Looking for Privacy

Find the Article Here.
U.S. News & World Report; By David LaGesse
Published September 11, 2008

Lately, it seems like there is no more privacy. With the technological advances our country and world have made, our privacy seems to become less and less. Fifty--even fifteen years ago, people probably would have never even imagined that anyone with an internet connection could be looking down on their house, thanks to GoogleMaps. Along with these advancements, comes the need for more precaution. People know that they need to be careful, yet it seems they are becoming more and more reckless when it comes to protecting their privacy. With people posting pictures of themselves and information all over MySpace and with both young children and old adults lying about their ages on Facebook and chatrooms, it could seem that people have been helping to take their privacy from themselves, whether they intended to or not. However, I still think the government should be there to protect the rights of U.S. citizens. Privacy is something most people would say they value highly and we need the right laws to protect our privacy.

This short article I read explained how Google said that they were improving on their security and would be making the Internet safer, but really nothing they were doing would be helping much at all. Google would still have information about its users and be able to monitor searches.

In class, we were asked to propose a new Amendment that entitled us to our privacy, yet still balanced the needs of society. After writing my own and incorporating others' ideas, I ended up with:

It is the right of all U.S. citizens to maintain privacy in their home, possessions, and documents. There will be no search or investigation upon anyone without evidence or overwhelming suspicion of a crime committed by that person.

I realized just how difficult it is to write a law with no loopholes that still fits the needs of the people and the government. I think that if this law were to go through the process of judicial review, it would basically be rewritten. Obviously, I am not a lawmaker and I don't know how to create laws, but I do think that the Amendment promising our privacy should be revisited and altered. When it was written well over 200 years ago, there was never any thought that our country would be as it is today. Not that all of these advancements are bad, just the fact that they are so different from how times were when these laws were written. Back then, e-mail was unheard of and a message being sent instantly around the world was probably a crazy idea. But that's the way it is now, so you would think that would call for a refinement of our privacy laws.

Reflection

> What are you most proud of on your blog? Why?

Personally, I am most proud of the content in my blog. I put a lot of thought into each entry and I spent a lot of time writing each one. I did my best to make sure that I understood all of the articles that I was reading and writing about. I tried to do my research and choose valid articles that also sparked my interest. I wanted each of the articles to be related to something that I have a genuine interest in, so that the content can be strong and honest. I am proud that I am able to form and share my own opinions through writing these blog entries. I love the fact that I've become sincerely interested in the stories that I am writing about. I find myself asking a lot of different people many questions to make sure that I understand what I am reading and writing about. By doing this, I become genuinely interested in what I am writing about, which I think can help strengthen the content.
I'm also happy with my writing in each blog entry. I tried my best to make sure that I was fully-explaining all of my thoughts and ideas through my writing. I wanted every entry to make sense, which is why I would often find myself going back and reading over what I had already written. I tried to keep the writing organized and understandable, yet interesting and informative for the reader. I even won an award for Most Outstanding Writing in a Blog (:
Lastly, I'm proud of the neatness and organization that I maintained in my blog. It was important to me that it was easy to read and understand and I wanted all of the entries to be up to date and organized. This makes it easy for me and others to look back and review earlier posts. I also wanted a variety of pictures and videos in the entries and I tried to find at least one for every entry, if possible.

> What will you improve during future blogs? Why? How?

One thing that I know I will need to work on is finding stronger connections to U.S. History. Sometimes while writing my blogs, I will find that I'm not able to make, in my opinion, a strong enough connection to concepts that we have been learning in class. Sometimes I become so invested in the current event, that the relationship between that and concepts of U.S. History is weaker than I would like it to be. I think that I should choose articles that I feel relate more to the topic we are learning and make sure that I can explain a strong and solid connection before I write the entire blog. For example, I feel that my blog about Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists has the weakest explanation and is one that I will be editing to make stronger.
In the future, I will also try to improve on my research skills. I want to use a variety of sources and stories to write my blogs. In the future, I plan on having multiple articles and sources of evidence, rather than just one. I also want to make sure that the stories I choose are always interesting to me, because I know that I gain a lot more from reading something if it is something I am already interested in, like the election for example.
There are also some smaller details that I plan on including to improve my blogs in the future. One of these would be to propose more questions in my writing. I think that it is good to leave the reader wondering after they finish reading and asking questions throughout the blog is a great way to do that. I also want to work on coming up with better titles for each entry. I want them to be more interesting, because honestly, they have been very boring. And lastly, I definately plan on editing my posts much more often. While I do spend time editing, I plan on taking full advantage of that in the future and editing each one more and more.

> How has blogging impacted your understanding of the U.S., the media, current events, and "old news" (i.e. the Constitution, Federalist Papers, etc.)?

I've already learned much more than I had expected to by writing these blogs. I honestly think that it has been a really good way for me to start thinking more about the world around me. I know that if I didn't have to write these as an assignment, I probably wouldn't be reading CNN or BBC News or paying so much attention to the newspaper. I'm really glad that it has made me do this because I now I know that I really do like to know what is going on and that I can form and voice my own opinions. I've been interested in the election all year long, but actually taking the time to write about it has taught me a lot more of the small details and has caused me to become a lot more involved. I've learned how the media can twist and manipulate something into whatever they want it to seem. This seems to be most noticible right now, during the election which is what I chose to write about for one of my blog entries about John McCain's Campain Advertisements. I've also learned how current events and "old news" go hand-in-hand. It became apparent to me while reading news articles and thinking about what we learned in class that U.S. History will consistently be showing up in current American news, which you can notice if you are observant enough. Simply put, writing these blogs twice a week has given me the chance to be more involved and know more about what is going on in the world.

Stretching the Truth

Find the Article Here.
Factcheck.org; By Justin Bank and Lori Robertson
Published September 11, 2008

Earlier in the year, John McCain said that he feels he is running a "very respectful campaign". He stated that he doesn't feel the campaign is "negative in the slightest" and continued, "We think it’s got a lot of humor in it and we’re having fun and enjoying it. And that is what campaigns are going to be like, that’s what every campaign that I have been involved in…" From what I have seen, this hasn't proven to be completely true. I've seen many commercials that have taken quotes out of context, like this one:

When to Step In

Find the Article Here.
The New York Times; By Alex Berenson
Published September 15, 2008

Over the weekend, the stock market suffered when major companies, like Lehmen and Merril Lynch filed for bankruptcy. It is the biggest single-day drop since September 11th and has people extremely worried about the state of the economy. The economy has already lost 700,000 jobs so far this year and people are worried that it will continue to get worse. The dollar is losing its value and people are not sure when the economy will straighten itself out.

After learning about the current state of the economy and stock market, I think that I can say that I am more on the Federalist side of this issue. I think that the government should step in and pull the stock market out of its current state. While we could do nothing about it and wait for it to work itself out and hope that everything gets better on its own, I think that certain things should be taken into consideration. One thing is that things could get much worse before they start to get better. I have heard people compare it to the Great Depression and question whether we are entering into another depression. I would rather not know and would rather it be fixed before it gets to that point. Also, waiting it out could cause more damage in the long run. If the government doesn't step in and it doesn't fix itself, it could get much worse and cost a lot more to fix the damage that could have been lessened and fixed before. Stepping in now could save jobs and get things back on track much sooner.

Though it would be a burden on tax-payers to solve this problem, it could be more of burden if we did not. The bankruptcy of companies like Lehmen and Merril Lynch not only affects their employees, but also their customers and stock-holders, as it has a negative effect on the stock market as a whole. An opposing argument to this could be, "Why should I pay for a company's mistakes and poor judgement?" And while I can understand that, I also think that it would be much better in the long run and would be an end to potential damage related to these companies.

I think that it would be wise to tighten restrictions at this point. I think that in the future, these companies should be more cautious about the business decisions that they make to be sure they don't put themselves in this state again. I think that the government should also be cautious and try harder to oversee how these companies are doing. I do think that the government needs to be extremely cautious about who they bail out with taxpayer's money, because they can't do it in every instance. However, I feel that it may be neccessary in this case, to avoid a more extreme circumstance in the future.

Fashion Student Not Allowed to Attend His Own Show

Find the Article Here.
CNN News; By Rupa Mikkilineni
Published September 11, 2008

This article was written about a young designer named Ali Kahn, who lives in Lahore, Pakistan. He took online classes from California's Academy of Art University School of Fashion in San Franciso. His teachers spoke highly of him and said that he had true talent, which is why he was one of the few students who were selected to showcase their collections at New York Fashion Week. When he found out that he had been selected, he immediately applied for his travel visa, but was denied by U.S. and Pakistan governments. He also wasn't given any reasoning as to why he was not given a visa. He had to send his collection to New York to be shown without him there.

While I understand some of the reasons he was denied his travel visa, it still does not seem fair to me. I understand that the U.S. tries to be very selective with who they let in and out of the country and I understand that he is not a U.S. citizen, but a citizen of Pakistan. However, I don't understand why the designer was given no concrete reason for not being able to travel to see his designs on the runway. The Internet allowed him to be enrolled in classes in San Francisco while he was in Pakistan. I don't understand why he would be able to pay and complete all of the work that brought him to the point he was at, just to be turned down when he asked to be there to witness all of the hard work that he put into it. It says in our Constitution that we are all born with human rights that entitle us to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Would that apply to a student of a U.S. University?

I really found this article interesting because it made me think more about our human rights and who they apply to. It made me wonder what progress we are making as a country, if a fashion school student isn't allowed to see his collection at Fashion Week. Since there was no reason given, I know that I can't assume or conclude why he wasn't allowed a travel visa, but it still makes me wonder about who is given all of their human rights, and who isn't.

Hillary for Obama

Find the Article Here.
The New York Times; By Patrick Healy
Published August 26, 2008

Edited: September 25, 2008

Since our nation began, factions have existed in American politics. A faction is a group of people with shared opinions and views. Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Democrats and Republicans. Liberals and Conservatives. Factions can even occur within political groups. For instance, there are groups of Democrats with more liberal views, and Democrats with more conservative views.

When reading and learning about the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, one common detail that I had noticed was the mentioning of factions:

"Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destruction agency." (The Federalist #10)

As quoted by the Federalist Papers, liberty nourishes faction. Without the freedom to form your own opinions, there would be no reason for factions and disagreements. Factions have always existed in America's government and politics. Disagreements about government arise partially because opinions change and are modified, meaning that not much in politics will be consistent.

The article I chose basically talks about Hillary Clinton's support for Barack Obama's campaign. Clinton gave a speech praising Obama at the Democratic Convention on August 26th. When Barack Obama was Hillary Clinton's opponent, there was a lot of criticism and backlash between the two. However, after the primaries, when it became obvious that Clinton was ruled out of the race, she almost immediately threw all her efforts into supporting Obama's campaign. "Whether you voted for me, or voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as a single party with a single purpose". The faction that once supported Hillary Clinton now needs to decide whether to support Barack Obama and the Democratic Party or John McCain. I think that Clinton tried to avoid a larger faction within the Democratic Party by asking voters to unite as one party and elect Barack Obama.

I think that this is one of the things that makes politics so interesting. The fact that groups form and groups separate and cause changes in politics. I also think that the inconsistency and unpredictability is really interesting. New opinions are always forming. Changes in the country can cause your feelings to change. Federalism and Anti-Federalism were two of the first factions in American Politics and we still see those effects today. I think the fact that politics and government can be so unpredictable and can always change makes them interesting.

> Hillary Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention:

Young Voters

Find the article here.
The Washington Post; By Jose Antonio Vargas
Published June 16, 2008

Americans under thirty have been one of the most important and influential voting groups of the 2008 Election. Young voters have been a main focus of Barack Obama and John McCain's campaigns. In elections past, the number of votes cast by young Americans has fallen short of expectations. However this year, a new interest seems to have been sparked in the minds of these voters and the numbers are expected to fully exceed those of past elections. One of the driving forces behind this new interest in voters is the Internet. Many voters are educating themselves about the candidates on the Internet, e-mail, even texting. Websites like Myspace and Facebook even help young voters learn more about the election, and let them share their opinions with others. Director of CIRCLE (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement), Peter Levine, talks about youth voters in the article by The Washington Post-- "They realize what's at stake and the impact this election will have on their future and the future of our country."

Reading this article and knowing how much this election relys on young voters, I could definitely see a connection to the Enlightenment. Part of the Enlightenment was questioning everything that hadn't been questioned before. During the Enlightenment, people questioned their religion, government, jobs, etc. "More than a set of fixed ideas, the Enlightenment implied an attitude, a method of thought. German philosopher Immanuel Kant proposed as the motto of the age, “Dare to know.” A desire arose to reexamine and question all received ideas and values, to explore new ideas in many different directions—hence the inconsistencies and contradictions that often appear in the writings of 18th-century thinkers." ('Age of Enlightenment'; MSN Encarta, Link). I see this being related to young voters of the 2008 Election because these voters do have the desire to question others, themselves, and the government in order to make their decision. I think that in order to be an educated voter, you definitely should be wondering, examining, and questioning the ideas that are trying to be sold to you.

It was a trend during the Enlightenment, and it is a trend now. Questioning and forming new opinions is a huge part of the Election, especially when it comes to young voters.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: Are We Taking it From Others?

Find the article here.
The New York Times; By the Associated Press
Published September 3, 2008

On Wednesday morning (September 3, 2008), it was confirmed that at least 15 people were killed in an attack in a village in Pakistan. The victims included women and children living in the village close to the Pakistan - Afghanistan border. Since this is a very recent story, not everything has been confirmed. It is confirmed that the attack involved U.S.- led forces, however, they have stated that they have no report of it happening. Witnesses say that American soldiers started firing soon after an American helicopter landed in the village. One witness also said, "as the owner of a home nearby came outside with his wife, the American and Afghan soldiers started firing... the troops entered the house and killed seven other people."

This isn't the first time that U.S.-led military action had crossed the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan. There have been incidents before resulting in the deaths of Pakistanis, such as when 11 Pakistan soldiers died after a U.S. bomb hit the border of Pakistan. The U.S. rule allows military to fly aircraft a few miles into Pakistan territory, as well as enter the territory when in "hot pursuit" of al-Qaida fighters.

In America, it is written in our Declaration of Independence that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are all Human Rights. They are rights that we are born with, and rights that are protected by our government. While it is comforting to know that our life and our liberty are being protected through our government, it makes me feel uneasy knowing that innocent civilians are being killed in the process. It seems to me that throughout this war, civilian deaths have become more and more of a normality. It makes me wonder, how far is too far? When is this considered justified and when is it unjustified? What sense and level of caution should our military be taking as they aim to protect our life and liberty? Does it matter if we take the life and liberty of civilians in other countries? If it is our birth-right, does it make it theirs as well? Since life and liberty are two of our most precious rights as Americans, I would think that it would be our obligation not to infringe on those same rights of others.