom. That is why our first amendment grants us that right. And because all of this, the national government must recognize marriage civilly in order to grant marriage benefits to everyone whether they had a traditional Japanese wedding or a Bedouin wedding.
Now, I must state that I am not particularly religious in any way. I associate myself with Christianity because my family has done so for years. But I honestly don’t go to church on Sundays nor do I pray before dinner. And if I’m being true to myself, I would almost say that I am atheist. So why do I make the argument for gay marriage in terms of religion? Because if it weren’t for the religious people arguing that gay marriage is an attack on their religious beliefs, the United States would have recognized it long ago! Don’t get me wrong, though. I’m not saying that believing in same-sex marriage should be considered a religion. I’m merely asking for the same respect we give those of different religious affiliation to be applied to marriage so that maybe—one day—those of us who aren’t allowed to realize our dream of being a happily married couple just might be able to. If that means adding an amendment for the Freedom of Marriage, I’m all for it!
Monday, October 21, 2013
Unravelling Democracy
This may be a little too related to Texas, but I read this article on Little Green Footballs about the recent voter ID policy, and it captured my interest in such a way, that I was urged to write about it. The author claims that the new voter ID policy,which was proposed by the GOP to defend against voter fraud, is in fact “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.” According to the author, the voter ID policy is very difficult to comply with for many different people, but it is especially so for women who have married and who have changed their last name. Getting the proper documents together and being accepted for the voter ID is proving to be very difficult for these women. With that, 99% of men get through the system hassle-free while 34% of women are scrambling for acceptable materials. The author actually goes so far as to state that white men are the only people who are unfazed by the policy.
And this is where the article deviates in argument, but maintains its purpose. According to the author, it is twice as likely for white men to have the proper documents arranged for the new voter ID than it is for Hispanics in Hispanic dominant areas because they commonly don't have a DMV. I believe that what the author says here may be correct, but it also leaves me wondering about non-Hispanic, non-white people. Where does everyone else stand here? Is it more difficult for Asians or blacks to be accepted for voter ID? Despite my questions, I understand that Hispanics are probably the largest non-white community in Texas, so for the sake of the argument, I can let that go. Ultimately, though, the author argues that the Republicans of today are the Confederates of the past, and they believe in white male supremacy in voting; that the voter ID is a way to squash all voting from other peoples.
This article is undoubtedly an attack on the Republican party’s idea. And I must say, I both agree with it and disagree with it. While I agree that the voter ID policy is probably making it more difficult for many people, I don’t necessarily agree with the fact that it is secretly a way of ensuring white males as the only voters. I think if the voter ID policy is to stay, the application process for it should be changed so that it facilitates for recently married women and people who for other reasons are having a hard time gathering the right documents. That said, while correcting the process for getting the voter ID would be a decent way to go about it, the author offers a reasonable argument that in person voting fraud is, in fact, not a problem at all.
Therefore, something must be done about the voter ID because it seems like it is causing problems and likely discouraging people from voting. Even if our system is capable of running without the people driving it, it would be crippling to purposefully not let the people vote. If we did that, we couldn’t call ourselves a democracy anymore! And that's just unAmerican!
Monday, October 7, 2013
The Right Decision
It is widely known today that President Obama’s actions (or lack thereof) throughout his presidency have become a node of conflict amongst Americans. Thus, it did not surprise me when I found an Op-Ep article on the Los Angeles Times website about Mr. Obama, arguing that he is falling short of being a true leader. Arthur Brooks supports his claim that Obama is not living up to the expectations of the people by providing evidence from major polls, and by comparing the President’s actions to the definition of a leader. However, Brooks himself falls short on his analysis because he is only examining one side of being a leader.
According to Brooks’ definition of a leader, responsibility is a huge component. I cannot argue with that statement, but Brooks also claims that responsible leaders should always follow through with their words. While this may seem obvious on the surface, I contend that it would be more responsible for a leader to back off of their word if it meant that they were making the right decision. Brooks mentioned that Obama declared a ‘red line’ if President Assad of Syria used chemicals weapons, and when the use of such weapons was proven to be true, he backed down on his plans for pressuring Syria further. Though this action can undoubtedly be interpreted as a weakness, it is important to understand that Obama is actually considering that his past decision may not, in fact, be the best option. It’s very easy for someone to make a statement and see it all the way through because they feel they must defend their initial point, but when someone has the courage to admit they were wrong (whether verbally or in their actions), they prove that they are being responsible and not stubborn.
I am not saying that Obama’s approval rating should go up because he made the right choice. I’m merely stating that negatively interpreting President Obama’s role as a leader based on his decision to make the right call is irresponsible.
According to Brooks’ definition of a leader, responsibility is a huge component. I cannot argue with that statement, but Brooks also claims that responsible leaders should always follow through with their words. While this may seem obvious on the surface, I contend that it would be more responsible for a leader to back off of their word if it meant that they were making the right decision. Brooks mentioned that Obama declared a ‘red line’ if President Assad of Syria used chemicals weapons, and when the use of such weapons was proven to be true, he backed down on his plans for pressuring Syria further. Though this action can undoubtedly be interpreted as a weakness, it is important to understand that Obama is actually considering that his past decision may not, in fact, be the best option. It’s very easy for someone to make a statement and see it all the way through because they feel they must defend their initial point, but when someone has the courage to admit they were wrong (whether verbally or in their actions), they prove that they are being responsible and not stubborn.
I am not saying that Obama’s approval rating should go up because he made the right choice. I’m merely stating that negatively interpreting President Obama’s role as a leader based on his decision to make the right call is irresponsible.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
What do you think when you see a headline like that?
Today, while I was browsing the news on ThinkProgress, I read a couple articles about gun violence and Obamacare, but when I scrolled to the bottom of the page, I found a link to an article that appalled me. That article. Nothing about the large headline at the top of this article sends good signals through my brain. It's the sort of thing that makes a 21st century United States citizen do a double-take. This article details a move by some House Republicans to—in a sense—make it actually legal to discriminate against homosexuals.
Now, I don't know about everyone else, but last I heard, discrimination was considered a 'bad' thing. These House Republicans think it’s okay to suddenly pull the rug out beneath everyone’s feet and tell people that they’re not free from prejudice? The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) defends employees from discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation, yet these Republicans think it’s okay to just take that away!
They wish to have their discrimination license because it “protects their religious beliefs.” But if the country is going to allow discrimination against gays because some zealots don’t believe in their way of life, then we might as well discriminate against Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and every other person who doesn’t practice their religion.
This sudden attack would be a particularly painful setback to gay rights progress (were it to pass) because DOMA was just struck down, and several states are finally recognizing same-sex marriage. It’s a little bit like telling everyone in an office that they’re going to get a raise, and then coming back and saying, “No, you know what? Only the people I like get the raise. And it’s coming out of everyone else’s paychecks.”
If this wish was granted by the federal government, it would not only be a major blow to homosexuals seeking equality, but it would also be a gaping bullet wound in the faith that many have in all civil rights progress. It would be a little like taking one step forward in the eyes of these Republicans and two steps back for everyone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)