CISPA?

CISPA was almost big news recently. But the news has been full of a lot of big subjects, so it was pushed down to near the bottom of the stack. First, North Korea went as far against the "speak softly and carry a big stick" policy as they could, hurling threat after threat at the rest of the world. Studies showed that the majority of Americans were worried about them. And this past week has been rightly called the week from hell. The Boston Marathon bombings stole the front page, leading to larger font sizes on headlines that I think I've seen since Bin Laden was killed. Then, a factory blew up in West, creating a crater nearly 100 feet wide and 10 feet deep. It was so crazy that even a ricin-laced letter aimed for the president hardly got on the front page.

So you can't be blamed for not realizing that CISPA, a bill that is very similar to SOPA and PIPa, and is aimed at allowing the government to track us more closely online, and to use that information to prevent piracy and as criminal evidence, passed the house on Thursday, April 18, 2013. It's currently sitting in the Senate, fate unknown. Anonymous tried to run a campaign similar to the SOPA blackouts of last year that were so pervasive and gained so much attention and opposition to that bill, but they failed pretty miserably. I didn't even know that the blackouts had happened until I started researching the bill in detail, and I'm about as heavy of an internet user as there is.

I don't think that CISPA is a good idea, but not for the same reasons as the majority of arguments that I've heard. I don't even think that those arguments are particularly valid. They mostly revolve around a person's privacy. On the internet, I think this is utterly ridiculous. Even tongue in cheek rules acknowledge that on the internet, "anything you post will eventually become public," and "anything you post can and will be used against you." Nothing on the internet is private, and you should not expect that it will be. Even if it's not the government that finds it, it's out there, and someone can find it. Privacy on the internet is an illusion, and government bills will do nothing to change that. I know that anything that I put on the internet will be public, somehow, some day, and I don't post or do anything that I wouldn't mind if everyone saw.

However, even though the majority of material that I personally post is true, or real, this is sadly not the case for everyone. The internet gives an amazing amount of anonymity to its denizens, so people feel like they can post anything. The amount of garbage on the internet astonishes me every day.

It's also amazing how much malicious stuff makes its way out on the internet. And I'm not talking about just viruses or scam sites, I'm talking about major things such as the tweet yesterday, from a hacked Associated Press account, claiming that the White House had been bombed, and the president injured, that made the stock market plunge by 143 points. These have become more and more pervasive. False information is everywhere, and it's often hard, or even impossible, to track down what is true, and what is false.

Because information is so hard to verify on the internet, I do not think that CISPA, or any other bill, should pass. I do not want to be convicted because of a post that a jealous ex made on my Facebook page because they still had my password, or some other false lead that a hacker in China planted in my email account. The recent Reddit misfires in identifying the Boston bombers are an excellent example of how the internet can be wrong. That, not privacy, is why I think CISPA is not a good idea, and should not be passed.

Asteroid Incoming!

In her post, Here I am sitting on my tin can far above the Moon; Planet Earth is blue and there's nothing I can do, my classmate, Cheri Morris makes the argument that cutting NASA's budget is very, very dangerous to our future, because of the ever-present danger that we face from a possible asteroid impact.

She begins by pointing out that the government is cutting NASA's budget, and then proceeds to argue that we should give them more money for finding asteroids and protecting Earth. While I agree with both the fact that asteroids are incredibly dangerous to us (not just as people, but as a species), and that we should not be cutting NASA's budget in any way, I also disagree directly with some of the conclusions she reached in her post.

First, while NASA's budget is indeed being cut, they are shuffling money around. As noted in various articles around the internet, such as this one from Slate, NASA is actually spending more money on asteroid detection and collision prevention this year than they did last year, so that budget is not being cut.

I think that the true issue here is the programs that NASA is going to have to cut to be able to keep funding in areas deemed critical, such as the asteroid program. The article I listed above does a nice job of outlining the various areas that have been cut that should not have been.

These areas include planetary science (Trips to Mars, etc.), crewed missions (You know, actual humans in space...), and most importantly of all, education.

Cheri points out very directly that one of the biggest issues, one of the reasons that there's not more backlash against this cut, is that the public is uneducated. I completely agree on this subject. I subscribe to the belief that "Space is the final frontier", and that it is one of the most important topics to educate people about. Education funding should be critical, and one of the very last things to get cut in any circumstances.

Thus, while I agree that the budget cuts are bad, and that they are hitting NASA, I do not think the biggest issue is the danger of an asteroid strike--in part because the budget in that area was not actually cut--but rather education.

Paying for School

This is an issue that is important to many college students today, as well as their parents, who, combined make up a large portion of the population. It's especially important to me right now, perhaps more so than many others. I just heard back from one of the schools that I want to go to in the fall. They told me that, in essence, "We aren't giving you any scholarships, but here's some loans that you can take out."

I'm a little ticked off. I understand why it happened, though. I have a 4.0 GPA, 94 hours completed, and, among other things, 1 second place and 5 first place awards in the ACC math competition. I am a multiple time gold member of the honor society. I have, in essence, an almost perfect student record, and it shows that I work hard and apply myself.

But my parents earn too much money. They aren't paying for my schooling, but, because I'm still living at home, saving money, and doing school the smart way, I am counted as a dependent. I filled out the FAFSA, and my expected parental contribution was more than the cost of tuition plus room and board. The thing is, I'm not going to be getting any of that money.

I'm also a transfer student. I was advised multiple times to apply as a freshman and retake my classes - there's more money for new students, and I'm not the only person who has received this advice. This make absolutely no sense to me; I am a transfer student because I took as many of my classes as cheaply as I could. Being a transfer student also means that I have a proven track record - with the qualities listed above, I'm much less of a "gamble" than the majority of incoming freshman would be. I made the decision that I am not going to spend another two years retaking classes - there's no way that could be worth it to me, even with the extra scholarship money.

I think that the way we fund education should be changed. I understand how incredibly important it is to help the poor, to work with them to elevate them in life and education, as studies have shown how beneficial it can be for them.

But I disagree that they should get a free ride, while I am encouraged to take out loans. I understand the value of a good education, and will not stop until I have one. I work hard. I have never failed a class, and I think that nobody who truly values their education will.

There are plenty of resources in place that I think are very helpful. My government class this semester has regular SI sessions, and I have attended every one. According to the session leader, those who attend the sessions regularly typically get at least a letter grade higher on their final grade.

ACC also has a free tutoring center, where students can go and get tutoring and help in almost any class. I have not personally used it very much, but the times I have, it has been incredibly helpful.

They have counselors and advisors, so you always have someone to ask for advice, about what classes you should take, or what degree plan you should follow.

I think that, because all of these services are available as part of the tuition, that scholarships should not be based so heavily on perceived financial need, but on how well you are doing in school. I understand that people will have a hard time with paying for school, if they don't have money already. But I also think that all of the resources that they need are already there, and are free, to help them excel in their classes. Thus, I think that we should award more scholarships to the people who do well in school, regardless of their financial status.

The government plays a large role in this; but their money is spent in large on "financially-needy students." I really believe that more of the money should be spent on the top students, those who have shown, time and time again, that they can excel, and truly deserve the money and the education.

Dangerous Food

We hear all the time about how foods are dangerous, but this one is definitely a new one. Last week, a boy was suspended from school for two days - because he chewed a pop-tart into the shape of a gun. Not only that, but the other students were offered counseling for the event as well.

This event is the subject of the article, School offers counseling for traumatized students who saw classmate chew pastry into shape of gun, by Doug Powers.

The majority of the article is simply a list of the happenings. At the end, he offers a few comments that, on the surface, appear to be simply funny.

While the article is posted on a conservative blog, I think that, by making broad and humorous comments, the author is trying to appeal to a wider audience. I think that he does this well; I certainly found the article to be amusing.

I think that the author is definitely trying to make an argument, and it's the obvious one. He's saying that this is ridiculous. He is doing this with his commentary and wording throughout the article, especially the comments at the end.

His comments, which mostly focus on what seem like silly extensions of this event (calling it a "loaded" gun because there was filling in the pop-tart, and a mandatory cooling period before pop-tarts can be eaten), are really meant to be thought-provoking, and perhaps a little bit scary.

The comments are about things that could happen in the future. Yes, we see them as ridiculous right now, but, he is saying, if we've gone this far, what is to stop us form going even farther, down even darker paths?

I think that he is right. We have already gone too far with our ridiculous zero-tolerance policies in schools, and we need to stop and re-examine them before we move even more into ridiculousness.

Also, the title of his article is way too long.

Alarmism at its Best

Last week, a meteor exploded over Russia, injuring some 1,200 people. In at unrelated event, a much larger asteroid passed close to the Earth the same day.

The article, We're on notice to plan for the next meteor, authors Rush Holt and Donna F. Edwards discuss these events and what they mean.

I think, given how they have discussed the events that occurred, their expected audience knows little about astronomy. This isn't surprising, as the majority of Americans these days don't know much about the subject. I'm glad that at least most of them know that the Earth is round and that we orbit the Sun, not the other way around. I'm even happier when most of those know that the Sun is a star.

My point is that they don't expect their audience to know much about the subject matter. They try to throw lots and lots of numbers at their audience - the size and speed of the meteor, comparisons to other meteors, budgets and years for projects looking at meteors - all without enough connection or explanation.

I believe that the authors are quite credible, and all of their information, as far as I can tell, is correct. However, both are politicians, and I think that they are out for money to fund their projects. Their goal becomes clear in the last paragraph of the article, which states, "When something explodes or falls from the atmosphere, the world needs to know what it is. Impacts like what occurred in Russia on Friday are certain to occur. We should make the investments necessary to track near-Earth objects and prepare for disasters of all kinds."

I think they do not, however, give a fair representation of all of the facts. For example, they do not state that, to date, there is not a single recorded death of a person due to a meteorite. According to this page, all we know is that a dog has been killed. I do not, therefore, think that we need to spend money in this area right now.

I also think that the wording is intended to be alarmist throughout. For example, in the first paragraph, it references the asteroid that was never in danger of striking the Earth, calling it, "a close shave in astronomical terms." Yes, the asteroid passed close to Earth. But it was never predicted to hit us. According to Merriam Webster, a close shave is "a narrow escape." This was not a narrow escape; we've know for months that the asteroid was coming and that it was not going to be dangerous.

They do mention the fact that this type of event only occurs every 100 years or so, the last one being the Tunguska event, but downplay this fact. I think it's vitally important. We've probably got another 100 years before anything like this happens again, and our technology is progressing very quickly. By the time the next event rolls around, we'll probably have all objects nearby of the size of the one that exploded over Russia mapped, as well as some smaller, if current telescope progressions are anything to judge by.

In summary, this article was written as an alarmist article. It uses all correct facts, but down-plays or misrepresents key pieces of information. I believe that, as an alarmist article, its goal is to get the people to support spending more money on a budget to keep a lookout for asteroids, and try to prevent future meteor impacts.

Blog Post Assignment #2

In an article titled Texas reaction mixed to Obama call for immigration reform, the Austin American Statesman summarizes the reactions of various politicians to President Obama's call for Immigration Reform, given on Tuesday.

The article actually begins by giving a brief summary of Obama's speech, which calls for giving those in the country a chance to apply for citizenship, and more enforcement on the borders and in the workplace. The article then talks for a time about the similarities between this plan and the current immigration reform bill making its way through Congress, as well as the issues that traditionally surround the debate.

It then moves on to talking about Texas politician's reactions. It says that U.S. Rep Lamar Smith is against it, because he thinks that allowing those already here to obtain citizenship would simply encourage more people to immigrate illegally.

It says that U.S. Senator John Cornyn is attacking Obama for talking before, and not accomplishing anything on this issue.

It says that U.S. Representative Lloyd Doggett thinks this is a good start.

It says that U.S. Representative Michael McCaul agrees that we need to double down on border security.

It then talks about local businesses, and groups, and their opinions on the matter. Notably, it says that the Texas Association of Business has voted to support the idea.

I believe that this article is very important. Because we live in Texas, immigration reform is a huge issue; according to one article, there were over 1 million illegal immigrants "working or looking to work" in Texas. Texas also has one of the highest rates of illegal immigration in the country, and so immigration is a very important issue for those living here. Thus, I think that it is also very important to know where our politicians stand on this issue, and the article by the Austin American Statesman summarizes their stances on the latest proposal for reform well.