The Growth of the Internet Signals a Paradigm Shift in Personal Privacy - 2012

Abstract: Americans have benefited from the growth and development of the internet in a lot of ways. However, these gains are not without their costs. The Communications Revolution has made it more difficult for people to keep their personal lives private.

On June 6, 2012, the news media announced that hackers had breached LinkedIn's and eHarmony's websites and had stolen some of their customers' passwords. Per Forbes, the thieves then posted many of these passwords onto a "hacker's forum." On June 7, LinkedIn confirmed the breach of its site. The digital break-ins represent just the latest in a long string of instances in which an individual's (or in this case a large number of individuals') private information has been misappropriated. As Forbes notes, these incidents point to weaknesses in online security systems. However, on a more general level, the web breaches are also indicative of a paradigm shift in American culture.

Screenshot of an error page (1)

Identity theft is not new. Long before the Internet came into being, criminals could pilfer credit card information and social security numbers by snooping through trash bags (as noted by MSNBC), via phone scams, and probably through a host of other low tech methods. Anyone with a camera, listening device, or even just a keen ear could often gather information on someone else's foibles and disseminate it to the larger community through the media or by word of mouth.

However, as the eHarmony and LinkedIn breaches demonstrate, the growth of the internet has provided thieves with a variety of new methods for stealing personal data, including passwords, credit card information, and social security numbers. Additionally, the Internet has made it easy for anyone to post compromising information about another individual online for the world to see. Before the use of the Internet became widespread, a person (unless he or she was a celebrity) could usually attend a private event secure in the knowledge that his or her actions would not become public. Now, people have to be aware that anything they do or say at a party or at some other event might be captured by a smartphone and posted on a social media site. What is more, that post may receive thousands of visits in a matter of minutes.

The growth of the Internet has had obvious implications for personal privacy. In this regard, Americans have lost some of their autonomy. People, even the most circumspect, can no longer rest assured that their rights to privacy will be respected. Their most important personal information, as well as many of their deepest secrets, are only a click away from being stolen (and perhaps broadcast to the world). This situation gives new meaning to Shakespeare's oft quoted line (from "As You Like It"), "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players."

The growth of the Internet has been a boon to many people in both the United States and throughout the world, allowing them, among other things, to connect with family living far away and to explore new types of relationships. However, it is worth remembering that these benefits have their costs. The right to privacy has been one of the key victims of the Communications Revolution.

1. Photographer/Creator: Saper
    Date: October 14, 2013
    Title/Description: Screenshot of an error page on Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy website
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Notes on Wikimedia page
    (click on the title or the caption to see the photo, credits, and permissions).

-- Anthony Hopper

#Internet #technology #science #privacy #freedom #rights #opinion #personalinterest

2012 Election Commentary: Neither Candidate Has Proposed a Real Solution for Illegal Immigration

Abstract: Both President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have mentioned illegal immigration. On Friday, President Obama even granted partial amnesty to some illegal immigrants. However, neither candidate has really delved into the issue.

On Friday, President Barack Obama announced he had signed an executive order permitting some young, undocumented immigrants to remain in the country legally. According to the Chicago Tribune, Obama's decision will allow illegal immigrants who are younger than 30 and have lived in the U.S. since they were children or teenagers can apply for temporary work permits. Whatever his motivations, the president's decision has made the topic an important one for his campaign. As an independent, it forces me to re-examine my views on illegal immigration.

As Obama's announcement suggests, illegal immigrants are a varied group. Many of these individuals entered the U.S. years ago and have developed roots within a specific community. Some of these people came to the U.S. as children and have spent a good portion of their lives here.

In other cases, adults who are undocumented immigrants have kids who were born in the U.S. and are American citizens. If our government simply deports everyone, it will have significant ramifications not only for the adults who intentionally immigrated to the country illegally but also for large numbers of other, innocent stakeholders. Any national immigration policy should be sensitive to that fact.

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, there were approximately 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. in 2009. While a large majority of these people are from Latin America, more than 1 million hail from Asia, Africa, Europe or Canada. Some reside in cities and others in rural areas. I think it would be difficult to devise any cost effective method (legal or illegal) that would allow authorities to identify and deport a large percentage of these individuals.

I have only to look at a map of the U.S. to notice how difficult it would be to secure our southern border. A 2007 article in the San Francisco Chronicle estimated 700 miles of fencing along the border would cost as much as $49 billion. Given the entire southern border is 1,952 miles long, that would translate to as much as $137 billion to fence off the whole area.

Any national immigration policy must address these three issues in some detail. They are complex conundrums that will not yield to executive fiat or to facile legislation. I am still waiting for either presidential candidate to be honest with me and acknowledge the difficulties he would face in effectively dealing with illegal immigration.

-- Anthony Hopper

#politics #elections #Obama #Romney #opinion #US #UnitedStates #politics

Cyber-Warfare: What Are the Potential Ramifications for Americans? - 2012 Commentary

ABSTRACT: As the recent discovery of the Flame virus demonstrated, cyber-warfare between countries is growing. The United States might benefit from using cyber-technology to damage military targets; however, it should proceed with caution.

A mess of characters - found on corrupted dumb terminals (1)

Media outlets are still buzzing over the Russian discovery of the Flame computer virus, which, per CNET, has mainly targeted computers in Iran. It was designed to spy on that country and was likely created by the United States or one of its allies, though no one has yet come forward to take credit for its creation. As CNET notes, the computer virus is not the first piece of malware used by a government agency to spy on another country; however, it is unique in its level of sophistication and in its size. Regardless of who created the virus, it provides yet another example of the increasing tendency of nations, including the United States, to utilize cyber-tactics to conduct spying and sabotage operations against other countries. What are the potential ramifications for Americans?

An article in Ars Technica asserts that cyber-weapons are relatively cheap to produce. As the Stuxnet virus demonstrated, cyber-warfare can also be effective at damaging a country's military and energy infrastructures. Additionally, nations may be able to launch malware attacks against each other without getting caught. If that is the case, as the CNET article implies, the United States might be able to cut military expenses and save the lives of American soldiers if it were to focus on further developing its cyber-program. What is more, the U.S. would run less risk of incurring the wrath of the international community if it relied on covert cyber technologies to destroy enemy military installations instead of missiles and bombs.

As the CNET article notes, the United States is potentially vulnerable to cyber-attacks by other nations or terrorist groups. Countries like China almost certainly utilize malware to steal information from the U.S. and will continue to do so. More worrisome, a nation or terrorist group that is not able to strike at the U.S. with conventional weapons may be able to create a computer virus that will damage key American installations. It is also possible that a hostile entity can decipher a U.S. sponsored computer virus and use that information to create its own cyber-weapon.

However, a Slate article asserts that Americans should not worry overmuch that a nation or terrorist group will use a computer virus to damage American military or civilian targets. It notes that these types of cyber-weapons are cost prohibitive for all but the wealthiest countries. Further, a hostile entity would be hesitant to use a computer virus to cripple an American facility because it would be afraid that the U.S. would respond with a devastating conventional attack. Slate might be correct in its analysis of the current situation; however, a cyber-terrorist action might become more likely in the future if the technology becomes cheaper.
While the United States might benefit by using computer viruses to accomplish its military objectives, it should proceed with caution. There are a lot of unknowns with regard to cyber-warfare.

1. Photographer/Creator: Anonymous
    Date: October 13, 2006
    Title/Description: A mess of characters that would be found on corrupted dumb terminals with green
     screens.
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Author's notes (click on the title or caption to see the
    photo, credits, and permissions).

-- Anthony Hopper

#technology #computers #Internet #freedom #rights #privacy #opinion

2012 Commentary: No End in Sight to the Syrian Civil War

ABSTRACT: The civil war in Syria has been dragging on for over a year now. While Friday's massacre in Houla, Syria might prompt Bashar al-Assad's allies to put more pressure on him to sue for peace; it is unlikely to bring an immediate end to the conflict.

Map of Syria (1)

On Friday, armed gunmen massacred 108 people, many of them women and children, in the Syrian town of Houla. An Associated Press article puts the blame for these killings on troops loyal to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Even some of Assad's allies, like Russia, have condemned the attack. Per the Los Angeles Times, U.N. special envoy Kofi Annan stated that "the crisis was 'at a tipping point.'" Annan might be correct; the Houla massacre might prod reluctant nations like Russia and China to join with the United States and others in putting pressure on Assad to enter into peace talks with the Syrian rebels. However, even if that is the case, the crisis will likely not be resolved anytime soon.

Per Albawaba, both the Chinese and Russians have condemned the Syrian massacre and have called on both sides in the struggle to adopt Annan's peace plan. According to CNN, the plan, which both Assad and the rebels have nominally accepted, calls for a "cease-fire by all combatants," "access for humanitarian groups," and a mediated political settlement. However, the Associated Press article notes that while Russia and China may put more political pressure on the Assad regime to accept a cease-fire (and perhaps to step down from power), the two countries, at least for now, are unlikely to condone the use of either economic sanctions or force to end the conflict.

Without the help of Russia and China, the current American and European backed economic sanctions against Syria might not be enough to convince Assad to negotiate with the rebels. As the Associated Press article notes, Russia and China will also block any attempts by the U.N. Security Council to use military force to remove Assad. The United States and other countries could decide to act on their own to end the fighting, as they did in Libya; however, that might be unlikely given that President Barack Obama is in a tough re-election fight and probably does not want to do anything to hurt his poll ratings.

Given these facts, the Syrian civil war might drag on for months or even longer. Bashar al-Assad still has enough backing from his allies to continue the conflict, and the Syrian rebels are unlikely to surrender.

1. Photographer/Owner: CIA
    March 27, 2005
    Title/Description: Map of Syria.
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - U.S. government document (click on the title/link
    (to see the map, credits, and permissions).

-- Anthony Hopper

#Assad #Syria #war #Sunni #Shia #opinion

2012 Commentary: U.S. Needs to Do More to Help End Drug-Related Violence in Mexico

Abstract: The recent murder of 49 people in Mexico is just the latest in a string of drug related violence which has claimed the lives of approximately 50,000 people in that country since 2006. Americans have an obligation to help Mexico curtail this violence.

Mexican Drug Cartels and Their Areas of Influence (1)

Mexican authorities recently announced that they located a mass grave containing the mutilated corpses of 49 people. The government stated that a local drug gang, the Zetas, claimed responsibility for the killings. These deaths are likely related to a conflict between the Zetas and "rival groups for control of smuggling routes." Amazingly, per a Reuters article, this type of drug related violence is a routine event in Mexico, as "more than 50,000 people have fallen victim to the conflict [since 2006]." These deaths serve as a reminder that America's drug war has consequences for other countries.

Americans who use drugs should take a moment to consider how their actions are impacting other nations. Per an NPR article, U.S. consumption of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines helps to buttress a violent drug trafficking network that stretches throughout Mexico and into adjacent countries. Americans' demand for these drugs might provide employment to some people in these areas but at a high cost, as the 50,000 drug-related deaths (in Mexico alone) testify. These murdered men and women are not the only casualties of this war. Their families are left without brothers, sisters, and parents. Additionally, it is likely that many times this number of individuals live in fear of the local drug cartels. Per MSNBC, as a result of the drug trade, "the country is one of the most dangerous to be a journalist, [sic] kidnapping and extortion are rife."

At the same time, U.S. state and federal politicians should remember that the decisions they make with regards to the nation's drug war have consequences for other countries. They should periodically assess whether or not the U.S. is winning this conflict. If, as the MSNBC article implies, the U.S. is not making any headway in curtailing drug use among its citizens, politicians should either dedicate more money to enforcement efforts or discuss potentially legalizing (and strictly controlling the use of) some drugs. Either way, Americans should not settle for the status quo if it is not producing results; they owe that much to their brothers and sisters who are dying as a result of the drug cartel wars in Mexico and in other Latin American countries.

Americans are partly to blame for the violence in Mexico that has claimed the lives of approximately 50,000 people since 2006. They owe it to the people in Mexico as well as to themselves to work harder to curtail drug use in the U.S. by whatever means is most feasible.

1. Creator: U.S. Congress, Committee on Foreign Relations
    Date: 2007
    Title/Description: The Merida Initiative, a U.S. Counter-Narcotics Assistance to Mexico.
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - U.S. government document (click on the title to see the
    artwork, credits, and permissions).

-- Anthony Hopper

#crime #drugs #Mexico #US #United States #politics #opinion

Corporations Should Not Focus Solely on Maximizing Shareholder Value

Abstract: Many experts will tell you that a for-profit corporation's only goal should be to maximize shareholder value. However, in reality, companies have other obligations which stem from their social nature.
 

NYC's Downtown as seen from the Empire State Building (1).

A person who reads the finance section of his or her favorite news site on any given day might come away thinking that the only goal of any for-profit corporation is to maximize stockholder equity. Some articles, like this one on Yahoo Voices, explicitly state that a company "should always strive to maximize shareholder wealth." Other stories implicitly suggest the same thing when they focus almost solely on a company's success or failure in improving its bottom line. Per articles like this one in the Huffington Post, any other goal, such as providing excellent customer service, is only legitimate in so far as it helps the corporation maximize profits. While this is an important goal, it should not be the only one.

If for-profit companies were independent actors, they would be justified in focusing exclusively on maximizing shareholder value. However, as an article from Corporate Governance notes, corporations, like people, are social entities that depend on others to help them achieve their goals. As such, they have obligations to their communities, which develop from these relationships. For instance, companies are fictitious creations that depend on society to legitimize their existence and to provide them with rights. Most Americans would probably agree that, in return, these corporations should obey whatever laws are promulgated by the communities they serve even if adherence to these rules limits their profit potential. Additionally, as outlined in the Corporate Governance article, companies also depend on their communities for workers, customers, and goodwill, among other things. Many theorists assert that, due to these relationships, corporations have an obligation to give something back to these localities.

Our society also espouses the belief that corporations have some obligations to their employees. At heart, a company is a community which is inhabited and maintained by its employees. These individuals should have certain rights that are part and parcel of their membership in a corporate culture. As such, company executives have legal obligations to create a workplace that is free from sexual harassment, to pay their employees what is owed, etc. More generally, these executives should also try to create a corporate ethos that centers on treating employees with dignity and respect even when not legally required to do it. Many large corporations, such as Dow Jones & Company and IBM, recognize this fact and commit themselves to ensuring this type of corporate culture.

Of course, as The CQ Researcher Blog notes, a corporation who invests in its community and treats its employees well often reaps financial benefits from these actions. A thriving locality can purchase more goods; happy employees will work harder. However, I would argue that companies' responsibilities extend to both groups even if there is no financial gain.

Companies do not operate in vacuums. They have obligations to their communities as well as to their workers, which derive from their mutual relationships. As such, a corporation's key goal might be to increase shareholder wealth; however, that should not be its sole purpose.

1. Photographer: Marlith
    Date: April 4, 2008
    Title/Description: NYC's Downtown as seen from the Empire State Building
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
    (click on the title for photo, credits, and permissions).

-- Anthony Hopper

#business #finance #ethics #corporations #stocks #US

2012 Commentary: Goodell's Suspensions of Four NFL Players Hurts Several Teams

Abstract: Roger Goodell made the right decision when he decided to suspend four players for their roles in the New Orleans Saints' bounty scandal. However, he should also think about remunerating "innocent" teams who have been hurt by these penalties.

Earlier today, the NFL suspended four players for their roles in the New Orleans Saints' bounty scandal. The Los Angeles Times notes that Jonathan Vilma, a linebacker who still plays for New Orleans, was banned for the entire 2012 season. Vilma's teammate, defensive end Will Smith, will have to sit for four games. Two other ex-Saints players, Anthony Hargrove, a defensive lineman with the Green Bay Packers, and Scott Fujita, a linebacker for the Cleveland Browns, will also have to serve lengthy suspensions. While the league made the right decision in punishing these players; its actions penalize teams (and their fans) who were not involved in the bounty scandal. Perhaps commissioner Roger Goodell and the NFL owners should think about compensating these teams for their collateral losses.

Goodell was justified in suspending these four players. Per NBC Sports, Goodell only punished the athletes who were directly involved in helping foster the bounty program while they were in New Orleans. As a Bleacher Report article notes the NFL needed to punish the ringleaders involved in this scandal in order to demonstrate its commitment to player safety, as well as to protect its brand. The harsh sanctions will force coaches and players to think twice before they engage in unethical conduct which puts athletes in harm's way. As important, the commissioner's actions signal to fans that the league is committed not only to player safety but also to ensuring that the games are fair. Some experts might even criticize Goodell for being too lenient on the players involved in the bounty scandal.

While Goodell's actions may have been necessary, they will impact several "innocent" teams. The league's actions had already forced the St. Louis Rams find a way to overcome the loss of their newly hired defensive coordinator, Gregg Williams, for at least one season. Now the Green Bay Packers and Cleveland Browns will each have to take the field without a key defensive player. All three franchises, along with their respective fan bases, will be negatively impacted to some extent by Goodell's actions. The money these teams save in salaries will likely not be enough to compensate them for this damage.

Perhaps Goodell should have taken this fact into account when he announced the penalties. He could, for instance, have offered to remunerate the clubs (excepting New Orleans) who were impacted by his suspensions. The commissioner did not have to go out of his way to recompense these franchises. Even a token gesture by Goodell might have been enough for players and fans in St. Louis, Green Bay, and Cleveland.

-- Anthony Hopper

#sports #NFL #football #legal #Goodell #players #Saints #NFC

2012 Commentary: The Bullying of Children and Teens Goes Against Everything Americans Believe In

Abstract: As Americans, we take pride in the fact that our society upholds the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately, school bullying strips its victims of these rights by damaging their self-esteem and by ostracizing them from others.

The news media has recently focused a lot of attention on the topic of bullying in schools. That coverage continued with an Associated Press article (posted on Yahoo) discussing the issue and praising a newspaper, The Sioux City Journal, for using the entire portion of its front page to posit an editorial calling "on the community to be pro-active in stopping bullying and urg[ing] members to learn more about the problem…" The press is right to condemn this practice; the bullying of K-12 students can have a lasting, negative impact on their social and professional lives.

As a youth growing up in the 1980s who had to endure years of constant bullying from classmates, I did not encounter many adults who seemed to worry about the practice. They viewed it as a natural part of childhood (especially if they had been bullies in their youth) and put the onus on the victims to find a way to keep other students from harassing them. This practice might indeed be beneficial to hierarchical, authoritarian societies or to cultures that espouse Social Darwinism; however, bullying has no place in U.S. schools.

Americans take pride in the fact that our society upholds the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While children and teenagers might not yet possess the maturity to exercise all of their freedoms (such as the right to buy alcohol), they nonetheless have just as much right to dignity and respect as any adult. Per the Center for American Progress, bullying runs counter to these principles. Its victims are robbed of their dignity; their basic rights are violated. Additionally, students whose self-esteem is damaged as a result of constant harassment from their peers are more likely to be unhappy and are more prone to committing suicide.

Perhaps worse, children and teenagers who are bullied in school often suffer long-term psychological impairment as a result of this harassment. The Harvard Mental Health Letter asserts that victims of bullying "find it hard to make friends, tend to be lonely and isolated, and suffer emotionally and socially." These youths are therefore denied the chance to develop some of the basic social skills and emotional traits that they will need if they want to take full advantage of the opportunities that this nation provides them.
The Sioux City Journal should be applauded for its decision to use its entire front page to protest school bullying. This practice does not have any place in America's schools. It strips its victims of their dignity and often hinders them from fully developing the skills necessary to achieve the American dream.

-- Anthony Hopper

#bullying #children #kids #teens #schools #opinion #rights

2012 Commentary: Parents Need to Put the Cancer Risks in Perspective when Deciding Whether or Not to Limit Their Children's Cellphone Use

Abstract: Some scientists argue that children who use cellphones are at increased risk of developing brain cancer. My article asks whether or not parents need to worry about this issue.

A Cellphone (1)

The debate on whether or not cellphone use increases the risk of brain tumors is a hot topic once again. Per an ABC News article (posted on Yahoo), Environmental Health Trust, a non-profit watchdog organization, has criticized a 2011 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that did not find any link between cell phone use and brain cancer in children. In a press release, Health Trust points to the Letters to the Editor (from scientists) responding to the study, which were recently posted in the Journal. Per these correspondences, the 2011 research project actually demonstrates "that children who used cell phones had a 115 percent increased risk of [developing] brain tumors over those who did not." Should parents be concerned by these statements?

Parents should keep in mind that, per the aforementioned ABC News article, only one major study, the research project published in 2011, has attempted to determine whether or not a child's cellphone use will increase his or her risks of developing brain cancer. Another large study, which is also looking at this problem, is under way but has not yet posted any results. One should be leery of any data that comes out at this early stage in the research process.

Even if Environmental Health Trust is correct and children who use cellphones increase their short term risks of getting brain cancer by up to 115 percent, parents might still not have to worry about limiting their kids' cell phone use. That is because the odds of a youth developing brain cancer are extremely small, so even a child who has a much higher risk (than average) of getting the disease will have little to fear. To put this issue in perspective, the Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation estimates that 4,200 U.S. children out of a total population of 75.6 million (per Childstats.gov) "are diagnosed with a pediatric brain tumor" each year. If those figures are correct, a child living in the U.S. has a 0.006 percent chance of developing brain cancer in any given year; this percentage will not rise dramatically even if his or her risk of getting the disease increases by 115 percent. A person's chances of developing brain cancer sometime in his or her adult life due to cellphone use are also quite small per NPR.

Of course, brain cancer is a devastating disease, and parents have every right to restrict or even prohibit their children from using cellphones. Nonetheless, people may find it useful to put the Environmental Health Trust's statements in perspective when weighing the risks and rewards of letting their children utilize these devices.

1. Photographer: Jamie Barrows
    Date: May 1, 2007
    Title/Description: Picture of cellphone.
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons- Photographer's note (click on the title or caption to see
    the photo, credits, and permissions).

-- Anthony Hopper

#cellphones #health #technology #parents #children

2012 Commentary: United States and Other Countries Need to Do More to Help the Syrian Rebels

Abstract: Today, the United States and other countries reaffirmed their support for the Syrian rebels. However, these nations need to do more to help the rebels overthrow Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Map of Syria (1)

Representatives from more than 60 countries met yesterday in Turkey to discuss the Syrian crisis and to try to formulate some type of unified response. A Voice of America article states that the "Friends of Syria" conference produced some solid results. For instance, several of the participants, representing Gulf nations "will provide millions of dollars to the main opposition Syrian National Council to pay the salaries of rebels trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad." The United States meanwhile pledged to give another $12-13 million in humanitarian aid to the Syrian people, bringing its total contribution to $25 million. Importantly, the participants publicly demanded that Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, cease hostilities and accept a U.N. backed peace plan. The decision by the U.S. and other countries to increase support to Syria's opposition is welcome news; however, it is not enough.

The United States, along with numerous other countries around the world, have pledged to support groups in the Middle East and in other places who are fighting to overthrow autocratic regimes. The United States in particular demonstrated strong support for the protests in Egypt that toppled Hosni Mubarak, and it intervened militarily in Libya. Since they have so strongly committed themselves to support democratic resistance movements, the United States and other, like minded nations have an obligation to do what they can to help the Syrian rebels overthrow Bashar al-Assad. So far, they have failed in this regard.

It is true that the United States has pledged to provide $25 million in humanitarian aid for Syria; however, according to The Daily Beast, that figure pales in comparison to the estimated $1 billion it spent to help the Libyan rebels overthrow Muammar Gaddafi. Other countries that played a prominent role in the Libyan campaign, like Germany and France, have been relatively silent with regards to Syria. Perhaps these nations are quietly supporting the Syrian rebels; however, their contributions (if any) in this instance do not compare to their past efforts.

As a Fox News story notes, some experts, including high ranking U.S. military leaders, urge caution in approaching the Syrian situation. They argue that the Syrian conflict is much more complex than the one in Libya and revolves more around religious differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims than it does a civil war between supporters of democracy and an autocratic regime. While that may be true to some extent, per a news article in The Guardian, the Syrian situation cannot be much more complex than the one in Libya, which more closely resembles a confederation of tribes than it does a nation state.

Granted, the United States and other countries, which have pledged to support democratic movements, should approach the Syrian crisis with caution. An overhasty response might prove to be disastrous. With that said, they have had a year to ponder the situation and to construct a viable plan of action for aiding the Syrian rebels, yet these countries are still hesitant to intervene. The United States and others need to act more forcefully to help the forces trying to overthrow Bashar al-Assad if they hope to convince people living in other, autocratic regimes to rise up in the future.

1. Photographer/Owner: CIA
    March 27, 2005
    Title/Description: Map of Syria.
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - U.S. government document (click on the title/link
    (to see the map, credits, and permissions).

-- Anthony Hopper

#Syria #MiddleEast #war #UnitedStates #Obama #politics #opinion

Is It Time to Amend the U.N.'s Charter to Give it More Power to Intervene in Conflicts like the One in Syria? - 2012

Abstract: The United Nations' website states that one of its key functions is to "keep peace throughout the world." However, as the conflict in Syria demonstrates, the U.N.'s current structure often prevents it from achieving this goal. Can we fix this problem?

The United Nations headquarters (1).

The crisis in Syria, which began about a year ago, made the news again today when the head of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, demanded that the country's authoritarian regime, led by dictator Bashar al-Assad, adhere to the terms of the cease-fire agreement. Unfortunately, per a BBC article, Annan and the U.N. have little power to end the conflict, as fighting continues to rage in the Middle Eastern country. Should the U.N.'s charter be changed to provide it with more power to intervene in conflicts like the one in Syria?

Per its website, the United Nations was created in 1945 to provide a voice for the world's countries and to serve as a focus for collaborative action on a number of issues. One of its key mandates is to "keep peace throughout the world." However, its ability to ameliorate bloody conflicts like the one currently going on in Syria is limited. The U.N. Security Council oversees the international body's peacekeeping functions. It is unable to intervene in a conflict if just one of its five permanent members, which include Russia, the U.S., China, France, and Britain, veto the proposal. For instance, even though most of countries of the world are appalled by what is going on in Syria, the U.N. is powerless to send troops to stop the fighting in that country because Russia and China would veto any such proposal.

According to a presentation at the 2011 Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, the current Security Council setup, allowing for the permanent members to veto any legislation, may be a necessary evil. It is certainly possible that Russia, China, or the U.S. (and to a lesser extent Great Britain and France) might opt out of the U.N. if they were denied veto power. In that case, it may be better to give these nations an outsized voice in the U.N.'s affairs in exchange for their tacit agreement to abide by the rules and protocols set by the international body.

However, it is also true that the U.N. Security Council's current structure demonstrates a lack of respect for the views of other countries. Nigeria, Brazil, and Germany are all larger (population-wise) than Great Britain, yet they do not have any real control over the U.N. Security Council's actions. Worse, the current U.N. structure often prohibits it from following through on one of its chief aims-to act as world peacekeeper.

Given these flaws, perhaps it is time that the United Nations' 193 member countries seriously discuss eliminating the veto power of the big five, or, as DebatePedia suggests, they could implement procedures which would allow a supermajority of nations to override the veto of one of the permanent members. Either way, something needs to be done; the conflict in Syria has proven that much.

1. Photographer: Stefano Corso (Pensiero)
    Date: February 23, 2005
    Title/Description: The United Nations headquarters in New York.
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Photographer's notes (click on the title/link to see
    the photo, credits, and permissions).

-- Anthony Hopper

#UN #Syria #MiddleEast #US #war #legal #international #UnitedNations

2012 Commentary: Whistle Blower in the New Orleans Saints Scandal Made the Right Decision

Abstract: NFL teams have the right to ensure that players and coaches keep some things secret. However, this article asserts that this right does not extend to prohibiting players from speaking out if they see something illegal occur.

Superdome in Green in the Rain (1)

Yesterday, Roger Goodell, the NFL's commissioner, handed out fines and suspensions to several individuals who were involved with the New Orleans Saints' bounty program, which was in place from at least 2009-2011. In this scheme, members of the Saints' coaching staff paid their defensive players for injuring opposing teams' athletes. As CNN notes, Goodell's punishment was harsh; among other things, he levied a one year suspension on Sean Peyton, the Saints' current head coach, and indefinitely suspended New Orleans' ex-defensive coordinator, Gregg Williams. The NFL is not necessarily finished meting out punishment yet; it may also try to penalize the players who were involved in the bounty program.

Most people likely concur in the belief that the New Orleans Saints' coaches and players were wrong to condone a bounty system. However, they disagree on whether or not a player has the right to tell the authorities or the public if his teammates commit patently unethical or illegal acts like the one perpetuated by the Saints. A Yahoo! Sports article suggests that players have an obligation to keep anything done by their clubs, even illegal acts, in-house. It implies that a team is like a family, and a brother should not rat out a fellow sibling. By contrast, a piece in the Huffington Post condemns this "inner culture of secrecy" and blames it for perpetuating a philosophy that will tolerate everything from the Saints' bounty program to the sexual harassment of children.

Both sides make valid points. Professional football is a team sport and to be successful, teammates must be willing to cooperate fully with each other and with their coaches. Organizations like the New England Patriots and the Pittsburgh Steelers would have never have won the Super Bowl multiple times if their football players did not buy into the team concept. At the same time, a football squad has a right to ask that its players and coaches do not divulge proprietary information found in its playbooks and discussed in personnel meetings.

The easiest way for a football program to achieve these goals is to foster a familial culture that discourages (and sometimes even punishes) players who fail to follow orders or who publicly disclose a fellow teammate's personal foibles. However, these types of societies can become too oppressive. As such, every NFL player has the right, and even the responsibility, to speak out when a fellow team member or a coach commits a patently unethical act. The person who informed the league about the Saints' bounty system did the right thing. He helped to rid the NFL of an illegal process that undermined the league's commitment to player safety.

Every NFL program needs to ensure that players keep some things secret. However, no team should foster a culture that is so oppressive; it prohibits athletes from speaking out when a teammate (or even the whole squad) commits a patently unethical or illegal act.

1. Photographer: Shashi Bellamkonda
    Date: September 30, 2012
    Title/Description: View from my window - Superdome in Green in the Rain. New colored lights illuminate
    the Superdome at night.
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license
    (click on the title/link to view the photo, credits, and permissions).

-- Anthony Hopper

#sports #football #legal #ethics #opinion #NFL #Saints

Sports Media Help Reinforce Negative Stereotypes of Older Americans

Abstract: American sportswriters and commentators often help perpetuate ageist stereotypes by using words that glorify youth while at the same time demean older athletes. This is a significant issue because sports media reaches millions of American homes.

Ageism is a serious problem in the United States. Many of our cultural motifs tout the virtues of youth while at the same time portray middle-aged and elderly people as slow-witted, outmoded and unable to adapt to change. These societal attitudes toward aging have real-world consequences; they encourage businesses, government agencies and individuals to provide unequal treatment. In an excellent article from 2004, which is still relevant, the Associated Press describes how these views negatively impact middle-aged Americans, who face discrimination at work and in public. It notes that society often treats seniors even worse by failing to provide them with adequate caregiver attention or via consigning them to nursing homes that offer substandard care. An actor's remark in a CBS article about Hollywood is indicative of American society as a whole, "Ageism is prevalent in our industry and it's like a silent killer, like cancer, and it gets worse every year."

Nowhere is the focus on youth more prevalent than in professional sports. The athletes are the stars of this industry, commanding seven or eight figure salaries and large endorsement deals. They have millions of fans who follow them on the field and on social media sites like Twitter. Just as important, the vast majority of these players are in their twenties and thirties. The physical deterioration that occurs as people age, if only slight, is enough to ensure that even the best athletes are no longer competitive at the highest levels by the time they reach 40. As an ESPN article notes, even 30 is considered old for some sports such as tennis.

Given these conditions, it is inevitable that professional sports, to some extent, will help foster our nation's youth obsessed culture. However, the sports media does not have any excuse for perpetuating views that demean older Americans. When sportscasters and writers use words like youthful energy, kid, and carefree to describe young athletes and contrast it to older veterans who are ancient, rickety, and over the hill, they help to perpetuate stereotypes that glorify youth while demeaning middle and old age. Their word choices matter, as indicated by the furor that recently erupted around prejudiced comments regarding NBA player, Jeremy Lin.

Even articles that compliment older players often use phrases that reinforce ageist notions. As an example, a July 18, 2009 story by the Associated Press commends Tom Watson for his play at the British Open but nonetheless uses phrases like, "laughing all week, just waiting for the old geezer to collapse." By contrast, according to an article in Fox Sports, a young star like Cam Newton shows "youthful exuberance,…and the self-confidence that emanates from the pours of his soul." The authors of these articles are not intentionally trying to spread ageist memes. Nonetheless, those remarks and ones like them, however well meaning, do more than simply denote whether or not a veteran player can still compete professionally or discuss a young athlete's abilities; they reinforce negative stereotypes of older people.

Every day, sportswriters and commentators reach millions of American homes through their articles and broadcasts. Their voices not only help shape the public discourse on sports, they influence Americans' opinions on a range of issues, including their views on aging. As such, the sports media should work hard to ensure that they do not unwittingly support ageist views that strip older people of their dignity.

-- Anthony Hopper

#sports #media #sportsmedia #golf #football #NFL #age #elderly #65 #retirement

How Would Our Nation's Founders React to Current Political Issues?

ABSTRACT: How would our nation's founders react to important contemporary political issues like individual rights, big government, and federal deficits? I try to answer this question by examining the views of John Adams, Alexander Hamilton,and Thomas Jefferson.

White House (1)

Americans often defer to the (supposed) will of our nation's founders when formulating their political opinions. However, they might want to think twice before giving such authority to the founding fathers. For one thing, most Americans, whatever their political affiliation, would not agree with some of the views expressed by men like John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson. As important, our nation's founders, when alive, were not a monolithic group; they rarely spoke with one voice on any issue.

Given the importance of this topic, it might be worthwhile to see how three of our nation's founders-Adams, Hamilton, and Jefferson-would react to some of the most important issues in contemporary American politics.

Basic Freedoms

All three of these men favored limiting basic freedoms for certain groups of Americans. Adams and Hamilton were elitists who feared the power of the masses. They thought that only the wealthy should govern and were not in favor of allowing everyone to vote. At times, these two men also supported restricting other basic freedoms on the pretense of maintaining order. Adams and Hamilton demonstrated this penchant by abetting the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

By contrast, Jefferson believed in allowing a large number of Americans to enjoy basic freedoms, such as the freedom of speech and the right to assemble. However, he was unwilling to extend these rights to everyone, as indicated by the fact that he owned slaves.

Big Government

Jefferson was an advocate for states' rights and would probably favor ending most, if not all, federal entitlement programs. He would also want to dismantle the government's regulatory framework and eliminate the Federal Reserve. Jefferson might significantly cut military expenditures as well. Libertarians would applaud Jefferson's actions; however, most Americans would cry foul.

Adams and Hamilton would probably also agree to eliminate entitlement programs and abolish regulatory infrastructures. However, they would not take these positions out of any fear of big government. Instead, Adams and Hamilton would be guided by their religious beliefs and by their pro-business philosophies. They would likely keep many of the other government agencies in place. In fact, Hamilton might want to increase the power of the Federal Reserve. After all, he was a huge fan of the Bank of the United States (America's first national bank).

Federal Deficits

Jefferson would advocate for balancing the federal budget. Hamilton on the other hand would not have a problem with government deficits, though even he might worry about the size of the current federal debt. It is unclear what Adams' position on this topic would be.

As a nation, we owe a great debt to our founding fathers. However, we should not base our decisions on the supposed will of these men. By doing so, we oversimplify our Colonial past while at the same time ignoring the lessons we have learned over the course of our nation's history.

Sources
Miller Center. (2012). "American President: John Adams (1735-1826)." University of Virginia.
Miller Center. (2012). "American President: Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)." University of Virginia.
Anonymous. "Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804)". University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.
Anonymous (2012). "The Federalist Party." Blue Ridge Public Broadcasting Services.
Linder, Doug (2012). "The Bill of Rights: Its History and Significance." Exploring Constitutional Law (website). University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law.
Anonymous. (2012). Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809). The White House.

1. Author: Ed Brown
    Date: May 6, 2005
    Title/Description: View of the North Portico and North Lawn of the White House, residence of the
                               President of the United States.
    Location/Permission: Wikimedia Commons - Author's note releasing the photo into the public domain
                                     (click on title/link to see photo, credits, permissions).

The author is a freelance writer and has a B.A. in History from Roanoke College.

-- Anthony Hopper

#presidents #US #UnitedStates #history #UShistory #founders #Jefferson #Congress #gridlock #Adams #Hamilton

Your Suggestions for How to Keep from Becoming Jaded

It snowed in my area a few days ago.  I watched the snowflakes fall to the earth and thought to myself, "Isn't this site beautiful."  Upon further reflection, I realized that I enjoyed the moment only because it was both rare and ephemeral.  I only see a few snow showers per year--maybe five or six at the most.  I think I would have a much different opinion of these phenomena if they occurred more often.

Along the same lines, I have lived in the shadow of the Blue Ridge mountains, since I was born.  I have grown used to the sight of these peaks and do not feel a thing--even a brief flicker of emotion--when I turn my eyes towards them.  Whereas a visitor to the area might say, "Wow, look at those beautiful mountains," I simply shrug and say, "Eh, mountains..."

Photo courtesy of Microsoft Office

It is the same with everything.  If I view an object, vista, whatever, often enough, then I lose my sense of wonder.  I become jaded.  I'm sure that this is human nature; that we all struggle with this problem.  So, my question to you (to my
readers) is, "Can I use any techniques, etc. to keep these views fresh?"  In other words, is there a method I can utilize that will allow me to maintain my sense of wonder/excitement at seeing a scene/object, regardless of how many times I look upon it?

Perhaps you have some ideas...I would be happy to hear them.

#mountains #snow #personal #beauty

Posting Our Gray (Unfinished) Musings

#musings #thoughts #ideas 

Clip art courtesy of Microsoft Office

I think it would be interesting if more people on the Web posited their daily ruminations.  I don’t mean to say that people should update their statuses more often, list their lunch ideas, or place more emoticons on their posts. I think most of us have seen enough of those two types of updates.  Rather, I think people should spend more time positing their somewhat deeper philosophical, ethical, social, and financial thoughts/ideas.  The ones that are foremost in their minds at any particular moment but have not yet attained mature status (eg., are not ready for the press).

I feel that this tactic would achieve several purposes.  First, as a society, we would be able to learn more about our fellow men and women, as we could get beyond the facile.  Second, the individual posters would be creating a virtual storehouse for their ideas—a storehouse that might last long after they have perished.  Finally, the very act of writing down these thoughts might help us to learn more about ourselves. 

Those are my thoughts for the day.

Anthony Hopper

Jack and Janis Discuss Free Will, Part III

Both of the brothers remain silent for a few minutes, as they admire the scenery.  Their minds focused on the squawk of a bird and the motley chorus of insect noises.  Eventually, Jack comes back to the topic at hand.

Jack: So, what will you do if science proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that free will does not exist?

Janis: That depends on what scientists actually learn.

Jack: What do you mean?

Janis: Well, let’s assume that we do not have free will, which I take to mean we do not have any conscious control over our decisions. 

Jack: Right, so we can’t consciously make any choices.

Janis: Correct…However, something in us—our subconscious perhaps—might still have control over our choices.  Therefore, we would still be making the decisions—we just wouldn’t be doing it consciously. 

Jack: Yes, but would our unconscious be free?  Wouldn’t its choices be predetermined?

Janis: Our unconscious--or whatever non-conscious portion of our brain is involved—would obviously not be “free” in the classical sense.  However, that does not mean that its choices would be predetermined.

Jack: I think you mean “our brains.”  Parallel word association and all of that…Either way, I don’t understand what you are getting at.

Janis: Well, for one thing, some of our unconscious brain’s decisions might be random.  In other cases, its choices, whether random or not, might not be repeatable—even when every variable is exactly the same.  [Janis muses on this fact for a second].  Perhaps you might also refer to those instances as random.  Regardless, the point is that our unconscious brain might be able to make decisions which are not determined beforehand. 

Janis: [continuing before Jack can speak] Let me put it another way.  I think it will be impossible for a researcher, at any point in the future, to prove that all of our actions are predetermined.  As such, I am free to believe that I am autonomous because some part of me is able to actively make decisions, eg. choices that are not predetermined. 

Jack: In thinking about it, researchers would be hard pressed to demonstrate that any action is predetermined. 

Janis: Even better…Regardless, as long as I can hold to the belief in my autonomy, I can assert my rights as an individual.  In other words, I am entitled to basic rights, such as the freedoms of speech, expression, etc.  I am also responsible for my actions, since I am the author of those decisions.

Jack: But what if all of our actions are predetermined?  Wouldn’t that depress you?  Wouldn’t it also absolve you of any responsibility for your actions?

Janis: I don’t think that it would.  Let me explain…in a moment.

Neither brother speaks for a few minutes and instead focus on the sights and sounds around them.

Jack and Janis Discuss Free Will, Part II

Jack: Well, what did you do at that point?

Janis: I wrestled with the problem for many more years.  I began to read literature on the topic-from scientists, philosophers, psychologists, and others.  At this time, I do not know (nor does anyone else) whether free will exists; it’s a conundrum.  

Jack: That’s depressing.  

Janis: Well, I have to admit that what I read on the topic depressed me for a while.  Especially since I came to the conclusion that, even if free will exists, it is much more limited than I would have liked…However, I am now at peace-at least with regards to that subject.

Jack: How so?

Janis: I came to terms with the fact that we cannot definitively prove or disprove the existence of free will-in all instances.  At least not yet…

Jack: And how did that help you, besides leaving you permanently befuddled?

Janis: Well, let me answer that by asking you a few questions.

Jack: Go ahead…

Janis: Do most societies-and their laws, customs, and traditions-assume that people have free will? 

Jack: As far as I know they do-at least the current ones.

Janis: And do most people act as if they have free will?  Is it the norm for people to believe in free will?

Jack: Of course…

Janis: Are most people happier believing in free will than in not believing?

Jack: That is a more difficult question to answer.  People often regret their choices.  They suffer from their choices.  They sometimes wish they had no choice at all.  However, in the end, I think most people are happier believing that they have free will—that they have the power, to some extent, to determine their own futures.  So, I would say, “Yes, people are happier when they believe they have some control over their actions and thoughts.”  

Janis: Well, I’m like most people on this one.  I am happier when I believe that I have free will, even though many of my supposedly free choices have deleterious consequences.  By believing in free will, I conform to the norms of my society.  At least on this issue, I don’t have to worry about maintaining a discordant belief or being treated as an outsider-an aberration.  So, with that in mind, I decided (or well, I at least created the illusion of a decision) that I would vouchsafe for the existence of free will until science definitively proves that it does not exist.  

Jack: That is a simplistic answer.  

Janis: It’s a short walk.

Jack: Not that short of a walk.  We still have some time.  

[Both brothers stop for a second to admire the scenery and to gather their thoughts. Jack breaks the interlude…]

Jack: Your decision seems rather cowardly to me.  You seem to be taking the easy way out.  And apart from that, what if science does prove, beyond a doubt, that free will does not exist, what will you do then…?  How will you cope?

[Janis and Jack start walking again.]

Janis: I will try to answer both of those questions.