Blog Stage VII: Privileges of Using Computer Networks

On my way to work, while scanning through the radio channels in search of good music, I could not help but notice that several talk shows were commenting on the blocking of the Southern Baptist Convention's website by the military. Naturally, this intrigued me and I proceeded to research more about it when I got the chance.

As it was still early, there weren't many websites that covered the developing story, the few that did, seemed to gravitate their opinion towards the points of the military being evil and abusing people's rights. An army officer who had tried to access the SBC's website from within a military facility reportedly got offended when he was redirected to a warning message instead of the typical website. He apparently proceeded to inform the SBC as well as several news outlets through email about the issue. Shortly after, spokespersons for the SBC stated the action was in direct violation of the first amendment. News outlets later expanded by highlighting the story as outrageous, blasphemous and a clear act of censorship. I on the other hand couldn't disagree more.

When I want to connect to the Internet at my local coffee shop, I connect to a wireless router that is connected by wires to the Internet. At work we have many computers that connect by hundreds of meters of cable to servers that in turn connect to the Internet. Even though I can access the Internet at both of these locations, they both have something else in common. The equipment, connection and bandwidth are all paid for and maintained at the expense of each establishment. To me, it is not outrageous to think that the network owners reserve the right to restrict or otherwise modify our Internet experience while on their networks. For example, many establishments block Facebook, Reddit, Youtube and several other websites that aren't within the scope of the network's intended usage. Just like I wouldn't complain to my boss that I cannot view my friend's food pictures on Instagram, the army officer should not take it personally when he is unable to access a religious website from within the military network. If he wants to use the Internet freely, he can either try a different network or use his home network, assuming he has one, where his money has paid for an uncensored window into the Internet.

The SBC and the news outlets, both likely to have their own network infrastructures should not be so quick to complain about the military action when they themselves at the very least, probably restrict usage of certain types of entertainment websites on their networks. Furthermore, bringing the constitution into this argument is unnecessary, the document was drafted in 1787, an era when abacuses were in popular use and technology like the Internet was unimaginable.

While the Pentagon in a later statement attributed the unintentional block to an automatic protection mechanism against malware, usage of their resources on their networks is ultimately at their sole discretion.

Blog Stage VI: Clarification on same-sex marriage

The U.S Government blog A Better Government has an entry titled "Blog Stage 5" in which the author, Sean, discusses her support for same sex marriage. In this entry I contradict her position and will argue against same sex marriage.
Marriage by itself is a very emotional and complicated subject to talk about. It often times brings out sides of people that we did not know existed and can easily get out of hand. When combined with the topic of homosexuality, it is far too easy to get sidetracked on the rails of underlying social and moral opinions and diverge from the core topic: the marriage by choice, either civil, religious or both of two individuals of the same sex.

Right off the start, Sean makes a very good statement. Every person has free will. However, with every action there are consequences. While it is true that a person is free to have a relationship (be it of friendship or more) with whomever he or she pleases, I disagree that it has to reach the extent of considering marriage.

From personal experience, I have great relationships with both female and male individuals from all over the world. I have male friends who have gone beyond the bounds of friendship and I can proudly state that I love them and would do anything for them. We have shared rooms together on travels with only one bed, we have shared drinks together to save money, and we have even showered together in public gym showers. Personality wise, they are some of the best individuals I know. Any of them are always available to listen about my issues and provide feedback, they will go shopping with me if I so ask, they may even sacrifice their dignity to help me out in times of need. However, not once have I nor any of them ever thought of marriage between us. Not even secretly. Will my opinion change just like the way we embrace changes in technology? No. I guess my mental house did not come with closets.

Why I don't want to make out with them when other people might is irrelevant to this topic.

Marriage, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife." I however, in addition to that believe that marriage is a commitment that is made by both partners to each other for the betterment of themselves, their families and by extension the human race. For this reason, it is very well within the power of Government to not only uphold the institution of marriage but enforce it on the population.

Claims arguing that section one of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States protect same sex marriage shows a lack of understanding both of the scope of the amendment and the views and values of that period in time. Also, whether or not the same government or state legislatures have passed silly laws by our modern standards in the past is irrelevant to this topic. There are hundreds of pages detailing the decision that backed each of those laws which at the time were sound for lawmakers.

From a strict physiological point of view, regardless of evolution or creation beliefs, a male human being has a number of mechanisms whose sole purpose is to facilitate the interaction between him and the corresponding mechanisms in the female counterpart. Part of these mechanisms include specialized organs to reproduce, thus ensuring continued survival as a species.

Due to this incompatibility, married individuals of the same sex have to rely on a person of the opposite sex for procreation. Thus violating their commitment to each other and promoting child birth for adoption in the rest of the population.

I am left at a loss at trying to understand why two people of the same sex would seek marriage. Thus I believe there are no clear justifications for it.

This topic is not a new iteration of Loving v. Virginia, because there are many points to support that nothing productive comes out of homosexual marriages for society. So perhaps we should not be so quick to dismiss the opinions and decisions of our forefathers just because they don't coincide with what we want.

Health, the most basic condition of human existence.

It is difficult to go a week without hearing someone, somewhere, along your daily routine bring up the topic of the healthcare reform planned for this country. You hear arguments shoot one way, then bounce back in the opposite direction. Some filled with genuine pride, others with fear, a few backed by sound research but most with blinding ignorance. 

Without knowing enough about the current state of the healthcare system, I could never push myself to blindly comment on this issue. I took time out of my schedule to do research, visit local hospitals, and learn what all the fuss is about. What I learnt is shocking.

Healthcare in the United States is a subsidiary of the Health Insurance companies.

Don't believe me? Try walking into a health facility and asking for attention. The first thing you'll be likely to hear is "What insurance provider do you have?" On almost all occasions even hinting at not being insured with one of their insurance partners - or worse, not having insurance at all - immediately changes the atmosphere into one of hostility and unfriendliness. If you are lucky enough to still be offered service, you are met with a multi-page form that asks you more questions about your finances and professional life than about the reason you are seeking healthcare.

Even with a detailed biography and qualifying insurance, a quick glance at the final bill shows an abusive amount of money being billed to the health insurance company for the most absurd things imaginable.
Spent more than 5 minutes with the doctor? That'll be the standard visit rate plus a pre-calculated rate for every additional minute the doctor was in the same room as you. Need blood work done in the lab down the aisle? That will run the insurance company  quite a hefty sum, completely ignoring the fact that after sharing the cost for the equipment, labour and the electricity with every other patient that visits the facility, the main ingredient in the blood work is free. God forbid the doctor prescribes medication. That shows up in the bill too. I'm not referring to the cost of the medication or the little orange bottles they come in, I'm referring to an abstract cost associated with the doctor issuing the prescription! Completely absurd.

Later there is the whole mess of the insurance company wanting to increase your premiums or alter your coverage based on the last check up that returned a hefty bill. There is even an ongoing risk of having the insurance cancel your coverage because of some legal technicality leaving you with the burden of the bill. In my opinion, this is not a healthcare system. Much less the type of attention a leading country like the United States should have.

With the exception of the United States, almost all developed countries offer its citizens some form of universal healthcare. Even our biggest next-door neighbour, Canada. They are not communist countries, their societies aren't in chaos, they can't even imagine a world without easily available access to healthcare.If I have to pay out of my taxes for better healthcare, I do not mind. At least it is something that I will directly benefit from, unlike many of the thousands of other things that taxes go towards. I much rather that the health insurance monopoly breaks and millions of Americans lose their jobs than have to spend another minute with my tail tucked in between my legs while month after month my money is being used to make some rich guy richer. At least then, there will be true care for citizens, where everyone and anyone can waltz into a hospital and receive care regardless of their colour, race or social status.

This is what I believe America stands for. Its people, above all.

Stage IV: Gun ban is for cowards, more guns, more safety!

On Friday, the governor of South Dakota, Dennis Daugaard signed house bill number 1087 into law requiring that the school board either provide security for schools throughout the state or arm employees of the school system with guns.

What. The. Heck. Is. Wrong. With South Dakota legislators?

An article by Sara Gates for the Huffington Post talks a bit more about the subject.
"Teachers are now allowed to bring guns into the classroom in South Dakota." states the article.
Just pause for a few seconds and think about it, process it and try to reason that sentence: "Teachers... bring guns...[to] classroom."
Two things should come to anyone's mind.
1) Is it for educational purposes? Are the students going to learn how guns work, how to clean them, or how to fire them?
2) Are you out of your mind? Kids with a murder weapon in each class they attend?
One thing is for sure, homework will never be handed in late ever again in South Dakota.

The apparent reasoning behind this bill is to make school safer for everyone as representative Betty Olson (R-Prairie City) states that she "believes arming school personnel could have mitigated the Newtown massacre."
While it may be true that the best defence is a good offence, as we've all come to know fighting fire with fire is not the way to resolve any issue.
How would having armed employees present change the outcome of the Newtown massacre? Would the shooter not be able to shoot his gun because other people have guns? I believe that if anything, a person that has already made up their mind to go perform such an atrocious act is not going to care about who does or does not have a gun nearby. He will either still achieve his task or target the armed employee first then continue with his task. Congratulations, one more innocent life ended, all for ill equipping an individual with a weapon.

In order for any such bill to truly have any benefit, employees will have to have working guns with them at all times. With already restricted school budgets, who is going to pay for the guns, their maintenance or the required training for their effective use?

Even if in an ideal situation the money is found, all the selected employees are well trained and reliable guns are issued, how are the weapons going to be controlled within the school? It would be far more accessible for a student to take his teacher's weapon from his holder, run with it and have enough time to shoot the kid that has been bullying him just before the teacher is able to retrieve the weapon.
Is the gun going to be locked in special safes in each classroom? That would defeat the purpose of having guns in school in the first place. While the person with the key to the safe is found and he retrieves the weapon, the shooter would have committed murder multiple times already.

While I do understand that the people of South Dakota are still emotionally affected by the event that happened in Newtown, I believe that they should not let bias govern their legislation. I also hope that other states open their eyes and stop trying to pass a similar bill like Kansas is attempting to do.
Weapons and kids don't mix.

Stage III - Guns or Violence? What are we really trying to achieve here?

After the Newtown incident, all that has plagued the news is guns.
“Guns should be banned”
”Guns should be allowed”
”Guns bla bla bla”
However, after having taken some time to think about it, I agree with Peggy Rambach’s opinion on how Stricter gun laws alone won't stop America's urban violence.
Her goal I can only presume is to reach the whole American populace as audience in an attempt to spark some more thought into what the real cause of violence is. Is it the fact that laws on guns are so lenient?
In her article, she talks about her class of incarcerated criminals at Suffolk County House of Correction being moved by a poem that seems to accurately describe how guns and ultimately the power they provide to the wielder ends up corrupting him to the point of fatality.
However, she makes the point that having stricter laws on guns won't do America much good because criminals, keeping true to their title, are not particularly well known for following the law. If they require guns, they will get them through whatever means necessary either for protection or for mischief.
I agree with her logic and believe that this issue is much like the weeds that we find in our lawns every year. In order to really remove them, you have to attack them at their source.
Think about it: Imagine if for some strange reason, everyone in America agreed tomorrow that all guns should be banned and taken away from every single person within the borders of the United States. Would this automatically make gangs like MS13 a thing of the past? Would the bloods and crips stop fighting?
I think not. If history is any indication, they will just try to stay one step ahead of the law and create a bigger black market for guns, or improvise on how to do harm.
This has been observed in countries that have banned firearms such as the UK, where the threat of a pipe bomb is usually far scarier than that of a stray gun bullet.
I believe that the government should institute an investigation panel that will outline the root of why violence is spread throughout society and from there, devise laws and programs to correct or eliminate these factors altogether.   

Stage II: Illegal Immigration scandal over lunch.

With the holidays over, the government once again shifts its attention to illegal immigration.
However, while the government might take a long time to decide exactly what it wants to do with the issue at hand, the same restrictions don't apply to Taco Cid restaurant and its employees in West Columbia.

On the 16th of January, South Carolina's The State published an article highlighting the event.
Taco Cid's owner Leanne Snelgrove started selling shirts that "feature a box propped open with a stick and string as a rudimentary trap baited with two tacos."
Soon after availability for the apparel began, Taco Cid became the highlight of national news, with many Hispanic advocate groups condemning the shirt as racist and rude.
The shirt however does not display any rude phrases or signs, it merely has the phrase "How to Catch an Illegal Immigrant” printed in red, green and white colours.
Some people are quick to point out that this is clear discrimination against Mexico and its people, but Snelgrove holds a firm stance on the matter, clearly stating that her shirts are a political statement against illegal immigrants (who due to the coincidental shape of the continent, mostly come from Mexico) and not against any other hard-working, legal ethnic group(s).
Since the time of writing, Leanne has updated her business website with statements directed at the media's accusations and urges for fair and balanced articles. The shirts are no longer available for purchase through the on-line portal but are still available in all sizes through their contact numbers.