http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/chatfield/chatfield-on-stopping-joseph-kony/article_302f7f43-d3b5-575b-ad3a-20c04f62690e.html
The video that went viral, called Kony 2012, was a campaign attempting to raise awareness of a man named Joseph Kony, who is the leader of a religious group in Uganda, Africa, called the Lord's Resistance Army. He is said to kidnap children and use them as child soldiers, among many other horrible things, to do his "dirty work". This viral video has, naturally, been put under much scrutiny by the media and everyone else. Many people question the organization behind this campaign, called Invisible Children, and where it puts its money. However, according to this article, more than 80% of the spending in their organization from 2007 to 2011 went directly to benefiting the cause. So in no way is this one of those "slacktivist", overnight campaign, but in actuality it is a deep, thoughtful campaign meant to go straight to a very worthy cause.
I believe this author is completely reliable, though where they get their statistics is questionable, as they don't even mention it. Also, I have heard multiple times of different statistics than what this author seems to be telling me, but I have more reason to trust this author than other places because it is from the North County Times, which are a very reliable newspaper network that is known for its trustworthines.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Right to Free Speech is Being Witheld
Kaitlyn DeShon
North County Times
"Ohio man given choice of Facebook apology or jail"
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/backpage/ohio-man-given-choice-of-facebook-apology-or-jail/article_3ab472cf-3ef0-55ea-b19d-9c276a9dd368.html
A man posted what a judge deemed to be rude and annoying comments on his personal Facebook page about his wife. He was given the choice between spending 60 days in jail or posting apologizing comments every day on his page for a month. This is because the judge said that he was is contempt of a previous order prohibiting him from causing his wife any mental abuse. However, several freedom of speech experts say that this is a violation of his rights, and due to the freedom of speech he should be able to post anything he desires on his Facebook page. The man denies he violated any order given to him.
This connects to what we are studying in class because it pertains to the United States government, and it especially pertains to the Revolutionary War because it talks about people being angered by the government undermining their natural rights, which the Declaration of Independence states. The natural right in this situation is the right to freedom of speech, which can easily be put under the category of "the pursuit of happiness", which is stated in the Declaration of Independence. In both the time of the Revolutionary War and this modern scenario, the people are upset with the government witholding their proper rights.
This connects to my life as a citizen because of course I am effected by anything involving the Internet, which Facebook certainly does. I do not have a Facebook account, but many of my friends do as well as my family, so I am very familiar with it. Also, the right to freedom of speech is, surprisingly, often around me in other news and things that happen at my school. Therefore, this connects to my life as a citizen in many different aspects.
My personal opinion is that the judge should not make this man make the choice between a jail sentence and being forced to post comments on his Facebook page where the government decides what he says. This is a very clear violation of the freedom of speech. For example, when the article says, "threatened with jail time ... unless he posted daily apologies for a month," it shows that the judge is forcing him to make a choice that in either way would violate his rights to freedom of speech, and I find that unacceptable.
North County Times
"Ohio man given choice of Facebook apology or jail"
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/backpage/ohio-man-given-choice-of-facebook-apology-or-jail/article_3ab472cf-3ef0-55ea-b19d-9c276a9dd368.html
A man posted what a judge deemed to be rude and annoying comments on his personal Facebook page about his wife. He was given the choice between spending 60 days in jail or posting apologizing comments every day on his page for a month. This is because the judge said that he was is contempt of a previous order prohibiting him from causing his wife any mental abuse. However, several freedom of speech experts say that this is a violation of his rights, and due to the freedom of speech he should be able to post anything he desires on his Facebook page. The man denies he violated any order given to him.
This connects to what we are studying in class because it pertains to the United States government, and it especially pertains to the Revolutionary War because it talks about people being angered by the government undermining their natural rights, which the Declaration of Independence states. The natural right in this situation is the right to freedom of speech, which can easily be put under the category of "the pursuit of happiness", which is stated in the Declaration of Independence. In both the time of the Revolutionary War and this modern scenario, the people are upset with the government witholding their proper rights.
This connects to my life as a citizen because of course I am effected by anything involving the Internet, which Facebook certainly does. I do not have a Facebook account, but many of my friends do as well as my family, so I am very familiar with it. Also, the right to freedom of speech is, surprisingly, often around me in other news and things that happen at my school. Therefore, this connects to my life as a citizen in many different aspects.
My personal opinion is that the judge should not make this man make the choice between a jail sentence and being forced to post comments on his Facebook page where the government decides what he says. This is a very clear violation of the freedom of speech. For example, when the article says, "threatened with jail time ... unless he posted daily apologies for a month," it shows that the judge is forcing him to make a choice that in either way would violate his rights to freedom of speech, and I find that unacceptable.
Monday, January 30, 2012
The Internet is Protected from SOPA and PIPA
Kaitlyn DeShon
"Congress Indefinitely Postpones 'SOPA, PIPA'"
North County Times
Friday, January 20, 2012
Jim Abrams Associated Press
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/nation-congress-indefinitely-postpones-sopa-pipa/article_656197c4-5e54-5140-b7a6-4c965f0264c0.html
This article talks about how Congress was debating on whether or not to pass the Protect Intellectual Property Act, or PIPA, and the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. Congress was responding to the Internet petitions that happened on large sites, like Google and Wikipedia. When these sites heard about the online piracy preventing acts, they protested by shutting down their sites for a day, or in Google's case, organizing a petition drive that attracted over 7 million people. These acts changed the minds of several important Senators and Representatives that had originally been co-sponsoring the bills. The petitions and protests of the millions of angry citizens caused Congress to indefinitely postpone what to do with SOPA and PIPA. Several representatives have suggested other methods of dealing with online piracy, which costs the country millions of dollars a year.
This event connects to what we are learning in class because SOPA and PIPA, which are government acts enacted in order to prevent further online piracy, which is illegal and costs the country millions of dollars a year. This event parallels the Tea Act, the Townshend Acts, the Quartering Act, Stamp Act, and Proclamation of 1763. In these historical events, the British government put into force the acts in order to gain money that was lost. The colonists protested all these acts because they thought of these as unfair and went against their rights, as did the modern people against PIPA and SOPA. This is shown when in the article, it says, "...a loose affiliation of hackers known as 'Anonymous' shut down Justice Department websites for several hours and hacked the site of the Motion Picture Association of America after federal officials issued an indictment against Megaupload.com, one of the world's biggest file-sharing sites." (Abrams NCTimes). This shows that after a major act, the people got angry, and even got very, very dirty. They hacked into government websites and shut them down just to prove the point that they were angry. This relates to the events that led up to the Revolutionary War because the Patriots, who were very angry at the British government, decided to get dirty and violent with their protests, injuring British soldiers and tax collectors. In other words, people as closely connected to the British government as they could get in the colonies.
This connects to my life because I have had to deal with SOPA and PIPA myself. I use the Internet every day, and I was there when Wikipedia shut down their site in protest. It affected me, as well as nearly everyone at school and in my life. I have seen it on television, over the Internet, as well as simply face-to-face complaining about how "horrible" SOPA and PIPA is. Overall, this connects to my life because it directly affected it.
I believe that this will show Congress and the government just how powerful the Internet is, and how powerful the people can become when Congress decides to change it. This can effect our future because our nation's government is all about not one aspect of life being monopolized, or becoming too powerful. There are three branches of government because of this. In the economy, the government will step in in order to make sure no company becomes a monopoly, or even close to it. This could be the same mindset for the Internet. If they realize that the Internet has become too powerful, then they could pass more bills trying to control it. Therefore, this can effect our future very much.
"Congress Indefinitely Postpones 'SOPA, PIPA'"
North County Times
Friday, January 20, 2012
Jim Abrams Associated Press
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/nation-congress-indefinitely-postpones-sopa-pipa/article_656197c4-5e54-5140-b7a6-4c965f0264c0.html
This article talks about how Congress was debating on whether or not to pass the Protect Intellectual Property Act, or PIPA, and the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. Congress was responding to the Internet petitions that happened on large sites, like Google and Wikipedia. When these sites heard about the online piracy preventing acts, they protested by shutting down their sites for a day, or in Google's case, organizing a petition drive that attracted over 7 million people. These acts changed the minds of several important Senators and Representatives that had originally been co-sponsoring the bills. The petitions and protests of the millions of angry citizens caused Congress to indefinitely postpone what to do with SOPA and PIPA. Several representatives have suggested other methods of dealing with online piracy, which costs the country millions of dollars a year.
This event connects to what we are learning in class because SOPA and PIPA, which are government acts enacted in order to prevent further online piracy, which is illegal and costs the country millions of dollars a year. This event parallels the Tea Act, the Townshend Acts, the Quartering Act, Stamp Act, and Proclamation of 1763. In these historical events, the British government put into force the acts in order to gain money that was lost. The colonists protested all these acts because they thought of these as unfair and went against their rights, as did the modern people against PIPA and SOPA. This is shown when in the article, it says, "...a loose affiliation of hackers known as 'Anonymous' shut down Justice Department websites for several hours and hacked the site of the Motion Picture Association of America after federal officials issued an indictment against Megaupload.com, one of the world's biggest file-sharing sites." (Abrams NCTimes). This shows that after a major act, the people got angry, and even got very, very dirty. They hacked into government websites and shut them down just to prove the point that they were angry. This relates to the events that led up to the Revolutionary War because the Patriots, who were very angry at the British government, decided to get dirty and violent with their protests, injuring British soldiers and tax collectors. In other words, people as closely connected to the British government as they could get in the colonies.
This connects to my life because I have had to deal with SOPA and PIPA myself. I use the Internet every day, and I was there when Wikipedia shut down their site in protest. It affected me, as well as nearly everyone at school and in my life. I have seen it on television, over the Internet, as well as simply face-to-face complaining about how "horrible" SOPA and PIPA is. Overall, this connects to my life because it directly affected it.
I believe that this will show Congress and the government just how powerful the Internet is, and how powerful the people can become when Congress decides to change it. This can effect our future because our nation's government is all about not one aspect of life being monopolized, or becoming too powerful. There are three branches of government because of this. In the economy, the government will step in in order to make sure no company becomes a monopoly, or even close to it. This could be the same mindset for the Internet. If they realize that the Internet has become too powerful, then they could pass more bills trying to control it. Therefore, this can effect our future very much.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Church Man is Asked to Beat a Child
Kaitlyn DeShon
12/12/11
North County Times
"Officials: Calif. parents asked man to beat child"
http://www.nctimes.com/ap/national/officials-calif-parents-asked-man-to-beat-child/article_a42083d4-e41b-5970-9f26-0fcefd9e0158.html
Religion
The parents of a 15 year old boy suspected him of smoking. Upon finding a lighter in his possession, the distressed parents called Paul Kim, an apparently reliable church man. They dropped their son off at his house. Kim beat the child with a metal pole, causing intense bruising on his legs. An adult at the child's school noticed these marks and called the police. Kim was arrested for this crime, and suspected of doing similar things to children for parents around the neighborhood.
This connects to what we are studying in class because it states that this man is apparently known for being reliable and a consistent church-goer. This has to do with religion. Also, it represents society and culture because it shows how some people in our society punish their children. Another connection is that the thirteen colonies were very religious and had strict rules about their churches. They even had strict laws on what to do on Sundays, which is considered the Lord's Day. Obviously, these rules have been lost over the years in most societies, including this one where this church man beat people.
This connects to my life as a citizen because all parents must punish their children at one point or another, yet beating is severe, not to mention illegal. I have been punished for things I have done as a child. Also, many teenagers have been influenced by adult temptations such as alcohol or smoking. In this instance, it was smoking. However, this son is not the only one who has been influenced by this.
I believe that this man obviously should not have beat this child, instead the parents should have confronted their son about the lighter found in his possession. This man is putting a bad name on religion and church, because people cannot help but stereotype other groups of people. If they had only confronted him and perhaps gotten help for him, they would have, of course, avoided the arrest of this man and avoided the harm of their own child. These people are simply sick to do this to their own child and should have charges pressed against them also. As you can see, I think that this man should be arrested as well as the parents of the beaten child. They should also have gotten help for their son.
12/12/11
North County Times
"Officials: Calif. parents asked man to beat child"
http://www.nctimes.com/ap/national/officials-calif-parents-asked-man-to-beat-child/article_a42083d4-e41b-5970-9f26-0fcefd9e0158.html
Religion
The parents of a 15 year old boy suspected him of smoking. Upon finding a lighter in his possession, the distressed parents called Paul Kim, an apparently reliable church man. They dropped their son off at his house. Kim beat the child with a metal pole, causing intense bruising on his legs. An adult at the child's school noticed these marks and called the police. Kim was arrested for this crime, and suspected of doing similar things to children for parents around the neighborhood.
This connects to what we are studying in class because it states that this man is apparently known for being reliable and a consistent church-goer. This has to do with religion. Also, it represents society and culture because it shows how some people in our society punish their children. Another connection is that the thirteen colonies were very religious and had strict rules about their churches. They even had strict laws on what to do on Sundays, which is considered the Lord's Day. Obviously, these rules have been lost over the years in most societies, including this one where this church man beat people.
This connects to my life as a citizen because all parents must punish their children at one point or another, yet beating is severe, not to mention illegal. I have been punished for things I have done as a child. Also, many teenagers have been influenced by adult temptations such as alcohol or smoking. In this instance, it was smoking. However, this son is not the only one who has been influenced by this.
I believe that this man obviously should not have beat this child, instead the parents should have confronted their son about the lighter found in his possession. This man is putting a bad name on religion and church, because people cannot help but stereotype other groups of people. If they had only confronted him and perhaps gotten help for him, they would have, of course, avoided the arrest of this man and avoided the harm of their own child. These people are simply sick to do this to their own child and should have charges pressed against them also. As you can see, I think that this man should be arrested as well as the parents of the beaten child. They should also have gotten help for their son.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Prince William VS Government
Kaitlyn DeShon
Article #1
North County Times
"Prince William's posting to Falklands defended"
http://www.nctimes.com/ap/entertainment/prince-william-s-posting-to-falklands-defended/article_6681a97d-3be5-5a25-907a-fda70a196e35.html
Prince William of Britain wants to fight in military, but government won't let him
Prince William was deployed for the Falkland Islands despite attempts by the British government. Britain owns most of the land, but Argentina has claimed the Falkland Islands. He was sent to a British outpost on the islands. Argentina claimed this was a "provocative act" and that the British meant to have another war to overtake their islands. The British insisted it was not, and do not approve of Prince William serving in the military, however, Prince William as well as his brother, Prince Harry, have served in Britain's armed forces for quite some time and do not plan to stop now.
This connects to what we are studying in class because Britain/England, where Prince William is from, explored the Americas and colonized there. They were part of the Colombian exchange and claimed land in the Americas such as Virginia. Also, the simple fact that an American newspaper is making news about something going on in Britain shows that the Colombian exchange never ceases. We still exchange ideas, goods, new ways of life, government ideas, and so forth.
This connects to my life as a citizen because I have also been forced not to do something, as I am sure we all have at one point, because of the "dangers" and "possible fatalities" and so forth from our parents. Here Prince William is the child and the British government is the parent. Also, false accusations have been made. Argentina accused Prince William and Britain of trying to overtake their islands because of a simple deployment. This has happened so many times in my family household.
I believe that Prince William and Prince Harry should be allowed to be in the military if they wish, but be suspended from serving should a war or battle arise. Therefore, they could guard and protect their country, but they could not be injured badly. For example, Prince William should have been allowed to be deployed to that island, but if the tension were to rise too much and break out into violence, he would be removed from the area immediately, because any enemies would go straight for royalty. He would be much too vulnerable. Therefore, you can see that I believe the best thing for Prince Harry and Prince William would be that they are allowed to serve in the military, but with extra safety restrictions.
Article #1
North County Times
"Prince William's posting to Falklands defended"
http://www.nctimes.com/ap/entertainment/prince-william-s-posting-to-falklands-defended/article_6681a97d-3be5-5a25-907a-fda70a196e35.html
Prince William of Britain wants to fight in military, but government won't let him
Prince William was deployed for the Falkland Islands despite attempts by the British government. Britain owns most of the land, but Argentina has claimed the Falkland Islands. He was sent to a British outpost on the islands. Argentina claimed this was a "provocative act" and that the British meant to have another war to overtake their islands. The British insisted it was not, and do not approve of Prince William serving in the military, however, Prince William as well as his brother, Prince Harry, have served in Britain's armed forces for quite some time and do not plan to stop now.
This connects to what we are studying in class because Britain/England, where Prince William is from, explored the Americas and colonized there. They were part of the Colombian exchange and claimed land in the Americas such as Virginia. Also, the simple fact that an American newspaper is making news about something going on in Britain shows that the Colombian exchange never ceases. We still exchange ideas, goods, new ways of life, government ideas, and so forth.
This connects to my life as a citizen because I have also been forced not to do something, as I am sure we all have at one point, because of the "dangers" and "possible fatalities" and so forth from our parents. Here Prince William is the child and the British government is the parent. Also, false accusations have been made. Argentina accused Prince William and Britain of trying to overtake their islands because of a simple deployment. This has happened so many times in my family household.
I believe that Prince William and Prince Harry should be allowed to be in the military if they wish, but be suspended from serving should a war or battle arise. Therefore, they could guard and protect their country, but they could not be injured badly. For example, Prince William should have been allowed to be deployed to that island, but if the tension were to rise too much and break out into violence, he would be removed from the area immediately, because any enemies would go straight for royalty. He would be much too vulnerable. Therefore, you can see that I believe the best thing for Prince Harry and Prince William would be that they are allowed to serve in the military, but with extra safety restrictions.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Can You Really Trust the Police?
Kaitlyn DeShon
Article #5
North County Times
"School police union slammed for edgy t-shirts"
http://www.nctimes.com/ap/national/school-police-union-slammed-for-edgy-t-shirts/article_5037be18-1a79-5698-a717-a117497479c3.html
Police in Northern California Wear Inappropriate Shirts
In Northern California, a small police department was seen wearing offensive T-shirts. They had a picture of a child behind bars while bearing the phrase, "You raise 'em, we cage 'em". Many complaints were made by people who saw the shirts. The department did not have a good reputation as it was, and these shirts did not improve it. The police chief bears the blame as well as the entire department. They were asked not to wear them and to apologize.
This connects to what we are learning in class because the First Amendment states the freedom of speech. This would pertain to the police being allowed to wear the offending shirts because they are given the right to have freedom of expression. Also, the Tenth Amendment states rights retained by the states, such as the right to be responsible for their police departments.
This connects to my life as a citizen because I have seen some extremely offending shirts worn by some extremely scary people, but never by officials of the law. Also, I have been pretty surprised at the things the police or firemen have done when you thought they were such good citizens. Another connection I can make is that I once met a police officer who was very proud of his rank as police officer and would never do anything such as wear a t-shirt that would offend children, of which I was one and was good friends with this officer.
I believe that these police should have known better and they should have not worn the t-shirts in the first place. When the article said, "Town leaders said the fundraising shirts are highly offensive and fuel mistrust of the Twin Rivers Police Department in North Highlands", it only makes me think more that these shirts should not have been worn in the first place and this police department is not careful or lawful enough for a police department.
They Take Your Lunch but Not Your Phone
Kaitlyn DeShon
Article #4
North County Times
"Police: Men took Pa. teens sandwich at gunpoint"
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/police-men-took-pa-teens-sandwich-at-gunpoint/article_6555955f-3a9e-5218-ab07-a6a12572a21b.html
Two Men Stole a Sandwich from a Teen at Gunpoint
Two men apparently approached a teenager and pointed a gun at his head before rifling through his pockets and, upon finding a meatball sandwich, took it and ran away to their car without stealing anything else from the teen. Although the teen did have a phone in his pockets, they apparently only had interest for the meatball sandwich. Talk about "Give me your lunch money" here it was "Give me your lunch." The teen called police and gave them a description of the car they drove away in. The police thereafter soon found the car and arrested the two men for robbery. They are being held under a $150,000 bail.
This connects to what we are learning in class because we learned in the Bill of Rights that people accused of a crime are to be held with a bail before the trial, and that no person can be given excessive bail. We also learned in the Bill of Rights Amendment Six that police cannot arrest someone without reasonable motives.
This connects to my life as a citizen because I am, in fact, a teenager. Also, although I do not like meatball sandwiches, what was contained in that teen's pockets are very similar to what I carry around with me. Another connecting is that this could have easily happened to me and this is similar to what happens in cheesy television shows that I am sometimes forced to watch.
My opinion is that these people were amateurs who were extremely frightened and did not want to chance getting caught so they took what they found immediately and ran. I believe this because of when the article says, "The men allegedly took his sandwich before fleeing in a car." The use of the word "fleeing" and the quick escape suggests that the two men were new at being criminals and were extremely nervous of being caught. I believe they just wanted to feel the "exhilaration" or whatever feeling you could possibly get from committing a crime and not actually steal anything of substantial value.
Article #4
North County Times
"Police: Men took Pa. teens sandwich at gunpoint"
http://www.nctimes.com/news/national/police-men-took-pa-teens-sandwich-at-gunpoint/article_6555955f-3a9e-5218-ab07-a6a12572a21b.html
Two Men Stole a Sandwich from a Teen at Gunpoint
Two men apparently approached a teenager and pointed a gun at his head before rifling through his pockets and, upon finding a meatball sandwich, took it and ran away to their car without stealing anything else from the teen. Although the teen did have a phone in his pockets, they apparently only had interest for the meatball sandwich. Talk about "Give me your lunch money" here it was "Give me your lunch." The teen called police and gave them a description of the car they drove away in. The police thereafter soon found the car and arrested the two men for robbery. They are being held under a $150,000 bail.
This connects to what we are learning in class because we learned in the Bill of Rights that people accused of a crime are to be held with a bail before the trial, and that no person can be given excessive bail. We also learned in the Bill of Rights Amendment Six that police cannot arrest someone without reasonable motives.
This connects to my life as a citizen because I am, in fact, a teenager. Also, although I do not like meatball sandwiches, what was contained in that teen's pockets are very similar to what I carry around with me. Another connecting is that this could have easily happened to me and this is similar to what happens in cheesy television shows that I am sometimes forced to watch.
My opinion is that these people were amateurs who were extremely frightened and did not want to chance getting caught so they took what they found immediately and ran. I believe this because of when the article says, "The men allegedly took his sandwich before fleeing in a car." The use of the word "fleeing" and the quick escape suggests that the two men were new at being criminals and were extremely nervous of being caught. I believe they just wanted to feel the "exhilaration" or whatever feeling you could possibly get from committing a crime and not actually steal anything of substantial value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)