Don't Even Try It

New York Times: "Three Google executives were convicted of violating Italian privacy laws on Wednesday, the first case to hold the company’s executives criminally responsible for the content posted on its system. The verdict, though subject to appeal, could have sweeping implications worldwide for Internet freedom: It suggests that Google is not simply a tool for its users, as it contends, but is effectively no different from any other media company, like newspapers or television, that provides content and could be regulated"

Just try it, America. If someone starts trying to regulate the internet... I swear to you that you will have a full fledged revolution. I will be leading it.

"The Italian move to hold the company or its executives responsible for text, photographs or videos made available by third parties through Google and its online services, like YouTube, poses a significant challenge to the company’s business model, along with those of other Internet companies."

NOT. OK.

Toyoda's Toyotas

BAM. See what I did there?

So Toyota's been in the news a lot recently because of the whole faulty break issue. Today, the owner was finally in court to discuss what to do.

According to the Wall Street Journal, "The hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was the second of three planned by Congress on Toyota's safety crisis, which has prompted the Japanese car maker to recall more than eight million vehicles world-wide for unintended acceleration, brake problems and other issues."

That's a lot of cars.

Now, I don't exactly think a bunch of hearings is going to do much good. I mean, this guy probably had nothing to do with the issue in the first place. Do you think Mr. Toyoda is down there, up to his elbows in oil, makin' cars? No. I think Mr. Toyoda is sitting in a Japanese mansion, rolling in a pile of money.

But his company sent out eight million faulty cars, so it is his responsibility to fix the problem. I just think the government is doing it wrong.

I mean, according to Reuters, "Under a program announced by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the U.S. arm of Toyota Motor Corp promised expedited repairs and other "special accommodations" to New York residents who bought Toyota vehicles from dealers in that state."

They are paying heavy reparations for the mistake. They are redoing the cars. Let's open up the courts for important things.

Oh Snap

The Afghanistan war is not going well.

According to the LA Times, "The Netherlands has become the first NATO ally to announce that it is quitting the fight in Afghanistan, following the collapse of the center-right government over its involvement in the U.S.-led war against the Taliban. The decision by the Dutch to pull their nearly 2,000 troops does not bode well for President Obama, who has been struggling since autumn to get Europe to increase its troop commitments. On the contrary, the administration should worry that the Dutch move will prompt other governments to reconsider their support for an unpopular war."

I think that this is a problem that the new administration needs to consider. A big part of Obama's troop surge relies on foreign governments and NATO sending troops in as well. But obviously, this isn't going to happen.

According to the Wall Street Journal, "The popularity of the international campaign in Afghanistan has fallen across Europe and in the U.S... The Netherlands and Canada have set pull-out dates, and some foreign armies remain reluctant to fight in restive regions like Helmand. British politicians face a hostile media that chronicles the return of every dead soldier's coffin."

A new strategy may be necessary.

Body Count

I don't understand airstrikes. I really don't. Especially for problems like the Taliban. I mean, the organization is succeeding because not all of them are in one place. Their entire operation is based on being spread out. "Divide and conquer" seems to be working for them.

So why, in common sense's name, would we deign to send bombs from above at an ambiguous area in order to get a couple terrorists?

The New York Times reported that "The Afghan human rights commission reported Wednesday that 28 civilians have been killed so far in NATO's offensive on the Taliban stronghold of Marjah, and urged pro-government forces to take greater care in distinguishing between civilians and militants."

Thank you, human rights commission, for being a voice of reason. International "peace-keepers", please, let's focus on the real problems. The Af-Pak border. The crumbled economy. The drug trade. The actual terrorists.

Priorities part dos

Oh, Tiger Woods.

I'm sure we've all heard of his scandal, and I'm sure the people who hadn't heard of the scandal know about it now, thanks to his press conference.

But I'm sure I'm not alone when I wish that press conferences were reserved for important things, like the new Health Care bill.

No public option, Obama? How many times was that promised to us?

Apparently, the House agrees with me. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Democrats' last hope for completing the overhaul is to use a process known as budget reconciliation. The House would pass the version of the overhaul that the Senate passed Dec. 24, and both chambers would also pass a package of changes based on the new proposal the White House released Monday. That proposal incorporates some House Democrats' ideas, such as more generous subsidies to help lower earners buy insurance. Under reconciliation, a simple majority is needed for Senate passage."

But America might disagree. According to CNN, "Two-thirds of Americans think that the Republicans in Congress are not doing enough to cooperate with President Obama, according to a new national poll."

Interesting. I suppose I'll keep my mouth shut while this whole thing works itself out.

Buncha Monkeys

"... that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals." -Butler Act, 1925 (Tennessee).

This is the law passed in Tennessee in which teacher John Scopes was put in prison for. His case, often referred to as the "Scopes Monkey Trial", was taken to court, defended by Clarence Darrow, and prosecuted by William Jennings Bryan. The problem was, however, that John Scopes never violated this law by teaching evolution from a textbook in his biology class, and therefore it was unfair for him to be put in jail, and unnecessary for the trial to have happened at all.

The two lawyers were well known in the time. Bryan was a three time Democratic candidate for President, but he never succeeded to be elected. He prided himself in being a leader of a Fundamentalist movement that was working to ban Darwin's theory from the classrooms. In the state of Tennessee's eyes, he was the perfect man for the prosecution. Clarence Darrow was nearly opposite of his widely acclaimed opponent. He was well known as a brilliant man, but many worried that his agnostic beliefs would give the prosecution a reason to believe he was biased against the charges against Scopes (Linder, An Introduction).

Bryan used the Bible in many of his cross examinations of Scopes' students and in his other statements. But when Darrow brought his first witnesses, seven scientists in the fields such zoology, in hopes that they would explain how evolution didn't necessarily go against Christian teachings, the prosecution objected, and it was sustained. So Darrow then called his opponent, Bryan, to the stand, as an expert on the Bible, since his experts on evolution were not allowed to testify, and proceeded to ask him a series of questions, quoting from both the Holy Book and Darwin's Origin of Species. Many newspapers such as the New York Times described to their readers how Bryan stumbled over his words multiple times because of the rapid interview and hard points delivered by Darrow. Unfortunately for the defense, the counsel decided to erase all of this interview, ruling that it was not relevant to the trial (Linder, An Introduction).

The verdict was passed on July 21, and John Scopes was found guilty as charged, and fined $100, which with the current inflation rate would translate to $1141.88 (Friedman, Inflation). Upon hearing the jury's decision, Scopes has this to say; "Your honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom--that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our constitution, of personal and religious freedom. I think the fine is unjust" (Scopes, World's). But ironically, there is evidence in the Bible to suggest that Scopes did not oppose this law at all.

The Butler Act clearly states that any theory that denies the story of the Bible is to be outlawed from being taught in the classroom. But the jury and the prosecution obviously didn't know what evolution was about, and if they had, evidence from their very own Bible would have supported it. Take the story of The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-19) for example. In this, it is described how the Lord gave each of three men his talents; one was given five, one was given two, and one was given a single talent. One traded his five talents and gained five more. Another traded his two and gained two more. But the last one buried his one talent and so did not gain anything. The two who traded and gained more talents were commended by the Lord and given land to prosper on. But the man who did not gain another talent was stripped of the original and given to the man with ten talents. "For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away." (Matthew 25:29)(God, Holy). Now take into consideration one of the main points of evolution, survival of the fittest. This phrase means "The idea that species adapt and change by natural selection with the best suited mutations becoming dominant" (Martin, The Phrase). Does this idea not go hand in hand with the story "The Parable of the Talents"? The men who gained more talents (mutations) prospered (survived), while the man who did not build off of his talents (did not mutate/adapt) did not. In just that one story, it seems that evolution does in fact compliment the Bible.

Another idea in the theory of evolution is that of population genetics, such that :generation-to-generation change in the frequencies of alleles within a population that shares a common gene pool" . (Definition: alleles-any of the alternative forms of a gene that may occur at a given locus) (Definition: locus- the place where something is situated or occurs)(Merriam-Webster). More simply, it is how certain genes are passed down, and the more dominant ones tend to continue passing down, while others fail. In the story of Jacob's agreement with Laban (Genesis 30: 25-43)(Till, Gen), Jacob's father-in-law, Laban, agrees to let Jacob tend to his flock and allow Jacob to have all the striped, spotted, and speckled goats. But Laban puts all such goats in his sons' care, three days away from the place where Jacob is tending the other goats, who were all white, therefore hoping to ensure that Jacob gets no goats out of the exchange. But Jacob puts rods that are speckled, spotted, and striped near the watering troughs where the white goats would mate. And so they bore kids that were speckled, spotted, and striped. (God, Holy). This story goes along nicely with the idea of population genetics, as it is believed that "visual stimuli can have prenatal effects on the offspring of breeding animals",(Till, Gen) thus explaining how Jacob went about his little scheme. Once again, it is proved that evolution is not denying the stories of the Bible, it only elaborates and explains the things we have read about for ages in our Holy Book.

The Scopes Monkey Trial was widely publicized at the time, drawing audiences from all over the country into the trial. And although John Scopes was found guilty, many Americans remained on his side. The Butler Act was repealed in Tennessee in 1967, 42 years too late to help Scopes' case. But even without it being invalidated, John Scopes should never have been arrested, as it has been proved with the evidence that the theory of evolution actually supports the divine creation theory in many ways, because he never taught a theory denying the teachings of the Holy Bible.

Land of the Lard

First Lady Michelle Obama has started her fight against childhood obesity. "I would move heaven and earth to give my kids all the chance in the world for them to be at the top of their game in every way, shape and form," Mrs. Obama told USA Today. "Let's Move operates under the principle that every family wants the same thing for their kid. So we're going to figure out how to make it easier for them to get it.

Her husband, the president, has decided to help her along by creating a task force on obesity, whose members, according to the Washington Post, "including the secretaries of health, agriculture, education and the interior, must report back within 90 days."

Isn't that great? I mean, obesity is one of the biggest (hah) health issues facing our country today.

Unfortunately, it's not gonna work. Jamie Oliver, a UK celebrity cook, started a reality show this year called "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution", where he plans on spreading the doctrine of healthy eating to the world. Unfortunately, it's not all rainbows and butterflies in the US.

According to SlashFood.com, "More than half the residents in Huntington are obese, but that doesn't mean they were receptive to help or advice from the British celebrity chef about how to eat better. Many refused to listen or participate during filming of the series.

"They don't understand me. They don't know why I'm here," the 34-year-old Oliver said, sobbing."

West Virginia made a celebrity chef cry because they are so adverse to healthy eating. This is a fight that's going to take a lot of effort, which frankly I don't think is our priority right now. You know why people are fat? They choose to ignore nutrition facts and other blatant health risks of eating McDonalds every night. No amount of "attention" is going to stop people from being lazy.

"Some of her initiatives, such as tax breaks for grocery stores to move into poorly served communities, will require congressional action." -Washington Post.

Congress has bigger things to worry about. Like the recession, rising unemployment rates, and the "war" on "terror". Acknowledgment of this problem is fine, and it's Michelle Obama's own initiative to pursue such acknowledgment is fine with me. But don't bring in the lawmakers. They're already biting off more than they can chew.

Speaking of Sanctions...

I know. I know. It's gonna get old fast. But that's ok. I have ammunition!

Another thing I recently learned about sanctions is that they're counter-productive.

Sanctions are meant to reverse a foreign government’s policies. When the end result of a sanction is worse than the original scenario, it is counter-productive.

In addition, sanctions often cause “flag-rallying” among the citizens of the target country. Jay Gordon of the Social Science Research Council (2004) reiterates this idea stating that “when the population at large is subject to deprivation by a foreign nation, they respond to it as they would a form of attack, with increased nationalism and support of their political leadership. Thus, while the intent of the nation imposing the sanctions might be to “send a message” of the wrongfulness of the target state’s actions, the effect is to consolidate support for the leadership, and its legitimacy is enhanced rather than undermined.”

This “flag rallying” effect is not purely hypothetical, however. According to Hufbauer, Shott, and Elliot of the Washington Institute for International Economics (1990), “a nationalistic reaction [to sanctions] seems to have blunted the League’s actions against Italy in 1935-36, Soviet sanctions against Yugoslavia in 1948-55, US measures against Indonesia in 1963-66, UN actions against Rhodesia in 1965-79, and US sanctions against Nicaragua in the 1980s.”

I don't understand how someone could think that sanctions would make the people of these countries go "oh, hey. I no longer have food or clean water, but gosh, my government sucks and I should revolt! GOD BLESS AMERICA!"

Really? Really. Come on, federal government. Let's think about this.

Good Timing

BAM! I start researching sanctions, and guess what shows up on Google News's front page?

So according to Reuters, "Iran has rejected Western overtures and the international community has no choice but to move toward imposing new sanctions over its nuclear program, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Monday."

That's basically the entirety of the article, which sucks, because I don't have a lot of information to go off of, but it's a good start. So after my Friday post, it's clear that I'm not a fan of sanctions. And this vague decision by the new administration makes me nervous.

They don't specify the kind of sanctions, and as I discussed, there are many different kinds. Smart sanctions work to leave the civilians out of it, but not to such a point that they go entirely unscathed. So no matter how this turns out, the Iranian people are going to suffer.

I get that it's important for national defense to protect ourselves against a volatile government building WMDs without regard, but I don't know how sanctions are going to help. Without the support of the neighboring countries, this sanction will not be successful. If it's just a few of us "developed" countries, it's not going to warrant results. Or, at least, not the results we want.

Sanction THIS

I had the unfortunate duty to switch debate events at the last minute after my already-flighty partner planned a trip to New York during state-quals. Switching from PF to LD has been rough, but I'm getting it. And I suppose there is a silver lining; I have a new subject to rant about!

Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

At least now I'll shut up about Afghanistan, eh?

So from what I've read- and I've read about 200 pages on the subject- it seems that economic sanctions, contrary to my original belief, suck. A lot. Like Nicholas Kristof said in 2003, "The United States imposed 85 new unilateral economic sanctions on foreign nations from 1996 to 2001. But sanctions, which cost U.S. companies up to $19 billion in 1995 alone, aren’t a policy; they’re a feel-good substitute for one."

The thing is, though, it's not "feel-good". Although it's true that there are many important differences between actual military intervention and economic sanctions, I'd go as far as to say that sanctions can, in most cases, be worse.

Sanctions target innocents. This is a big idea, and a big problem. According to Dave McGinnis, "Sanctions target innocents because they are directed against the economy of the nation, and the economy involves the interests of everyone, not just the leaders or others responsible for bad state behaviors. Even “targeted” sanctions implicate the economy of the nation because autocratic leaders generally have largely managed economies, so if you – for example – freeze the assets of a dictator, they are likely to respond by extracting more assets from the economy and shifting the burden of the sanction down the economic ladder to the most vulnerable members of society."

That kind of sucks, especially since dictators obviously don't care about the welfare of their citizens, and the citizens have no political pull in order to change their situation. Hurting these people doesn't help anything, especially not global human-rights policy.

Speaking Out

This morning, President Obama took part in the National Prayer Breakfast. At this breakfast, which has kind of a ridiculous name if you ask me, Obama took a stance on the new Uganda Anti-Gay bill.

Fun Fact: "The organization which sponsors the breakfast, the Fellowship Foundation, has been associated with efforts to pass the bill, according to the ethics group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington."

That must have been awkward. Especially after he stated that it is "unconscionable to target gays or lesbians for who they are." Basically, "thanks for the eggs, but you're still a bunch of jerks."

I like this. I like this a lot. Excuse the slang, but it was pretty ballsy of our president to accept an invitation to a foundation and then insult them for being prejudiced. Good. For. Him.

This is how policy gets done. The President takes a stand and doesn't bend to the will of special interests. It's not very good politics if he wants to try to appeal to everyone; but he doesn't want to appeal to everyone. He understands that it isn't possible, so he stands up for the issues he believes in.

This is the kind of president the country needs. A president who worries about fair policies, not biased politics. If Obama was truly worried about getting reelected, he wouldn't be pushing all of these controversial policies. He wouldn't take a definite stance on the issues. But he is. He is taking a stance, and even if you don't like him, you have to give him your respect. Because it takes a lot to believe in something, but it takes a lot more to express that belief, whether it be popular or not.

The Terrorsitter Club

I just needed a clever title. Sue me.

This morning, I woke up, checked my iPhone, and found a new email waiting for me. It was from Mia, an article by NPR talking about the AfPak border. I've written about this issue before, but here's an even stronger reason why this troop surge is not sufficient.

According to the article, "The militant Islamist groups based in the rugged Afghanistan-Pakistan border region — from al-Qaida to the Taliban — have apparently forged new "connections," according to U.S. intelligence officials, and may now be working together to target U.S. forces in Afghanistan."

HAH. I so called this. When I discussed the Durand Line in this blog, I mentioned my concern over the area. And I stand by my assertion back then.

"The only way I see that we can resolve this issue is to redraw the lines. It's like what's happening in Africa; we white people draw lines based on how much land we want and declare the separate sections as separate countries. But the consent of the people is not claimed, and because tribal areas are being shredded and split up, there is civil war and an entire continent of unrest."

This area is so tumultuous that terrorism thrives. With no stable, recognized government for a very large space, there is no way to secure it and make sure that terrorism doesn't. Thrive, that is.

Does our President not know this? What exactly does he hope to accomplish with this troop surge?

“The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda's leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, to communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world.”

Oh. Right.

Sometimes it worries me that I know things that my government tries to pretend aren't real things. In my International Forum class the other day, the kids who are usually in adamant support of any and all military actions were thrown as I described the Durand Line to them. They admitted to never hearing about it, and were unsure as to their opinions thereafter. THIS IS A PROBLEM.

And now, an open letter to the media:

Dear American Media,

I understand that Balloon Boy was a big story. It was a scandal. It was scary. It was sensational.

But come on. What happened to journalistic integrity? No one really watches the news anymore... no one except the people who will actually listen. So make them listen. Show them the Durand Line. Inform the public.

You're better than this,
Bri Castellini